House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business of the House
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for the forthcoming week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
Mr Speaker, you informed the House on Tuesday of the subjects for debate on the Queen’s Speech. The business for next week will be:
Tuesday 1 June—The House will not be sitting.
Wednesday 2 June—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subjects for debate, as you announced, Mr Speaker, will be education and health.
Thursday 3 June—A general debate on European affairs.
The business for the week commencing 7 June will include:
Monday 7 June—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. Constitution and home affairs will be debated.
Tuesday 8 June—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. Economic affairs and work and pensions will be debated.
Wednesday 9 June—Second Reading of the Identity Documents Bill.
Thursday 10 June—General debate: subject to be announced.
In accordance with the Standing Orders, the House will meet at 2.30 pm on Wednesday 2 June.
As previously announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Budget will be on 22 June.
Colleagues will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise at the end of business on Thursday 29 July and, subject to the will of the House, return on Monday 6 September for two weeks.
Ms Winterton
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for setting out the forthcoming business and I would like once again to congratulate him on his appointment as Leader of the House. As I said yesterday, he has served as shadow Leader of the House for some years, so he brings a wealth of experience to his position. Indeed, he brings such a wealth of experience that it is rather a poor show that he has not been made a full member of the Cabinet. Some say he would have brought a touch of class to the table. I am confident that, had he been a full member, there would have been an element of common sense and consideration for the House in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government’s handling of the £6 billion cuts announcement and the leaking of the Queen’s Speech.
The fact that we read about the contents of the Queen’s Speech in newspapers at the weekend before it was announced to Parliament displayed a disturbing lack of courtesy to the House. The response from Downing street is that although they are disappointed, there will be no leak inquiry. That demonstrates extremely poor judgment from the Government, and I ask the Leader of the House to explain why no investigation will be carried out.
It was also extremely disturbing that the Government chose to announce £6 billion of spending cuts while the House was not sitting. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, recognised that that was not the way to treat the House when you granted the urgent question tabled by the Opposition yesterday. We thank you for that. In effect, we saw the Chief Secretary to the Treasury being virtually dragged to the House so that Members could question him on the cuts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the other hand, did not even bother to turn up. I understand that he was spotted walking around Whitehall—but clearly in the opposite direction from the House so that Members could not question him on the cuts.
I think the Chancellor refused to give details of his cuts announcement to the “Today” programme because he did not want to be discourteous to the journalists who were assembling for him at 10 o’clock. I have to say that it is a shame he did not have the same worries about showing discourtesy to the House.
Rumour has it that the Chancellor might be popping in for the Budget statement, which we on the Opposition Benches are obviously quite excited about. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Chancellor will actually be there in person, and not his new friend?
I am sure the Leader of the House is more than aware of the concern among not only the Opposition but his own Back Benchers about the proposal providing for the Dissolution of Parliament only if 55% or more of the House votes in favour. The new Government have no mandate for this change, which could theoretically allow a Government to rule without the confidence of Parliament. That would weaken Parliament and strengthen the hand of the Executive considerably. Given that the Deputy Leader of the House told us on Tuesday that there will be a full process for considering the Bill in question, with no guillotine, and acknowledged that there is a strong case for pre-legislative scrutiny, will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill?
The Leader of the House said yesterday that the Government intend to abolish Regional Select Committees and the important scrutiny function they provide. Do the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government intend to keep Regional Grand Committees, given the importance of scrutinising the regional effect of the cuts that have been announced?
Finally, I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 105, which followed concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday about proposed changes in prosecuting rape cases that could grant anonymity to rape defendants.
[That this House believes that the Government's proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed; fears that this could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists; is further concerned that this will reverse the progress made on the prosecution of rape cases noted in the independent Stern Review; is further concerned that the Government has put forward the proposal without any research, evidence or examination of these issues; and calls on the Government to withdraw its proposal.]
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that could turn the clock back on rape cases, and I ask the Leader of the House to make time for a debate on this serious issue.
Sir George Young
Before I reply to the right hon. Lady’s questions, may I welcome her to her new post as shadow Leader of the House? She was a respected Minister in the last Government and she has always been a popular Member of the House; I look forward to working with her to further the interests of the House. May I also pay tribute to my predecessor, the right honourable and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the now acting leader of the Labour party? She took her responsibilities seriously and although she did not go quite as far as many of us had hoped on parliamentary reform, many reforms to the way in which the House works did take place while she was the Leader of the House.
There is a vital task ahead in rejuvenating parliamentary life and reconnecting it with the people we serve. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—I welcome him to his post—and I want Parliament to be strengthened and to be more effective and relevant, and it is the Government’s intention to allow that to happen. Of course, that will be challenging, but this is an opportunity for a fresh start.
On the questions that the right hon. Lady poses, my role as attending Cabinet makes no difference whatever to what I say or do; there is an abundance of common sense in the Cabinet without any need for it to be reinforced by me. I deplore the leak to which she referred. It was a discourtesy to the House and to Her Majesty, and steps will be taken to minimise the risk of such leaks occurring again.
On the statement about cuts, I was surprised to hear the right hon. Lady’s comments, because she was a Member of the House in 1997 when the then Chancellor announced the independence of the Bank of England four days after the election, before the House was sitting, and that was not even in the party’s manifesto. The right hon. Lady will have seen the relish with which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury dealt with questions yesterday—a bravura performance—and no doubt the Opposition will think again before they ask to put another urgent question to him. Of course, the Chancellor will deliver the Budget.
On the 55% issue, we had a very useful debate on Tuesday, during which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome was able to allay some of the concerns that were raised by Members. The Bill will be a constitutional Bill, all stages will be taken on the Floor of the House and there will be adequate opportunity for the House to debate it.
We have no intention of reintroducing Regional Select Committees as they were not a great success and were opposed by the Liberal Democrats and my party. We will announce our decision on Regional Grand Committees, which are a different proposition, in due course.
The right hon. Lady has raised a serious issue about rape and anonymity. I recognise the concern about this issue, and there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind about this Government’s determination to tackle rape and sexual offences and to ensure that those who commit such offences are convicted and properly sentenced. No quarter will be given to those convicted of rape. However, the House will also be aware that some people’s lives have been wrecked by being falsely and maliciously accused of rape. That is why we have said that we will undertake a careful and sensitive analysis of the options and implications before we bring any proposals to Parliament. Of course, any proposals to change the law will have to go through this House and the other House.
Mr Speaker
Order. A large number of Members are seeking to catch my eye. As Members from the last Parliament will know, I have always sought to accommodate everyone if it is at all feasible to do so, but I need a single short supplementary question and a typically pithy reply from the Front Bench.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Front Bench and his commitment to a sweeping redistribution of powers from the Government to Parliament. May I urge on him rather speedier action for the setting up of the House business committee, which the coalition document talks about being set up within three years? Surely, it could and should be set up this year.
Sir George Young
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we propose, in the week after the week for which I have announced the business, to introduce the proposals of the Wright Committee to establish a Back-Bench business committee—which the last Administration singularly failed to achieve before Parliament was dissolved. The three-year period refers not to the Back-Bench business committee but to the House business committee, which is a different proposition. I am as anxious as anyone else to get the Back-Bench business committee up and running. We will table the appropriate motions before the House in good time for the debate, which I anticipate will take place in the week after the week for which I have already announced the business.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
As someone who argued in the last Parliament strongly for full and total transparency over Members’ claims and opposed the Tory private Member’s Bill that would have exempted Parliament from freedom of information legislation, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the new system that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has established is deeply bureaucratic and complex, and that it undermines both the work we have been elected to do and that of our staff? Do the chair and chief executive of IPSA not bear a heavy responsibility for discrediting what we all hoped, and certainly the public hoped, would be a new start to end the scandal of what occurred in the previous Parliament?
Sir George Young
I recognise the concern on this issue. I attended a meeting between returning Members and members of IPSA a few days ago, and it was a lively meeting. No one wants to go back to the old, discredited system whereby the House fixed its allowances and they were administered by the House, and it was absolutely right to hand them over to an independent body. None the less, I recognise the legitimate concerns that have been expressed by Members.
Members are concerned about the staff whom they employed during the last Parliament—they want to go on employing them—and about their ability to retain offices in their constituency. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the communication, which we all received, that indicated some flexibility from IPSA on both issues and said that there is no need to make staff redundant or, indeed, to give up one’s constituency office. IPSA hopes to come to an arrangement whereby, later this year, funds will be made available for that to continue.
A large number of other issues need to be resolved. I am in the foothills of the technological mountain of making a claim. We need an intelligent conversation between the House and IPSA to resolve these issues. It needs to exhibit some flexibility in the rules it has set out. There needs to be a more thorough review of the regime in the very near future. To the extent that I have any responsibility, I should like to play my part. It is absolutely crucial that the allowance regime enable Members to do their jobs and the House to hold the Government to account, and we cannot have an allowance regime that gets in the way of that process.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House could find time for a debate to follow up the excellent question asked by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House mentioned Parliament reconnecting with the people. May I suggest that a debate on IPSA would be useful, so that we could share best practice? Perhaps hon. Members could visit IPSA, so that we could see its working conditions and how it operates. By the same token, perhaps members of IPSA could come to constituency offices to see how we work.
Sir George Young
The chairman and the acting chief executive of IPSA will have heard the generous invitation that the hon. Gentleman has extended to them. I go back to what I said a moment ago: we need intelligent and serious discussion between the House and IPSA to resolve the real issues that he raises. Together with the usual channels and perhaps the political parties, I would like there to be a channel of communication that can resolve such issues without the sort of shouting matches that we have heard in recent days.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I share the concerns about the fact that the coalition agreement included a commitment—to my mind it was a firm commitment—to give anonymity to defendants in rape trials. May we have an urgent debate on that, and will the Leader of the House confirm that the issue is so controversial that it should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and considered in the round, along with the issue of the number of rapes that go unreported, and the number of reported rapes that do not result in a prosecution?
Sir George Young
The hon. Lady will know that no legislation on the issue has been proposed in this Session. In the debate on home affairs on Monday 7 June, there will be an opportunity for the real concerns that exist on the issue to be ventilated. Of course we need to have adequate discussion. The proposal is that we go back to the regime that existed until, I think, 1988, in which there was anonymity. In her recent report, Baroness Stern did not come out on either side, but she said there should be full debate on this very sensitive issue, and that is what I want to promote.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on the 2008 report from the Procedure Committee on electronic petitioning, an opportunity that the previous Government denied this House? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a system of e-petitions would make this House more accessible for many, and would also mean that there would be no need to maintain the rather useless system on the No. 10 website?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the work that he and his Committee did in the previous Parliament on e-petitions. We are anxious to take the matter forward. He will have seen in the coalition agreement specific commitments on the issues he has raised, so the answer is yes, of course I want to take forward the Procedure Committee’s recommendations. I would also like that Committee to look at the commitments given by the coalition in the agreement to make even faster progress on this important issue.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House when more information will be available about the £1.1 billion-worth of cuts to local government? In Lewisham, 18,000 homes are due for improvement under the decent homes programme. The previous Government indicated that £154 million would be made available for that work. Will the new Government honour that commitment, and when will the House have a proper opportunity to debate the future funding of social housing?
Sir George Young
I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday about the additional resources that were found for investment in affordable housing. I hope that some of that money will go to her constituency. Frankly, the previous Government’s record on building social housing was deplorable.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us a debate on the awarding of jubilee medals? I have been approached by immigration officers who live in and around my constituency, who are understandably upset that immigration officers were not awarded the golden jubilee medal, unlike other important public servants such as police and prison officers. Immigration officers are on the front line against terrorism. Will the Leader of the House agree to speak to the relevant new Minister, so that we can recognise the good work of immigration officers, retrospectively award them the golden jubilee medal, and consider them for the diamond jubilee medal?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend makes a good point. He may want to seek an opportunity for a wider debate on the subject, either in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment. Of course I will pass on to my ministerial colleagues the forceful case that he makes.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
This morning, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a major speech on welfare reform. Not only did he not come first to this House; he made the speech at half-past 9, and as a result it was too late to table an urgent question. When will the Leader of the House assert himself and require his colleagues to make announcements to this House?
Sir George Young
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has some specific policy proposals to put before the House, he will of course make them. He made a general speech about his approach to welfare reform. He is committed to abolishing the root causes of poverty; and I hope the whole House will join him in expressing that ambition.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Leader of the House will be well aware that before the general election, there was strong cross-party support for the creation of a supermarket ombudsman—yet there was no mention of that in the Queen’s Speech. We know, however, that the measure needs to be implemented soon in order to enforce the regulation that the Competition Commission brought forward on 4 February, so will the Leader of the House reassure the House that the Government will find time to introduce the necessary primary legislation in order to bring forward that important measure?
Sir George Young
I would be misleading my hon. Friend if I said that we could find time. That specific measure was not in the Queen’s Speech, as he will have seen; nor, from memory, was it in the coalition agreement. For that reason I cannot give the immediate commitment he has asked for. None the less, I shall raise with my right hon. Friends in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills the important point he has made, in order to clarify the coalition Government’s approach to supermarkets and competition.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
During the general election, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said in the north-west that he questioned the legitimacy of some of the grants and financial support that had gone to industry in the recent past. Given the importance of protecting the manufacturing base, can we have an urgent debate on whether there is any truth in some of the stories that have been running, such as the Government’s seeking to claw back the loan guarantee given to Vauxhall Motors and the moneys given to Sheffield Forgemasters?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s constituency interests, and he might have an opportunity to raise those either in further debates on the Queen’s Speech or, when the time comes, through direct questions to the Ministers concerned.
I have now refreshed my memory of the coalition agreement, which does in fact refer to an
“Ombudsman in the Office of Fair Trading who can proactively enforce the Grocery Supply Code of Practice and curb abuses of power”,
so I hope my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is reassured by that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In opposition, my right hon. Friend, now the Leader of the House, expressed himself robustly against the permanent colonisation of Parliament square, and against the guillotining of Bills as they went through the House. Will he make a statement to the House on what we propose to do about those two matters now that we are in government?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking such an interest in the speeches I have made in the past. It is certainly the Government’s intention not to guillotine Bills automatically in the way that the previous Government did, and to allow adequate opportunity for debate.
On Parliament square, we need to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the right to protest and, on the other, the conservation of a very important site, right in the middle of the capital, next to Westminster abbey and the Houses of Parliament. In my view, the balance at the moment is not right. The House will know that the Mayor of London is seeking to enforce the byelaw under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, under which it is an offence to erect tents or other paraphernalia without permission of the Mayor, so I hope we can come up with the right balance. People should protest there but they do not have to live there all the time and create what is becoming a shanty town, which does not do credit to the environment in which Parliament square is located.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
May we have a debate to define “affordable” or “social” housing? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the right hon. Gentleman referred to a commitment to build social housing, but he was asked specifically about council house building, so can we have some answers from the Government on whether they will renege on the commitment to build council housing?
Sir George Young
Those in housing need do not mind whether it is the council or a registered social landlord who provides their home. What they want is a home, and it is a fact that, for a given amount of money, one can build more homes if the money goes through registered social landlords than if it goes to the local authority. So, I would not go along with the hon. Gentleman in endorsing the idea that such housing has to be council housing. What is needed is affordable, social housing, whoever provides it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the working of IPSA? Other Members have commented on that, but for staff who have been told they will have to wait until to November to know whether their employment will continue, the position is frankly unacceptable. That needs to be sorted out earlier rather than later.
Sir George Young
Of course, my hon. Friend can apply for a debate about IPSA. It is important to recall that IPSA is an independent body, and the House has decided that it will not get directly involved in fixing or paying the allowances. None the less, I agree that there is a need for a sensible debate between the House and IPSA to ensure that Members of Parliament can effectively do their job. If my hon. Friend wants to apply for a debate, he is free to do so.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The Government have announced that they intend to review all contracts signed by the previous Government. That obviously creates much uncertainty and concern, particularly in respect of the A400M military transport aircraft, which will create thousands of jobs in the UK. May we have an early debate to try to end the uncertainty?
Sir George Young
Yes, and of course the hon. Gentleman can table questions to the appropriate Minister to get clarification of the important issue he has raised—he might like to follow that route to get a swift response. I understand the concern in his constituency.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that, in the Queen’s Speech debate that he announced on constitutional and home affairs, the Government will set out clearly their position on the Human Rights Act 1998? My right hon. Friend and I both stood on a manifesto to repeal the Human Rights Act. Since the election, we have been unable to deport a suspected terrorist because of that Act. It is crucial that action be taken as soon as possible to ensure that the human rights of terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants are not put before those of decent, law-abiding people.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I assure him that the specific questions he has raised about human rights will be addressed in the debate on home and constitutional affairs.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 75?
[That this House applauds the work of One North East in promoting sustainable economic growth across the North East of England since 1999; recognises the role One North East has played in regeneration and job creation in the region over the last 11 years; understands the importance of the support it gave over 4,000 businesses during the recent recession; supports its vision for a future North East economy that ensures the people of the region benefit from improved prosperity; and calls on the Government to strengthen the support given to the North East economy through One North East.]
One NorthEast, the regional development agency based in my constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne North, has brought great benefits throughout the north-east region. In the light of the recent announcement of cuts to regional development agencies, and the concern that that is causing throughout the region, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on that extremely important issue?
Sir George Young
The hon. Lady puts forcefully the concern in her constituency. May I suggest that she apply for an Adjournment debate or a debate in Westminster Hall, where the issues she has raised can be tackled in more detail and she can get a response from Ministers? She may have heard what the Chief Secretary announced yesterday, when he outlined his commitment to laying the foundations for recovery by getting the deficit under control—a huge deficit, which we inherited from the outgoing Government.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall the prayer of St. Augustine, which can be paraphrased as, “Lord make me chaste, but not yet”? In that context, will he explain why it will take three years to establish a business committee, a principle for which I welcome his commendation?
Sir George Young
The Wright Committee made several propositions and it suggested that they should be implemented in stages. The early recommendation dealt with the Back-Bench business committee—the one on which we plan to make immediate progress. There was a much broader recommendation about a House committee, and it was always envisaged that that would be set up towards the end of the process of implementing the Wright recommendations. We have given a commitment, which did not exist previously, to do that within three years. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the progress that has been made on that—it is an advance on the position at the end of the previous Parliament.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 85?
[That this House expresses concern that speculation over the future of the new hospital at Wynyard is causing anxiety for staff, patients and the community; and seeks an assurance from Government that the existing commitment to build a new acute general hospital at Wynyard to replace Hartlepool University and North Tees University Hospitals will be honoured; and recognises that the new facilities will help to address issues of health inequalities that are a feature of many communities within the catchment area.]
In view of the £6 billion cuts package, will the right hon. Gentleman make time for a debate about the NHS capital programme and, in particular, grant an opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on the new hospital at Wynyard?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Chief Secretary said yesterday about exempting the health service from the cuts.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Presumably and hopefully during this Parliament we will continue the practice of holding topical debates. Therefore, may I put in an early bid for a topical debate in the week beginning 14 June, which is carers’ week, to support early-day motion 14, which commands the support of colleagues on both sides of the House?
[That this House expresses its respect for the six million people of all ages in the UK who provide unpaid help, care and support to a relative or friend who, because of frailty, illness or disability, would not otherwise be able to manage; notes that despite the huge contribution carers make to society, many carers continue to remain unsupported in their caring roles without the chance of a break or respite; is concerned that many carers are hidden, unheard and unable to access relevant and practical advice, information and services; further notes that Carers Week, a partnership of national charities, takes place this year from 14 to 20 June, with the theme A life of my own; and believes that without significant reform of the care and support system carers will not be able to access support at times of crisis, will not be able to work, which has a lasting impact on the economy, and will not have the chance of a life of their own that they deserve.]
Such a debate will be a good opportunity for the House to commend and celebrate the work of some 6 million carers throughout the UK who give invaluable support.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend’s bid is in pole position, because it is the only bid that we have received so far for a topical debate, and it would be appropriate. Of course, once we get a Back-Bench business committee up and running, it will decide the subjects for topical debates.
To pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), it might be easier to have a topical debate on IPSA rather than him applying for an Adjournment debate.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the difference between this Con-Dem Government’s rhetoric and reality? There has been lots of rhetoric about slimming down government, but so far they have created 33 commissions or other forms of inquiry—and that number is rising.
Sir George Young
All the work will take place within a constraint on public expenditure, so it does not follow at all that those commissions of inquiry will lead to an explosion in public expenditure. The hon. Lady will recall from 1997 that the then incoming Government set up one or two commissions in order to clarify, get a better outcome from, and inform their policy.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
May we have a statement from an Education Minister on the impact of a reduction in the subsidy provided by the teachers’ Training and Development Agency, which is causing severe financial hardship, especially to small primary schools in my constituency? They must find an additional £1,000 for each graduate teacher trainee that they take on, for which they could not have budgeted—and that at a time when they are already going through financial hardship. It would be helpful to have a statement on whether that reduction can be delayed until schools can budget for it.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend raises a good point which directly affects his constituency. During debates on the Queen’s Speech there will be an opportunity to raise education issues. He might seek either to intervene or to make a speech and make his point then.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Is the Leader of the House aware of the utter dismay felt by local people and businesses in Nottingham about the deferral of the planned widening of the A453, which links the M1 to the city of Nottingham from the south, and which is absolutely vital to our economic prosperity? Will he find time for a debate on that important issue?
Sir George Young
As a former Transport Secretary, I should have been aware of the feeling on that issue. May I suggest that the hon. Lady apply for an Adjournment debate, which would be the appropriate forum to develop her case and explore with Ministers the possibility of a way forward?
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
First, does the Leader of the House accept that the larger demonstration in Parliament square represents a real security risk? At the start of this new Parliament, he must show the dynamism to do something about it. Secondly, when will the Embankment entrance between the Norman Shaw buildings open? It is inconvenient to Members that it is closed.
Sir George Young
On the second point, I will raise the matter with the appropriate officials in the House and ensure that my hon. Friend gets a reply. On the first, I would be reluctant to comment on issues relating to security.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Leader of the House aware that we need a very early statement on the question of Building Schools for the Future? Hundreds of schools up and down Britain are awaiting the knowledge of when the building is going to start, including two in my constituency at Shirebrook and Tibshelf. Instead of waffling on about welfare to work, would it not be sensible to get construction workers back into work, building those schools, and to start a new process—not this daft coalition?
Sir George Young
The Chief Secretary did find extra resources yesterday for construction—he announced extra investment in affordable housing. There is a debate on education next week, when I hope the hon. Gentleman raises that matter with Education Ministers and gets an answer.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the appalling situation following the centralisation of A and E units throughout the country that was introduced by the previous Government? My constituents have to travel 15 miles to a hospital in Blackburn—there are now no A and E units in Burnley, Pendle or Rossendale.
Sir George Young
I understand the concern, and during the campaign we proposed a moratorium on centrally driven closures of accident and emergency departments. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seek the opportunity of an Adjournment debate to raise that important local issue?
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
May I welcome the rowing back by the Leader of the House from the explicit commitment to extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants? It contrasted with “we will consider” finding ways to invest in new rape crisis centres. I also hear that we are now “considering” anonymity. May we have an early debate on the Stern review, which said that there was no compelling evidence that anonymity protects men, but that there is a case for more research on that?
Sir George Young
If the hon. Lady recalls what Stern said, she will know that the report also said that nor was there a case for the opposite. I have some sympathy with the case she makes for a debate on this important subject. Without making any firm commitments, and in light of the fact that I hope that we will have a Back-Bench business committee, I would like to find time for that important issue to be explored. However, I am not sure that what I said warranted the description “rowing back”.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
May we have a debate to provide an opportunity for the Opposition to do something that they have not yet done, which is to say sorry? The terms of the debate will need to be set with care, given that the Opposition need to move on from their present condition of denial and being sorry only for themselves to one of penitence, regret and being sorry for the damage that they caused to the country while in government?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What was remarkable yesterday in the urgent question was the total absence of any contrition from Opposition Members for the shambles in which they left this country.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am looking at a photograph of a British National party councillor, Steve Batkin, with some individuals he describes as loyal patriots who are doing Nazi salutes outside a war memorial while clutching the British flag. It is even more poignant today, given the commemoration of Dunkirk. Will the Leader of the House consider making time for a statement, perhaps from the Minister of State for Schools, about the appropriateness or otherwise of BNP councillors who hold such appalling views and who consort with such individuals serving on governing bodies such as that of Edensor high school in my constituency?
Sir George Young
The whole House will share the hon. Gentleman’s views about the offensive nature of that photograph. Of course I will raise with the Schools Minister the specific issue about the appropriateness of certain individuals serving on school governing bodies.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment? I am sure that he will do a superb job.
I welcome his abolition of the regional Select Committees. However, will he consider reinstating an annual general debate on London, in Government time, so that we may have an opportunity to raise a wide variety of issues, as we used to have in the past?
Sir George Young
I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point as I used to be a London Member and take part in those regular debates. Without giving any firm commitment, I shall see whether we can move in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
May I thank the Leader of the House and his deputy for redeeming, in very short order, the promise to the House that Back Benchers should be able to decide which debates we have in Back-Bench time? We have heard today some very good examples from Members on both sides of the House. Does he accept that if Back Benchers can prove that they can run their own time effectively, and Parliament can run its own time effectively, it adds to the urgency of bringing forward a fully fledged business committee so that Parliament, not Government, decides the agenda of this House?
Sir George Young
May I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work in this and the previous Parliament on carrying forward the agenda for reform? I have seen the motions on the Order Paper that he has tabled. I hope that he will recognise that the commitment that we have given to introduce within three years a House committee goes further than we got in the previous Parliament. I want to get the Back-Bench committee up and running, and when that is firmly established, to move on to the next stage of merging it with a House committee. Therefore, I think that there is no difference between us on destination and I hope that there is no disagreement either on pace.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Could we have a debate as soon as possible on the allocation of health funding? Mindful, as I am, of the vote of the whole House shortly on the chairmanship of Select Committees, I must point out none the less that the Labour party put in place a gerrymandered allocation of health funding, which means that the good people of the East Riding, for instance, have only £1,200 per head spent on their health care, whereas the people of Hull, who are much younger and generally fitter, receive 50% more. It is simply wrong.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and if he is quick he can table—I think—an oral question for 2 June, when the Health Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box and in a position to deal with the inequities to which my hon. Friend refers.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on advice given by civil servants to Ministers, with particular reference to the advice used by the Chief Secretary yesterday to say that the future jobs fund, which many of us regard as a major success of the previous Government, is not working? We would all like to see that advice. Will the Leader of the House assure us that we can have a debate on that matter?
Sir George Young
There will be a debate on that matter, because the Department for Work and Pensions has a day in the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The fund is not being abolished; it is being phased out and fed into—[Laughter.] It is not being abolished with immediate effect; it is being run down, and the new work programme will take over. As I said, however, there will be an opportunity during the Queen’s Speech debate for the hon. Gentleman to press the issue about the advice given to Ministers.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Can I ask for a debate on Government co-ordination of business unemployment support? The biggest private sector firm in my constituency has just gone into administration, leading to the immediate loss of 650 jobs in Hartlepool. I am concerned that those people will find it difficult to secure alternative employment, yet the Department charged with helping business has been asked to find the biggest cuts. We have just helpfully heard from the Leader of the House that the future jobs fund, which has been so important and successful in Hartlepool, is being phased out. What reassurance can he give me that those workers, who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, will be able to get support, despite the best efforts of the new Government?
Sir George Young
All existing commitments under that programme will be honoured, and it will be replaced by a different programme that we hope will be more cost-effective. Of course, I will raise with Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills the hon. Gentleman’s point about support being extended to those in his constituency who face the loss of their jobs.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has pointed out the uncertainty surrounding the future of One NorthEast, the regional development agency in the north-east. At the same time, the recent cuts targeted BIS and the Department for Communities and Local Government. We all know that we need to build up manufacturing and industry, particularly in the north-east and the green industries. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we are to do that and how regional development agencies will be funded to support it?
Sir George Young
The hon. Lady makes her point very forcefully. Next Thursday there will be questions to the relevant Minister, and she may like to table a question and use the opportunity during questions to that Department to get a substantive answer.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Given that Ministers of this Conservative Government, particularly those sporting a yellow tie, are positively salivating at the prospect of imposing swingeing cuts which less than a month ago they were campaigning against, when can we have a debate on the economic nonsense of the Government’s saying that they will fully fund the Crossrail project—a good decision—and yet, at the same time, significantly undermining Crossrail’s value for money by cancelling the third runway at Heathrow?
Sir George Young
We made a firm manifesto commitment on the third runway at Heathrow, which the hon. Gentleman would expect us to honour. I welcome his support for what we said on Crossrail. It is an important project that we want to take through. However, if he wants to press the Transport Secretary more fully on the funding issues, there will be an opportunity to do so at Transport questions.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will know that, in the previous Parliament, all parties supported the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics in London. In the light of the change of Government and the many new Members, may we have an early debate—perhaps a topical debate—about the future of the Olympics, given that the Government have announced £6 billion-worth of cuts, including some to the infrastructure relating to the Olympic games, and more worryingly, cuts in the departmental spending of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which could affect the ability of our athletes and para-athletes who are now in training to be successful?
Sir George Young
The Government are determined to make the 2012 Olympics a success, but in view of the interest of a large number of new Members I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about a bid for a topical debate on the future of the Olympics.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I was going to welcome the right hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly to his new post, because he is a fine and decent man, and he will have a splendid deputy and wonderful staff to back him up. However, he has let himself down today. He should surely not be defending the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announcing elsewhere what he is planning to do about benefits, which will affect many of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, rather than bringing that decision to this House. The Leader of the House also said that he deplored the leaking of the Queen’s Speech, but he is not announcing any practical measures to ensure that the person who did it is sacked. Is he really going to be a proper Leader of the House or is he just going to use all the phrases that we used in the past?
Mr Speaker
Order. I feel sure that there was a request for a debate or a statement and I just did not hear it.
Sir George Young
I recall the hon. Gentleman answering business questions in the previous Parliament, when the Leader of the House was not here, and using some of the expressions that I may have used this morning. However, on his substantive point, there was nothing in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that announced any change of Government policy. It was a scene-setting speech about his approach to welfare reform, and it was perfectly appropriate for him to make his speech in that forum. He will appear before the House in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, when the hon. Gentleman can press him further.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
This morning a journalist on the Sheffield Star, Richard Marsden, rang to inform me that a meeting to which local councillors in the east midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber had been invited to discuss the proposed route of the high-speed rail link to Sheffield and Leeds had been cancelled. That seems to be the clearest indication that the Government have decided to abandon the high-speed rail route to Sheffield and Leeds, and that the Deputy Prime Minister has abandoned my city of Sheffield. Once again a decision has been made with no statement to this House. Could we rectify the situation at the first instance?
Sir George Young
I am always cautious when a reporter rings me up with a story, and I do not always believe everything that I am told. However, I will make some inquiries about the hon. Gentleman’s point and get somebody from the Department for Transport to contact him as soon as they can.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Can we have an early statement on the Government’s national planning statement, in view of the fact that they have scrapped the Infrastructure Planning Commission? The issue is particularly important to those of us on the Opposition Benches, on whom the Government will be relying for controversial decisions on nuclear power and energy projects, because they have decided that their junior partner can have the day off on those occasions.
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity to debate the Government’s proposals on housing and planning, because they will be in a Bill that will be introduced in this Session. That will be the opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make his points.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I welcome the suggestion by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for a debate about saying sorry, so that those of us on the Labour Benches can say that we are not sorry that we prevented the global recession from turning into a global depression; we are not sorry that we kept half a million people in work who otherwise would not be in work; we are not sorry that we kept businesses going that would have closed; and we are not sorry that we will never ever say that unemployment is a price worth paying.
Sir George Young
Again, there was absolutely no recognition at all from the hon. Gentleman of the problems that this country now faces because of the irresponsible way in which the outgoing Government borrowed £3 billion a week, with no plans for rebalancing the country’s books.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can we have a debate about the poor quality of the teaching of history in our so-called great public schools? What else could explain the Deputy Prime Minister’s comment that his reforms represent the most important reforms since the Great Reform Act of 1832, including universal suffrage, apart perhaps from his innate tendency towards sanctimonious hyperbole?
Sir George Young
I am not sure that that directly related to the future business of the House, but the Deputy Prime Minister will be replying to one of the days of debate on the Queen’s Speech. I will make a point of drawing his attention to the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made and ensuring that he gets a robust reply.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Could we have a debate on the role, responsibility and competence of the Electoral Commission, following not only the well publicised problems during the general election but the less publicised problem that arose for Members such as myself who are historically described as Labour and Co-operative party candidates? We were told by the Electoral Commission that that description was no longer valid, which caused enormous confusion at a very sensitive time during the election campaign and could have disqualified us from standing.
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear that, and I wonder why that name had not already been registered with the Electoral Commission so that that problem need not have arisen. A large number of people were turned away from the polling stations at or around 10 o’clock, and that must never happen again. We must ensure that those who want to vote are entitled to vote. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s request for a debate, before our memories of the recent election fade, to determine in what ways the quality of the election and the way in which it was delivered might be improved.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation, which has enabled 42 Members to question the Leader of the House in 41 minutes. That is a very good start indeed, and I hope that that will continue.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I should like to make a relatively brief statement. May I congratulate all Members on their success in being elected to this, the 55th Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? In particular, I should like to congratulate those who have been elected to the House for the first time—the largest number of new Members since 1997. The House always has sympathy with former Members who have lost out in the electoral contest, but there is no doubt that it also benefits from the regular infusion of fresh blood. I am sure that that will be true on this occasion.
I draw Members’ attention in particular to the House’s code of conduct, which we should all observe in letter and in spirit. Members are answerable for their conduct in this place not just to the House but to the public. While the new Parliament gives the House the opportunity to put behind us the events of the last few years, we cannot expect to be under any less scrutiny than our predecessors. At the same time, we should explain to the public how we work on behalf of our constituents.
On receiving royal approbation for my re-election as Speaker, I made the traditional claim to Her Majesty for all the House’s ancient and undoubted rights and privileges, particularly to freedom of speech in debate. That is at the very heart of what we do here for our constituents, and it allows us to conduct our debates without fear of outside interference, but it is a freedom that we need to exercise responsibly in the public interest, and taking into account the interests of others outside this House. I would encourage any Member to research carefully and to take advice before exercising this freedom in sensitive or individual cases.
I should like also to reiterate three key points about security. First: wear your photo-identity pass while you are on the parliamentary estate and take it off when you leave. The pass is particularly helpful for enabling our security and police officers to get to know who Members are, and with large numbers of people working here and visiting, it must be immediately apparent that people are in the right place and helped when they are not. Secondly, you are responsible for the behaviour of your visitors and for ensuring they are escorted in non-public areas of the estate. Thirdly, security is everyone’s responsibility. Please be vigilant and tell the Serjeant at Arms about any concerns you have on the subject. I will write to all Members soon with my updated guidance on conventions and courtesies of the House. Most of these will already be familiar from the “New Members’ guidebook”.
I have one last request to make of Members: brevity. If I am to fulfil my promise to champion the rights of Back Benchers, I want to be able to call as many as possible to ask questions and speak in debate. It is a simple equation: the shorter each question, the more Members may ask one. I will inevitably show my impatience when questions—and answers—are too long, and the more concise you are in debates, the more likely it is that others can speak and that you can do so next time.
Yesterday, I announced the timing of the ballot for the election of Deputy Speakers on Tuesday 8 June. I am now announcing an extension to the time, in order to allow Members to take part in the ballot and to attend the service for the new Parliament in St Margaret’s, which is being held that morning. The ballot for the election of Deputy Speakers will therefore be open from 10 am to 12 noon on Tuesday 8 June.
Points of Order
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In this age of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and in light of your remarks about seeking advice, will you reassure us that we will be able to talk to a human being and interact with the Clerks rather than have to put it all in an e-mail to your good self?
Mr Speaker
The whole issue of IPSA and concerns about it have already been significantly aired this morning, and the hon. Gentleman was in his place for business questions and can testify to that himself. He will also have heard the Leader of the House indicate his readiness to play his part, as appropriate, with others in ensuring that there is a good, smooth and fair new system. It would, frankly, be superfluous for me to say anything more on the subject today, but the hon. Gentleman has given another object lesson to new Members in how to ensure that he gets his point on the record.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to your particular comments about security, which is certainly a very important issue, the Leader of the House announced earlier that we will be coming back for a two-week period in September. If I remember correctly, on a previous occasion when that happened, we had security issues because of the amount of maintenance on the parliamentary estate, and I think that that is when the pro-hunt protesters broke into the Chamber. Will you provide some reassurance, Mr Speaker, that you will take this matter on board and ensure that the appropriate authorities are looking at issues of both maintenance and security on the parliamentary estate, given that we are returning for that two-week period?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. All these matters have been, and will continue to be, taken on board. Although what the hon. Gentleman says about the past is, of course, entirely right, he will be well aware that we have entered a brave new world. That is the situation.
Debate on the Address
Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
It is a privilege to open this debate on the Gracious Speech and its plans on energy and the environment. Both of these areas are very clear priorities for this Government. Just as the first Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), worked with hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that long-term climate change targets had cross-party support, I look forward to continuing to develop the necessary consensus on our long-term energy security and climate change goals. I hope that we can all remember that there is much that unites us on this agenda.
I am delighted that one of the first actions of this Government has been to announce the cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow. Given the speed with which the right hon. Gentleman gained nominations for the leadership after making public his “very heated arguments” in Cabinet over Heathrow, I hope that by 25 September leaders of all parties will agree on this matter.
Although there is no specific legislation relating to the environment in this Session, my right honourable colleague the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be driving forward an ambitious agenda: protecting the environment and biodiversity for future generations; ensuring thriving biodiversity and wildlife by preventing habitat loss and degradation; making our economy more environmentally sustainable by ensuring that the economic value of our natural resources is understood by both Government and society, so that those resources are managed better and will continue to provide for us; improving our quality of life and well-being by ensuring clean air, clean water and healthy food; and supporting the farming industry and encouraging sustainable food production, working across the whole food chain to ensure a secure, sustainable and healthy supply of food, while minimising food waste.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post.
During business questions, the Leader of the House was asked why the grocery market ombudsman legislation had not been included in the Queen’s Speech, given that the grocery supply code of practice has been in operation since February. Will the Secretary of State enlighten us? Has he made representations to his colleague at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that the legislation is introduced at the earliest possible opportunity? There is cross-party consensus on the issue, I presented a private Member’s Bill on it, and it was in all our manifestos.
Chris Huhne
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that legislation is not my departmental responsibility, but it did appear on the coalition Government’s programme. As he also knows, it is not always possible to legislate for everything in a Government’s programme in the first Session, but there is a fairly weighty programme for the first Session, and I hope that the legislation to which he has referred will be introduced rapidly.
My right honourable colleague the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will also be working with the businesses for which her Department is responsible to help them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and to help businesses and communities to adapt to the effects of a changing climate. Climate change is one of the gravest threats that we face, and we have a very short period in which to tackle it before the problem becomes irreversible and out of control.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has told us that there will be no environmental legislation as such, but given his emphasis on the importance of environmental issues, will he give the House a guarantee that—notwithstanding the announcements that have been made about cuts elsewhere—the essential work that is being done on the environment and climate change will be protected financially, and will not be compromised? I am thinking particularly of the Committee on Climate Change, which has a very important role in relation to the House.
Chris Huhne
I agree that the committee has an extremely important role to play. However, the hon. Lady must be aware of the financial legacy that this Government have inherited from the Labour Government. We have inherited the largest budget deficit in Europe bar none. It is even larger than, for example, the budget deficit of Greece, which, as we know, has experienced a substantial loss of market confidence in recent weeks. For precisely that reason, I do not think it would be wise for anyone to suggest that we should continue to seek all possible ways of ensuring that we can live within our means. If the hon. Lady looks at the manifesto on which she stood for election, she will observe that no such commitment was made in that manifesto; and it was not made in ours either.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new post, in which I am sure he will serve with distinction. What are his views on carbon capture and storage? He will recall that in 2003 the last Government stressed the urgent need for action. I have seen no plan to move forward to 2050 that does not include carbon capture and storage if we are to meet our ambitious targets, and yet that Government failed to make any real progress on that when they were in office. The demonstration projects were endlessly delayed. Will my right hon. Friend supply the commitment and drive that were so sorely lacking when the Labour party was in power?
Chris Huhne
I shall deal with that issue later, but I certainly believe that it is crucial for us to inject a real sense of urgency into the aspects of our agenda that concern climate change and energy security.
Chris Huhne
If I may make a little progress first, I will happily give way again.
It is because of the urgent need to deal with climate change that we are committed to making this Government the greenest ever by taking that urgently needed action at home and abroad. This is not merely an aspiration; it is essential. The actions of this Government in this Parliament will define our ability to combat climate change in the decades to come. That is why, in the first week of the new Government, the Prime Minister announced that Departments would reduce their carbon emissions by 10% in the next 12 months—an early indication of our intention to take real action rather than merely setting meaningless targets.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
One thing that was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech was high-speed rail. Will the right hon. Gentleman please give us a commitment on the date on which high-speed rail investment will begin? Will it begin in 2012, and will high-speed rail come to Leeds? The Labour Government made both those commitments in the last Parliament.
Chris Huhne
Parties on both sides of the House were committed to high-speed rail and it is crucial that we make progress on this agenda, but the hon. Lady would not expect me to announce quite the detail that she is awaiting at this stage of the Government’s work. There is no doubt that we will be making serious progress on that agenda.
Internationally, we will work towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions. We will explore the creation of new international sources of funding to support countries both in limiting emissions and in adapting to the unavoidable consequences of climate change. Often the very poorest and most vulnerable countries are at greatest risk from the impacts of climate change, yet they have the least resources to participate in discussions that directly affect their future, so we will explore ways of helping those countries to take part in the international climate change negotiations—for example, in providing technical support.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that 2010 is the United Nations year of biodiversity and the very countries that he is mentioning are losing many species? Our own bumble bees and other species are under threat. Without a Bill, what specifically will he do to help stop the loss of species?
Chris Huhne
Biodiversity is absolutely crucial, particularly in those tropical areas where concentrations of biodiversity that are under threat potentially have enormous implications for our collective human future if they are lost. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will address that point in detail when she winds up.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I want to bring the Secretary of State back to the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on high-speed rail. The previous Government—supported by the Liberal Democrats—had a very clear commitment that one branch of high-speed rail should go to Sheffield and to Leeds. Is he now saying that the Government are not necessarily committed to that policy? Is he saying that it is being reviewed and reconsidered? What is the position, because people in Sheffield and Leeds want to know?
Chris Huhne
Let me be absolutely clear for the hon. Gentleman: this is a matter for the Department for Transport in due course, and my colleague the Secretary of State for Transport will come forward with plans. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he supported a Government who have just left office and who did not make clear those details. It is unreasonable at this point to ask for that level of detail from this Government.
The EU has the opportunity both to press for ambitious action internationally and to show the world its commitment to making the transition to a low-carbon economy. We will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% by 2020. We cannot expect poorer developing countries to cut their emissions if we do not take the lead.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion. I worked in the European Parliament when he was a Member of it. Will he use his powers of persuasion to persuade some of the Tory MEPs to act and to vote on climate change issues in that Parliament, given that the EU is a force for good on climate change? Without those MEPs voting for legislation on climate change, that will not be possible.
Chris Huhne
I certainly agree about the importance of the EU in tackling environmental issues and the climate change agenda. We would not have made as much progress as we have internationally on climate change had it not been for the efforts of the EU.
We also need to ensure that our energy supplies are secure—we will be putting energy security at the heart of both our energy and security policies.
Chris Huhne
I am aware that I have to be slightly limited in giving way, as Mr Speaker will be after me. I am happy to give way, but let me make a little progress.
There are two major threats to our energy security—our growing dependence on imports of fossil fuels and the retirement of much of our electricity generating capacity. After years of self-sufficiency in the production of fossil fuels, we are now becoming ever more dependent on imports. For example, National Grid suggests that gas imports will account for 70% of UK gas demand by 2018, up from 1% in 2000.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking up his post. What message on gas imports, gas security and the whole pricing structure of gas will he give to my constituents—and, indeed, those of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt)—among whom there are manufacturers of ceramic ware who are dependent on that gas and, more importantly, on fluctuations in the price of that gas, which can vary widely from week to week, and almost from day to day?
Chris Huhne
The key to many of these issues will be long-term contracts ensuring security of supply, and I have not seen any projections of our energy security that do not involve a very important continuing role for gas in the transition to a low-carbon economy. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Much of our generating capacity is reaching the end of its working life or will not meet the increasingly stringent controls on emissions that will be imposed by the large combustion plant directive. By 2020, at least a third of our coal-fired capacity and nearly three quarters of our nuclear capacity is likely to have closed down.
Clive Efford
Will the Secretary of State explain to the House his policy on nuclear power and on nuclear energy meeting the future energy needs of this country, and while he is doing so, will he also explain the policy of the Government?
Chris Huhne
I think the hon. Gentleman is unwise to assume that the policy of Government is different from the policy I am putting forward, but I will very happily come on to those issues in the next section of my speech.
In order to meet these climate and energy challenges, we must diversify our energy mix, making better use of our own natural resources such as wind and marine, and developing the clean coal technologies required to allow coal-fired power stations to continue to be part of a low-carbon mix. It is a scandal that in 2009 the UK still generated only 6.6% of our electricity from renewables. We have outstanding potential within the EU for renewable energy, yet we come second to bottom in the class of all 27 member states in our attainment from renewables. That must, and will, change.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
My right hon. Friend last week took time to visit the all-energy exhibition in Aberdeen. Will he acknowledge from his experience there that running the North sea oil and gas industry and the expanding offshore renewables industry is, in fact, a partnership rather than a competition as the same companies and technology can deliver both, provided that they move in tandem?
Chris Huhne
I fully agree with my right hon. Friend, who makes an extremely good point. I was very struck when talking to some of the companies involved by the fact that the expertise and technology that had been developed in very hostile environments in the North sea for the offshore oil and gas industry can now be pressed into service to provide platforms for renewable wind.
The coalition agreement also clearly envisages a role for new nuclear, provided that there is no public subsidy. I hope there will be cross-party support for that, as I believe it was also the position in the Opposition’s manifesto. We also have to reduce our overall demand for energy.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I would be grateful for a reassurance to the House, and the people of Sheffield, that the personal opposition of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Business Secretary to nuclear will not get in the way of confirming the substantial beneficial loan to Forgemasters, and therefore its ability to create jobs and to produce and export to the world the tremendous forging capacity for nuclear that was agreed by the previous Government.
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. That is obviously an important interest for the city of Sheffield and for his constituents. As he knows, the Government have announced that they are re-examining all the contracts that have been signed off since the beginning of this year. That process is under way and will be completed in due course, and further announcements will be made.
Chris Huhne
I wish to make a little more progress.
We have to reduce our overall demand for energy by making a step change in the levels of energy efficiency in our homes, our businesses and the public sector, helping people to heat their homes and meet their fuel bills affordably. We need to put the right incentives in place to ensure that sufficient generating capacity is available and to promote the reliable supply of energy imports by deepening trading relationships, improving the working of EU energy markets and global gas and oil markets, and promoting investment in new infrastructure, both in the UK and overseas.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State explain to the House the new Government’s policy on trading in nuclear enrichment? What is the policy on the treaties of Almelo and Washington? Will the UK have a clear position that applies to all other treaties involving European countries? Presumably any such treaty would be subject to a referendum if changes were involved.
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman will know that Governments always have a clear position on treaties, because they intend to uphold any treaties that they have signed.
The transformation to a low-carbon economy is critical in meeting our climate change objectives and our energy security objectives. We will use a wide range of levers to cut carbon emissions and decarbonise our economy. Achieving the rapid progress that we need to make up for years of inaction and indecisiveness—in that regard, I am looking at some Labour Members—will be a significant challenge, but it also presents a massive opportunity for Britain. The global market in low-carbon and environmental goods and services was estimated at £3.2 trillion in 2008-09, and is projected to rise to more than £4 trillion by 2015. By taking action to secure energy supplies and cut emissions we can enable British businesses to seize the benefits of that transition, creating new businesses and thousands of jobs across the country.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. I am not sure who he was looking at just then, because Labour Members were very decisive about the need for new nuclear power. When you examine the transition to a low-carbon economy, are you factoring new nuclear power in or out? Similarly, do you factor nuclear power in when it comes to—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not factoring in anything?
Malcolm Wicks
Indeed. Is the Secretary of State factoring in new nuclear power when it comes to carbon emissions? Does he recognise that in order to drive forward new nuclear power he must play a decisive, hands-on role?
Chris Huhne
If the right hon. Gentleman were to read the coalition Government agreement, he would recognise that a clear framework is in place for new nuclear power. I am pleased that some of those most interested in investing in new nuclear, such as EDF, have welcomed the clarity with which the new Government have set out their position. If he is concerned about that, he needs to update himself on some of the potential investors.
The steps that we need to take—
Chris Huhne
I should make a little progress, because answering one intervention and then moving straight into dealing with another without even delivering a few of the sentences in my prepared text would be—[Interruption.] I am sure that Labour Members were trying to help me, and I am very grateful.
The steps that we need to take do not relate just to the supply and demand of energy; our energy infrastructure is in urgent need of new investment. Much of our national grid was built during the 1950s and 1960s, when consumers were passive and electricity came from predictable, large-scale sources. We need to move to a 21st century system where supplies come from a range of sources—from large to small scale, and from the predictable to the intermittent—and consumers adjust their consumption much more flexibly. Achieving our objectives is not just about having the right regulatory framework; we must act urgently to improve the availability of finance in support of the UK’s transition to a low-carbon economy. That is why we will create a green investment bank to unlock private capital and provide individuals with opportunities to invest in the infrastructure needed to support the new green economy. The energy Bill announced in the Gracious Speech is a key part of our programme to deliver a low-carbon future, demonstrating that we are ready to make the difficult decisions and to take swift action to put the right legislative framework in place. The Bill will deliver a framework that will transform the provision of energy efficiency in the UK by enabling a “pay as you save” approach.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Secretary of State might be aware that in order to reduce domestic energy bills and fuel poverty, and to cut through the confusion caused by having about 4,000 different tariffs, a number of hon. Members campaigned on the issue of obliging energy companies to inform their customers on each bill whether they were on the cheapest tariff and, if not, how to transfer to that tariff. The previous Government compromised by suggesting that that information would be put on an annual statement. The coalition agreement does not make it clear whether that will remain a firm commitment from our side. Will the Secretary of State clarify the situation for the House?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my honourable colleague for that question. The coalition agreement states very clearly that the fundamental objective is as he has described, and the Department will examine the best way in which we can deliver it, taking account of the administrative costs.
We know that many people want to take steps to make their homes more energy efficient, but the up-front cost can be prohibitive and there can be uncertainty about the results of measures. Our green deal will enable householders to benefit from energy efficiency and to repay the cost of the work over time, through savings on their energy bills.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his elevation to his new post. He will be aware that energy efficiency in the home particularly relates to the ability of that home to operate efficiently, and the emergence of a feed-in tariff and the renewable heat incentive is an important part of that process. Will he tell the House whether he is prepared to stand by the feed-in tariff and its financial implications, and the renewable heat incentive? Will he guarantee the finance that will accompany that, in order to ensure energy efficiency and the development of small-scale generation in the domestic sector?
Chris Huhne
I am always pleased to hear questions from the hon. Gentleman, because he is a neighbour in Hampshire and has followed this agenda closely, with great passion and commitment, for many years. The issues that he raises are key. He will note that the coalition Government agreement contains a firm commitment to feed-in tariffs, and we will take that forward. Renewable heat is an important issue and we want to ensure that we make progress on that. The Department will have to come up with the exact ways in which we do that, but this is a crucial part of the whole package. Broadly speaking, a quarter of our carbon emissions come from our housing stock, much of which will still be there in 2050; people will still be living in it. Given that, what we are trying to do, particularly with the green deal, is move to a situation where we can retrofit that stock with insulating measures that will make a dramatic difference. Our Bill is designed to do that, and I very much look forward to working with people from across the House, including those on the Opposition Benches, whose substantial commitment to this agenda over many years I recognise, to make this a really effective, long-term piece of legislation. We want it to be something that we can all take pride in, that will be on the statute book for many years and that will stand the test of time.
Simon Hughes
My right hon. Friend knows that I warmly welcome him, with his fantastic commitment over many years to the green agenda, to his post, as well as the greenness of this Government. Given that our party had the most ambitious programme, with a 10-year programme for home insulation across the country, and that the commitment is continued in outline in the coalition Government agreement, will he assure us that as he and colleagues across Government work out how that can be delivered, they will be as ambitious as possible, not just for five years but over 10, and that every home that it is technically possible to convert will be able to have that programme met most generously from reduced fuel bills? It would make the most fantastic transformation for real people in their homes.
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend has stated precisely what the objective of this key centrepiece of the legislation will be. It is essential that we deal with the issue and leave a legacy that will stand the test of time and will genuinely modernise all our old housing stock, including the pre-first world war housing stock. There are a lot of problems, such as solid wall insulation, of which we are all aware, and such measures can make a dramatic difference to our ability to meet our climate change targets. Indeed, we are all committed in the Climate Change Act 2008, which was taken through the House by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, to a very dramatic cut in carbon emissions. We have to accept the logical consequences of that commitment, one of which will be measures across the economy to decarbonise the economy and to save energy. I agree with the emphasis put on this subject by my hon. Friend.
As well as reducing carbon emissions and helping to reduce energy bills, the investment in energy efficiency will support our green recovery. It will create more green jobs in the building industry as we convert our old housing stock to state-of-the-art standards. It will help industry grow and build a thriving green economy for the UK, as well as help to close our energy gap in the most efficient way possible by saving energy that we waste.
We are also committed to using our Bill to put in place the building blocks for our low-carbon future. The economy of the future is likely to be powered by electricity and we need to be able to generate enough electricity to meet future needs from low and zero-carbon sources. We are still working on the detail and identifying where legislation is required, but these measures might include the reform of our energy markets to meet the challenges ahead in delivering security of supply and the transition to a low-carbon economy, including the introduction of an emissions performance standard to regulate emissions from coal-fired power stations.
Albert Owen
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way for a second time. He was clear and detailed in his response to the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). However, he was less so in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks). On nuclear power, will he be absolutely clear whether, if there was a vote in this House to go ahead with new nuclear power stations, he would, as Secretary of State, give the leadership vote for that, vote against it or stay away?
Chris Huhne
The coalition agreement is very clear. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that investment in particular sources of energy is up to private investors. The agreement in the coalition Government—I hope that this extends to those on the Opposition Benches—is that there will be no new subsidy for nuclear power. Frankly, given the state of the public finances that we have inherited from the last Government, that is a commitment that I can make with the total backing of my colleagues in the Treasury and elsewhere in the Government. If investors want to come forward on that basis, taking account of what is likely to happen to the carbon price and of the framework that we have laid out in the coalition Government, I believe that there will be an overwhelming majority in this House for new build. That is something that we have had to recognise, even though my party has taken a different view on that. The hon. Gentleman’s party has supported nuclear power. Our partners in the coalition Government on the Conservative side have been supporters of nuclear power. We have to recognise that there is an overwhelming majority in this House. I come back to the point that I made earlier, which is that if we talk to investors who are considering this, such as EDF, they welcome the clarity with which the coalition Government have put out our statement.
Chris Huhne
Let me make a little progress.
The measures might also include a requirement for energy companies to provide more information on energy bills in order to empower consumers, including information on the cheapest tariff available and how a household’s energy usage compares to similar households, and a framework for the development of a smart grid to revolutionise the management of supply and demand for electricity in a low-carbon future. Again, the emphasis is on saving as well as on new generation. If we can have a smart grid that enables us to take some of the peaks out of electricity demand, that in turn will allow us to install less capacity and provide what we have to provide in a more economical manner.
Joan Walley
It was remiss of me not to have congratulated the Secretary of State on the important role that he is now playing. On the issue of the grid, may I refer him to the offshore valuation research that shows that there is huge potential for the net export of renewables? Will he assure the House that as the legislation is introduced there will be scope for a supergrid so that we can have all the advantages, which will also cover energy supply, of being able to export to Europe?
Chris Huhne
There are a number of issues, but I was excited, as I am sure the hon. Lady was, by the report on the potential for renewable energy around our shores. It is right to point out, as that report did, that in due course we might once again be a net energy exporter, as we were at the peak of oil and gas production in the North sea. That is a very exciting prospect. We have enormous potential when it comes to renewables produced through tidal power, wave power and wind power—perhaps less, given our climate, when it comes to solar power. We have an enormous capacity, and we need to ensure that we have the framework to exploit that.
We will also need the right institutional framework to support the reform of our energy system, and we may use the Bill to put any necessary changes in place. Overall, the Gracious Speech has put forward a programme to ensure we have a stable economy underpinned by a robust national infrastructure. The energy Bill will be an integral part of that agenda, as it will kick-start the transformation to a real low-carbon economy and help to drive the country out of recession by creating thousands of new green jobs. I commend the Gracious Speech to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking up his post as Secretary of State. He has had a distinguished career as an economist, as a Member of the European Parliament and as an eloquent Member of this House since his election in 2005. He was also one of the architects of the coalition agreement and he deserves his place in the Cabinet. We will be a constructive Opposition and I welcome him to his post.
As the right hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, I know that he practises what he preaches. I am told by friends that he is going to follow his new leader, the Prime Minister, in putting a wind turbine on his house, but that he is going to go even further and put a wind turbine on all seven of his houses. We look forward to the regeneration of the wind turbine industry that that will produce.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentioned that the Secretary of State would be putting wind turbines on his house. I wonder whether local Lib Dems will campaign against that, as they always seem to campaign against wind farms, whether onshore or offshore, whereas at a national level they say that they support them.
Edward Miliband
No doubt that will be the case.
Let me say right at the outset that now we are in opposition, I intend for us both to hold the Secretary of State to account and to be constructive. In that spirit, there are some measures that we welcome, which would have been in a Labour Gracious Speech. The help for the home energy efficiency pay-as-you-save proposal is very important and we look forward to scrutinising the measures that come forward on that. The measures on the smart grid are also important, as is reform of the energy market—the work that we started in government. Internationally, we will fully support his efforts to try to get the binding treaty either at Cancun or in Cape Town that we failed to get at Copenhagen, and I will happily share with him some of the scars of Copenhagen if I can be of any help in advance of the Cancun summit.
The issue at the heart of this Gracious Speech, in this area and in many others, is whether the Government can provide the long-term direction that the country needs. In the area of climate change and energy, above all others, the country needs a clear sense of direction. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives had different positions on some key issues at the election. I suppose we cannot blame them for that, as they did not know they would end up in bed together, but the test will be whether they produce a coherent long-term plan on those areas of disagreement or simply try to paper over the cracks, and thus fail to provide the long-term direction the country needs. We should set three tests: whether the new Government have a coherent strategy to deliver on the transition to low-carbon energy, whether they have a plan to secure a green industrial future for Britain and whether they have a commitment to make the transition fair.
Let me address the biggest challenge of all, which is the pre-condition of all other challenges on climate change that we face—the need to take carbon out of our electricity supplies. Our answer, in the low carbon transition plan we published last summer, which I hope was a plan for a decade, was the trinity of low-carbon fuels—clean coal, renewables and nuclear. On clean coal, I am pleased that the coalition agreement supports our investment and the levy that went through the House, as well as the tough coal conditions that we introduced, which are the toughest in the world.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend raises the issue of clean coal. We must also raise with the Government the immoral cost of importing coal from countries such as China and Ukraine, where thousands of miners are killed every year so that we can get relatively cheap coal. When he was the Secretary of State, he agreed to take forward this issue in the international arena. Will he join me in asking the new Secretary of State to do the same?
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend raised this important issue at the end of the last Parliament. We hope to work with the Government on that, as I am sure it is a cross-party concern. No doubt he will campaign on this issue as eloquently as he does on many others.
We will scrutinise the Secretary of State’s plans for an emissions performance standard. There is concern about whether that will lead to uncertainty in investment in coal and gas, but, again, we will judge the Government on the measures they introduce. There is some urgency on this issue, so I hope that plans will be produced speedily.
On clean coal, I think the Government are broadly in agreement with our plans, but what about renewables, which are the second part of the trinity of low carbon that we need? The Conservatives said in their manifesto that they agreed with our target of 15% renewable energy by 2020. The Liberal Democrats said they wanted a figure of about 40% by 2020, which I think is completely unrealistic. How have they resolved that difference? The new Government do not seem to have a target. They have 15% as a baseline, but say that they want the figure to be higher, and they have referred the issue to the Committee on Climate Change. There is a deeper problem here, because the Government say they want a larger target, but they are not willing to support the measures needed even to deliver existing targets. The Secretary of State made much of our record on renewables. We are the world leader in offshore wind generation, but it is true that we lag behind on onshore wind. However there is one very good reason for that, and he knows it as well as I do—most wind farm applications are blocked by Conservative councils. One might put it this way:
“At local level, Conservative councils are simply not heeding Cameron’s green call.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Secretary of State, writing about Conservative opposition to wind farms, so he knows that is the root of the problem.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why his Government failed to take the decisions or create the climate to have new investment in electricity generation, and why they left this country with insufficient capacity and the danger of the lights going out?
Edward Miliband
I do not agree with that. The question for Britain is whether to meet our security of supply needs in a high-carbon way, by building gas-fired power stations, or in a low-carbon way, by building renewables and nuclear. That is why what I am saying is so important.
Mrs Spelman
Coming very recently from a Department for Communities and Local Government brief, I can help all Members of the House on this. It was the original Conservative plan, and is now the coalition’s plan, to allow local communities to keep the business rate from the tariff that comes with the wind Bill, so that communities who take wind turbines in their local communities will also gain from them. That is part of promoting that form of renewable energy.
Edward Miliband
I am sure that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will be very grateful for that help from his right hon. Friend, but I do not think that that is enough. Let me explain why. I gave that quote not to embarrass him, but to raise a very important issue.
Edward Miliband
In a moment.
We said in our manifesto that every council should have a local target to help meet the overall 15% target for the country as a whole—not that they should have a disproportionate target, but that they should make a contribution to the overall target. The Conservatives, including the right hon. Lady, were against that, but I thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of our strategy. I attended a Guardian debate on climate change with the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) during the election, and he said that he supported my policy. By the way, I regret that he is not in the Government, because I think they are poorer without him. Now, what do we see in the coalition document? The Tories have won the argument: there will be no local obligation to contribute to the national target, because of the abolition of regional strategies. So what is it? It is a charter for every council to be able to say, “Not in my back yard.” The Secretary of State said in his first interview in The Times that he is going to build 15,000 wind turbines—he is going to make a start by putting seven on his own houses—but that will not happen without a strategy, and so far, I see no strategy from him.
Chris Huhne
The right hon. Gentleman needs to distinguish between setting a Government target and delivering on the ground, which is much more important. One thing that the Government are going to do is to under-promise and over-deliver as opposed to what happened with the last Government, who over-promised and under-delivered. On the point that my right honourable colleague the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made, we should remember what the evidence shows, from good examples of installing wind farms such as the Gigha wind farm in the highlands, where sharing the benefits led to support for it and its rapid installation.
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman is going to have to do better than that—it is just a load of old hot air. He is trying to increase our target, but he is taking away one of the key levers needed to help us meet the target. You do not have to take my word for that, Mr Speaker—you can take the word of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, who supported our position. If he would like to intervene to tell me, or his former right hon. Friend, who is now the Secretary of State, that he agrees that local councils need to contribute to the 15% target, I would be very happy to give way to him. [Interruption.] I think that says it all. The splits are already appearing.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Surely, it is worse than that. By starting again with the planning regulations, we are going to lose all the momentum we have developed over the past three or four years, and we are going to encourage investors to go to other parts not only of Europe but of the world.
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend anticipates a later section of my speech. He makes a very important point.
Robert Flello
Have I missed something here? Up and down the country, whenever I have seen protest flags and signs saying, “No wind farm here”, they have never said, “No wind farm here unless of course you want to give us some money.” Poorer communities will have to put up with wind farms as the only way of getting money into their communities while better-off communities will say, “Not in our back yard, thank you very much.”
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend eloquently makes his point. I am afraid that the truth is that the right hon. Gentleman, in his first few days in the job, has obviously sold down the river his former Liberal Democrat colleagues, and they will take note.
Let us move on to the next part of delivering the low-carbon agenda: nuclear power, which was a very small feature of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. He spoke one line through gritted teeth about nuclear power. I wonder why. I think that I know the reason. Let us be clear that our position on nuclear power is that the challenge of climate change is so great that we need nuclear as well as renewables and clean coal, because the challenge of climate change is so big. That is the position of the vast majority of Conservative Members––they are nodding away, which is great because we agree with them.
Of course, the Liberal Democrat position was against new nuclear power. The Liberal Democrats say in their manifesto that they
“reject a new generation of new nuclear power stations”.
But I am in a generous mood, so let us not criticise them for that, because the judgment is one of whether they have managed to achieve a proper long-term agreement, with a clear position, or whether they have just papered over the cracks.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), is instructive on the issue. He said about nuclear investment that
“Clarity is essential if new investment is to happen.”
I agree with him, so let us apply his test to the new Government. The coalition agreement says that the Government will introduce a national planning statement and that the Liberal Democrats can continue to maintain their opposition to nuclear power, but it does not end there. It says that
“a Liberal Democrat spokesperson will speak against the Planning Statement…but…Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain”.
Let us be clear that there is not one Government position on nuclear power, not two Government positions, but three positions: the Government are notionally in favour of it; a Liberal Democrat representative will speak against it—I do not know who that will be; it might be the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, or, presumably, the right hon. Gentleman—and the party itself will sit on the fence in any vote. We always knew that being a Liberal Democrat in opposition meant not having to choose, but old habits seem to die hard: they seem to think that being a Liberal Democrat in government means not having to choose either.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to have passed responsibility for new nuclear power to his deputy, the hon. Member for Wealden. The responsibilities of the Department of Energy and Climate Change have come out and the Secretary of State seems to have abdicated responsibility for this issue. Delivering on new nuclear power is a very big task that needs the personal role of the Secretary of State. I used to chair the Nuclear Development Forum, bringing together all the different partners in industry to drive things forward and ensure that we would deliver on time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about abdicating responsibility to the Minister of State, much as I admire him.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
My right hon. Friend says that the challenge of climate change is so great that we need nuclear power as well as renewables and energy efficiency, but given that we have to reduce our emissions in the next eight to 10 years if we listen to the scientists, we need to consider what is the most cost-effective and the fastest way to do that. Is nuclear power not a massive distraction in that debate? Even if we doubled the amount of nuclear power, we would cut our emissions by only 8%. Putting money into renewables and efficiency is far more effective.
Edward Miliband
I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. I wish that the Labour party had won her seat, but she comes to the House with a distinguished campaigning record on green issues, and she will inform our debates and bring great expertise to them.
I disagree with the hon. Lady about nuclear power, because we have to plan for the long term. She is right that we have to meet an urgent challenge, but we also have 80% targets for 2050, and we must drive our targets for 2020 beyond 2020 to 2025 and 2030. The Opposition’s view is that nuclear power needs to play a role.
Simon Hughes
The right hon. Gentleman is part of the Labour party’s conversion to nuclear power, and he knows that my party has not done so. As well as the fact that nuclear power cannot deliver quickly, is it not true that the contribution that it could deliver is so far away that it will also make a minimal contribution, if one at all? Can he honestly tell the House that he believes that nuclear power can be delivered in this country without public subsidy, unlike in the United States, Finland or any other country in the world?
Edward Miliband
Yes, I can, because we have learned the lessons of Britain’s past on nuclear power, as well as international lessons. What have we said? For example, we said that companies will have to put aside money to cover legacy waste. I honestly believe that that is necessary. That is not to say that nuclear power has no challenges, but the challenge of climate change is far bigger, and we reject the alternatives at our peril.
The mystery is that the Secretary of State and the new Government seem to have three positions on nuclear power, but there is a revealing history, and we need to be clear and honest about the fact that Liberal Democrats said in the past that, if they ever got into government, they would do everything that they could to stop nuclear power happening. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who is not in his place, said:
“I assure any investors who may be watching our debate...that their investment will be at risk if we play a part in any future Government, because if we had the chance we would seek to slow down, and if possible to stop, the development of nuclear power.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2008; Vol. 475, c. 322.]
I have to tell the Secretary of State, whom I greatly respect, that people will think that that is his and the new Government’s hidden agenda. He has said no to nuclear and described it as a “dead end”. It is quite simple: to show the clarity that the Minister of State says is necessary and to send a clear signal, I urge the Secretary of State to say that he was wrong to say, “Our message is clear: no to nuclear.” The grown-up thing to do is to admit that he got it wrong and that he wants nuclear power to be part of this country’s energy mix. Surely, if he believes in his own policy on public subsidy, all the Liberal Democrats should vote for it. He has set a policy—we do not disagree with it—and Liberal Democrat Members should vote for it. Sending those mixed signals is not good for the business community.
Let me end my comments on nuclear power by making the point that there is a very strange thing in the coalition agreement at the end of the section on nuclear power. I have been scratching my head about it. It says that they—presumably, the people who wrote the coalition agreement—want
“clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence”.
What an extraordinary thing for a Government to say about their own policy. Oppositions normally say that they do not have confidence in a Government’s policy. The Government are saying that their do not have confidence in their own policy. What confidence can the world outside have in the Government’s policy when they say that they do not have confidence in it?
The person whom I feel most sorry for is the Minister of State. He must be tearing out his hair. He spent many distinguished years in opposition. He persuaded the Prime Minister to abandon his position that nuclear was merely a last resort, and now he ends up with the right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) in charge. Someone said rather unkindly last week that it really is like having a vegan in charge of McDonald’s. I think that that is very unfair, but Tory MPs, most of whom support nuclear power, must be shaking their heads. The coalition has given us the dogma of the Tories on wind farms, which will mean that they find it difficult to deliver, and the dogma of the Liberal Democrats about nuclear power. Neither side is willing to face up to the tough decisions that we need to make as a country to make the low-carbon transition.
Malcolm Wicks
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the new Secretary of State seems to wish to adopt a laissez-faire approach—“It’s nothing to do with me; it’s up to the industry on nuclear”—the reality is that, whether on the generic assessment of the technology, siting arrangements or deep geological disposal, one needs a Secretary of State to drive things forward? The Secretary of State talks about clarity. People wish for nuclear fusion one day. Is not the reality that we now have nuclear confusion?
Edward Miliband
My right hon. Friend, who has a distinguished record on these matters, is right.
We face a third problem with low-carbon transition: planning, which my hon. Friends have mentioned. I am afraid that both sides of the coalition subscribe to the idea that they should abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission. Its abolition is absolutely the last thing that we need. For years, the thing that has held up large-scale energy projects is planning. We have worked with business to establish a system to provide certainty in which directions are set by accountable politicians and specific decisions are resolved independently. Business welcomed it and the CBI said that it was
“vital for the strategic infrastructure”,
but now the Government want to scrap it. And who gets to make the decision on new nuclear plants under the new system? None other than the Secretary of State, because politicians have retaken control, but he has a policy in which even the coalition agreement does not have confidence. On the essential test of the long-term direction on climate change—on how we decarbonise our energy supply—I fear that the Government are already failing.
Mr Betts
I should like to raise the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) mentioned: the proposed £80 million loan for Sheffield Forgemasters to which the previous Government agreed. Is it not vital, if we are to develop a new nuclear industry in this country, that British industry is given the best chance to compete for work in building new nuclear reactors? Is it not worrying not only that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will take the decision on nuclear, but that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will take the decision about the review of the grant to Sheffield Forgemasters?
Edward Miliband
Let me welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and welcome you back to the House.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and he prefigures the next part of my speech, because the second test is whether we can show that low carbon is about not just climate change, but the future of our economy. To his credit, the Secretary of State talked about the importance of an industrial strategy.
In the last 18 months, the previous Government pursued an active industrial strategy. Four of the world’s five biggest offshore wind manufacturers all said that they were coming to Britain: Siemens, GE, Clipper, and Mitsubishi. Nissan said that it would make electric cars in Sunderland. We also created the chance to be at the centre of the nuclear supply chain through Sheffield Forgemasters. Those things happened not by accident, but because we had a plan that recognised that even in a market economy, Government must nurture new industries that the private sector will not invest in on its own.
In their manifesto, the Liberal Democrats promised £400 million of Government investment in shipyards in the north of England and Scotland, to convert them to wind energy. We no longer hear anything about that; we do not hear of it in the coalition agreement or in the Gracious Speech. It is worse than that, as was indicated in the interventions on the Secretary of State’s speech. Now the Government say that every spending decision since January will be reviewed. That includes decisions on grants to companies such as Mitsubishi to make wind turbines; port investment for offshore wind manufacturers, which is very important; money for Nissan to build electric vehicles; and the £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters regarding the nuclear supply chain.
Remember, the Liberal Democrats said at the election that they agreed with Labour that spending should not be cut this year, so I have to say to the Secretary of State that this uncertainty is a total betrayal of their position at the election. They went round the country telling people that there should not be spending cuts this year; they agreed with us. People will have voted Liberal Democrat, apparently confident in the knowledge that the Liberal Democrats were with us on the question of industrial investment.
Chris Huhne
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the election campaign, quite an important event happened on the international markets: the international markets beat up a country in southern Europe called Greece, which happens to have a smaller budget deficit than that bequeathed to this Government by the Labour Government.
Chris Huhne
Much as I admire the chutzpah with which the shadow Secretary of State approaches this leadership speech, I see no recognition in his remarks of the appalling legacy that he has bequeathed us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Hugh Bayley)
Before the shadow Secretary of State replies, I remind new Members that the procedure is that you do not intervene on an intervention, even if it is a rather long one.
Edward Miliband
So there we have it—the Greek defence. A person may vote Liberal Democrat, but along sails the Greek defence, which means that one does not need to keep one’s promises. Promises do not mean anything from the Liberal Democrats if something happens in Greece. The Secretary of State will have to do a lot better than that.
Rachel Reeves
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Greece’s debt is 110% of its gross domestic product? That is twice as high a ratio of debt to GDP as that in the UK. That, and not the budget deficit, is the important point with regard to sustainability. The budget deficits of Greece and the UK are comparable, but in terms of sustainability, the issue is the level of debt. As the UK’s debt is half the level of Greece’s, those comparisons are scaremongering excuses for policies that the Conservatives always wanted to pursue.
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend gives the House and the Secretary of State an economics lecture.
Chris Huhne
On a matter of fact, may I point out that while Governments sometimes have to refinance parts of their debt, they have to finance their budget deficit? It is the budget deficit that is scaring the markets, not the levels of overall debt.
Edward Miliband
The truth is, though, that since the Budget of my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor in March, tax revenues have been stronger and the budget deficit is lower than it was at the time of the election. The Greek defence will not do, I am afraid. The uncertainty that the Secretary of State is causing with his willingness to look again at the decisions that I mentioned is a total betrayal of the Liberal Democrats’ position at the election.
I think that we can hear the sound of old scores being settled, because the orange book, as represented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is winning, and the Secretary of State, who, to be fair to him, is at the more progressive end of the Liberal Democrat party—or so I thought—has lost. I say to the Secretary of State in all seriousness that it would be the worst sort of short-termism—something that the Government are supposed to be against—to cut those investments, which are essential for the long-term health of the British economy. If he is serious about the green industrial agenda, as he said he was in his speech, it is his responsibility to defend those investments, and we will judge him on that, because those investments are essential to make Britain part of the green industrial revolution. I hope that in the coming weeks he will defend tooth and nail those investments in the green industries of the future.
Edward Miliband
What a great choice! I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).
Mr Anderson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the industrial revolution in the north-east is driven and supported by the regional development agency, another thing that will disappear under the coalition Government?
Edward Miliband
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that speaks to the attitude, which I hope the Secretary of State does not share, that the only thing that is needed to make our economy work is for Government to get out of the way. I do not think that that will create the economy of the future.
Albert Owen
I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that he gave my community and my constituency on new nuclear build, with Wylfa being one of the first in line. On planning, do we not have the worst of both worlds, with the scrapping of the Infrastructure Planning Commission on the one hand, and no planning commission or planning statement in place on the other? That uncertainty is costing business—
Albert Owen
It is. Business speaks to me. The Secretary of State might be talking to one company, but he has not talked to the companies that want to invest billions in my constituency.
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. The uncertainty and the scrapping of the IPC are dogma.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that industry requires not only certainty of future energy supply but—given the long-term planning and investment needed for new nuclear and related technologies—certainty and conviction on the part of the Government promoting those technologies, rather than the dithering and delay symptomatic of the new Government?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we all accept that we would like a transition towards electric cars instead of petrol cars, it will naturally breed a massive increase in the demand for electricity, which will require many more nuclear power stations? The Government do not seem to see further than their nose on this.
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a very important point: the demand for electricity is likely to increase, not decrease—even with measures on energy efficiency.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman delivers an eloquent speech, but would it not have much more credibility if he were to admit that the Labour party had 13 years to give us energy security and did nothing about it?
Edward Miliband
That is not true, because when we look at what we have achieved, in terms of the reduction in carbon emissions in this country and the transition that we have started on new nuclear, which was initially opposed by both parties on the Government Benches, we see that we are making the transition that needed to be made.
Edward Miliband
Let me move on to the third test, because I want to allow time for people to come in.
On the third test and the key challenge to ensure that the low carbon transition is fair, we welcome the measures on pay-as-you-save energy. However, there are two matters on which I cannot find anything in the coalition agreement or the Gracious Speech, and I hope that the Secretary of State will indicate at an early opportunity that he wants to move forward on them. The first is the regulation of private and social landlords for energy efficiency. The pay-as-you-save measures are important steps for home owners, but in the past few years we have not seen among private landlords the take-up of basic measures on loft and cavity wall insulation. It should not really be a matter of partisan debate, so I hope that the Secretary of State will move on regulation, because we are talking about some of the poorest people in our society, and they are living in substandard accommodation in terms of energy efficiency.
The second issue, which again I hope is not a matter of big disagreement, is about implementing the measure on compulsory social tariffs which we passed in the Energy Act 2010. In our manifesto we said that we would provide for money off the bills of older, poorer pensioners, and the Secretary of State will want to consider the options that are available to him, but again I hope that at an early opportunity he will make good on those measures.
Edward Miliband
Let me make one other point on fairness, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
I also urge the Secretary of State, in his discussions on energy market reform, to look both at investment, which is very important, and at trying to open up the market beyond the big six energy companies, because the truth is that they control 99% of the market and it would be better for competition if we could find ways of opening it up. Ofgem has put forward some ideas, and if we had been back in government we would have wanted to push them forward.
Robert Flello
On my right hon. Friend’s last point, I must say that it is not only the big six energy companies that are playing the market for profit, rather than for the consideration of the final user, but the banks and traders. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State’s speech but heard no mention of the Warm Front scheme. I have had my concerns about its operational levels, but does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, because of yet another uncertainty, my constituents and those of other hon. Members do not know whether to press ahead and see if they can obtain some funding through Warm Front?
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Warm Front has done a lot, and I hope that the Secretary of State, in the discussions that he will no doubt have with his colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will defend that scheme.
We do wish the new Government well in this crucial policy area, both at home and abroad, but I say in all candour to the Secretary of State, as I have said in my speech, that if they carry on as they have started, fudging key differences and papering over the cracks, they will produce a recipe for muddle and confusion, and not the long-term direction that we need. Their renewables policy does not yet add up, because they have Lib-Dem targets with Tory planning policy; their nuclear policy does not add up, because they have three positions; and on industrial policy the risk is that short-term cuts will deny us the long-term economic strength that we need.
In the months ahead, we will hold the Government to account on delivery, because it is in the interests of everyone in this country that we deliver on fairness, on jobs, on energy security and on climate change.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. At this point in the proceedings, I must remind hon. Members that Mr Speaker has imposed a limit of 12 minutes on Back Benchers’ speeches.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). I suspect that some of his speech was aimed at a slightly wider audience than even the very large number of colleagues present today, and of course we wish him well with his leadership ambitions. However, I found it rather difficult to tally his enthusiasm for nuclear power with the appalling record of the previous Labour Government, who did not add a single watt of new nuclear generating capacity in 13 long years. We are entitled to a better explanation of why they failed so dismally to do that.
Michael Fallon
I want, first, to make a little progress, if I may.
I welcome the Queen’s Speech, because it tackles three of the biggest issues that we as a country face. It makes a start on restoring our public finances, on mending our broken society and on modernising our political system, and I shall say a little about each of those issues.
On public finances, we have already welcomed the strong start that the Treasury made on Monday by making immediate savings in public expenditure. A start simply had to be made. If one spends £700 billion a year but raises only £540 billion a year in taxes, something must be done, and I welcome the fact that this Government, unlike their predecessors, did not sit on their hands but made a start. I welcome also the Chief Secretary’s recognition on Monday that that was only a small step: £6.2 billion is well under 1% of total Government expenditure, and more significant savings will have to be made.
I, unlike the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, was pleased by the reference to Greece, because there is a parallel between our deficit situation and the one in Greece. The Greek Government, like our previous Government, were warned successively by the European Commission, the OECD and the International Monetary Fund, but both Governments ignored those warnings and let their deficits continue to accumulate. So there is a warning from Greece: if we do not tackle the fundamental causes of our deficit as rapidly as possible, we are likely to lose the confidence of the markets.
I therefore look forward to the much more difficult task that my right hon. Friends face in the spending review that they will conduct through the summer and autumn. It seems obvious to me, even from Monday’s announcements, that the necessary elimination of waste and the search for efficiency savings, although worth while in themselves, will not be enough. If we are to protect the front-line services that we support and the basic budgets of Departments that are not wholly protected, it seems obvious that, first, some established programmes, however cherished, will have to be revised; and that, secondly, we will have to look at annually managed expenditure—the so-called benefit element of public expenditure. It remains the case that many benefit entitlements go relatively high up the income scale, and, if we are to spread the burden of the painful adjustments that are necessary, it does not seem credible to exempt those who are on middle or higher incomes and currently enjoy a wide range of benefits. Importantly, however, the spending review must be conducted fairly and responsibly, spreading the load that is imposed when either expenditure is withdrawn or taxation increased.
The Queen’s Speech also makes a start on building a stronger society, and just as important as abstractions, such as the big society, are the practical measures that will extend choice throughout our public services, improve the service that our constituents receive when they use public services and promote more responsibility by users and, perhaps, more awareness of the obligations that come with their use.
In education, I particularly welcome the new drive to attract fresh providers into our system. However, important though that is—and it is important, particularly in some of the inner-city areas of our country, where standards need to be much higher—there is also great advantage to be gained from the additional freedoms that are proposed for all schools, existing and new. Those freedoms will give head teachers and their governors the real power, which they have long wanted, to get away from Government targets and to set their own terms, conditions and priorities. I see nothing wrong in encouraging our schools to be different. Since my days in the Department of Education and Science, I have wanted to get away from the homogeneity of council schooling and encourage more schools, which, while following the core curriculum, are different in their outlook, and cater for the different abilities and talents of the children whose parents choose them. That will be a test of the new education legislation.
While I am on the subject of the new academies Bill, perhaps I could put in a plea, notwithstanding my earlier remarks about public expenditure, for the Government to follow through fully the commitment to the new Knole academy in Sevenoaks. The commitment was signed in January and my constituents will expect that to be followed through.
In west Kent, we have a particular problem, to which I would like to draw to my right hon. Friends’ attention—the pressure on grammar school places. We have a grammar school system in Kent, and it has always been made clear that the demand for more places needs to be addressed. There is not only an increasing birth rate and more demand for grammar school places, but some 300 pupils now come across our border from East Sussex, Bromley and Bexley and take places in our grammar schools in Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells. That issue needs to be tackled.
I want to consider the measures in the Queen’s Speech to reform our politics. I understand the need for a coalition agreement and the compromises that bind it. I must say that when I was campaigning for re-election in Sevenoaks, nobody asked me for a fixed-term Parliament or came to the door and said that we needed the alternative vote plus system. Those issues were not raised with me, but I found that people were crying out for a more proper and fuller connection with their political institutions. I found, as I am sure that my hon. Friends did, a frightening gap between people with problems and the layers of local, country and national politicians who were supposed to deal with them.
Nowhere is that better illustrated than in the St Mary’s ward of Swanley in my constituency, where in February last year the British National party won what had hitherto been the safest Labour seat in Swanley and secured its first council seat on Sevenoaks district council. St Mary’s was not just the safest Labour ward in my constituency, but the poorest. It is striking that that ward, which I visit frequently, despite all the efforts of those who work in it—community workers, schools, including Amanda McGarrigle and her team at St Mary’s primary school, and local councillors—as well as the efforts of Government, has not shared in the increased prosperity and job prospects that the rest of the county enjoyed under the previous two or three Governments. We need to reflect more deeply on the reason for that.
There was a fashionable debate in our party a few years ago about whether Winston Churchill or Polly Toynbee was the better marker to follow. Churchill famously said that a rising tide lifts all boats, whereas I think Ms Toynbee argued for her vision of a caravan proceeding across the desert at the pace of its slowest members. Neither approach has worked in some of our poorest wards in the past 10, 20 or 30 years. If I concede that the benefits of markets alone have not trickled down sufficiently to some of the very poor areas of our country, I hope that the Labour party will concede that a whole raft of Government action, ministerial targets and misdirected public expenditure has not succeeded either.
That means that we must look to another way for those pockets of deprivation that remain. I hesitate to call it a third way, but it is in the Queen’s Speech: it is, of course, localism. It means giving power back through the rafts of politics and politicians to the local community and encouraging people who live in those wards to take much more responsibility. It means giving them the freedom to take responsibility for finding the solutions to their problems. It may well be, having sorted out the public finances and helped rebuild a stronger society, that the Government’s success will ultimately depend on the genuineness of their commitment in practice to delivering localism to our communities.
I welcome the Queen’s Speech.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Today’s debate specifically relates to the coalition’s proposals for energy and climate change as well as for environment, agriculture and rural affairs. What is striking about the coalition document is the number of things it contains that the previous Government had done, planned or set under way and that are now claimed to form the coalition’s targets and aims for environment and rural affairs and, indeed, energy and climate change. In a sense, that is reassuring because a key observation that should be made is that the arguments about climate change cannot call upon the Greek defence. A similar argument cannot be made that less should be spent on countering it because particular circumstances have arisen recently. The timetable for the measures that need to be put in place to ensure that we can move to a low-carbon economy and reach the targets that have been agreed universally in the House for reducing carbon emissions remains in place. The time available to make those changes also remains the same. Superficially, therefore, having the aims in place is an important part of the recognition of the urgency of the matter.
We need, however, to ask questions about the detail of the targets and consider whether the commitments in the coalition document provide the reassurance that we will move with the speed that we need on not only climate change but on renewing our energy sources, ensuring that energy efficiency is uppermost in the conduct of our building and refurbishment programmes and progressing with the energy economy.
There are a number of important commitments in the document, including the aim of rolling out smart grids and smart meters over the next few years. That follows from the previous Government’s commitment to rolling out smart meters within 10 years and to moving towards much smarter management of the national grid system. Indeed, there is an urgent need to renew and strengthen the grid system so that it can deal with the changing nature of how energy enters and is redistributed from it. It will be a very different grid in future. In the past, essentially, a number of large power sources delivered energy in one direction towards business and households. A new grid that takes energy from local and renewable sources and distributes it in an entirely different fashion is an essential element of that renewal process.
However, we must face up to the fact that those changes will cost a large amount of money to introduce. It is up to the incoming Government to express early their commitment to the idea that those changes essentially involve front-line services as far as the future energy economy is concerned. The lights must stay on, but our economy must be on a much lower-carbon footing. The question we need to pose for the new Government at this early stage is this: is there a commitment to funding, underwriting, and ensuring the success of those new ways of delivering energy for our economy?
Similarly, I welcome the commitments on pay-as-you-save and energy efficiency. The proposed new energy Bill and the coalition agreement emphasise such arrangements, but again, they will cost money to underwrite and underpin. It is not sufficient simply to say that Tesco or B&Q or another body will come along and sort out the question of energy efficiency in homes and the necessary investment. Rather, it will be necessary to set out the financial programme to underpin the commitment on energy efficiency in homes, and to say how much that will cost and what the return on the investment will be.
We must invest in more than passive energy efficiency in homes. If we are to move toward the targets—I assume that the new Government wish to maintain them—it will mean radically increasing the energy efficiency of homes so that we can save energy in the future. It will also involve ensuring that new homes are zero-carbon by 2016, which was the previous Government’s target. It will not be possible to achieve that change simply by introducing passive energy efficiency measures for homes. Among other things, if we are to achieve those targets, we will need to introduce microgeneration, energy-producing devices both to new build homes and by retrofitting. If, as was recently suggested, the pay-as-you-save measures will apply only to energy efficiency in homes and not to microgeneration, a key way of achieving those targets will be lost. It is therefore essential that early commitments are made to ensure and underwrite the introduction of microgeneration devices.
The previous Government gave key undertakings on feed-in tariffs, small-scale generation and, as important, the renewable heat incentive, which will ensure the rapid development and deployment of renewable heat sources in this country. My eyebrows were raised by the statement in the coalition document about a full roll-out of a feed-in tariff in electricity. That might have been a mistake, but if it was deliberate, the suggestion is that there is no commitment on renewable heat, which is a way in which to ensure that renewable energy moves forward rapidly in the domestic sector. I will be delighted to be proved wrong, either in an intervention from someone on the Government Benches now or later in the debate. I hope that it is not the Government’s intention to change or resile from renewable heat arrangements and underwriting, and that the finance and commitment are in place. I hope that I am told later that my suspicions about what the document includes will not be borne out.
Finally, I come to the curious statement in the coalition document on nuclear power. I have considerable sympathy for the position in which the Energy and Climate Change Secretary finds himself, because I too do not think that new nuclear power is a good idea for the future, as I have said in the Chamber on a number of occasions. However, I am clear that there should be a new nuclear programme and that will need to be planned, because it is no longer good enough simply to leave the replacement of aged energy supply and the development of new energy to the market. Left to its own devices, the market will probably ensure that we have a new generation of gas-fired power stations, which will ensure that we go way off our climate change targets. If the sole contribution of the Secretary of State to the nuclear debate is simply to say, “Well, someone may come along and build a nuclear power station,” they may well not do so. Without other plans, we will simply get a new generation of gas-fired power stations, which would be catastrophic for our approach to climate change.
Following that logic, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary must take positive action on new nuclear power. If the national planning statement is to be rewritten, he must agree on sites for new nuclear power stations. If he does not do so, there will be no such power stations. His position urgently needs to be made clear to ensure that when it comes to planning the new energy economy, there is clarity rather than muddle and chaos.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
It is an honour and a privilege to speak under your presiding eyes, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your new role.
I welcome the Queen’s Speech and the commitments to a green economy, which is essential for the restructuring of our economy, which has been so dependent on the financial services that have failed us so badly. However, I thought I might give the House the benefit of my personal history of engagement in energy issues. I worked as a young research and information officer for the North-East Scotland Development Authority in Aberdeen in the 1970s. At that time, it was struggling to find 16,000 new jobs for the area simply to stabilise the decreasing population. I doubt whether we would have succeeded in that but for the serendipity of the discovery of huge quantities of oil and gas in the North sea.
There was an unseemly scramble to get the oil and gas into production against the background of the first oil crisis and the foundation of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. It also coincided with the first miners’ strike and the three-day week. A few weeks after his defeat as Prime Minister in the February 1974 election, Ted Heath came to Aberdeen, and I and others briefed him in our offices about the scale of development activity in oil and gas that was taking place in the North sea. He was duly amazed. I am not sure that he appreciated it when I told him that had he come before the election he might still have been Prime Minister, but it certainly brought home to him that we needed a strategy. The value of coal, as well as of oil and gas, had been dramatically changed by the OPEC crisis.
People may remember that at that time there was lively discussion about the need to reduce the industrialised world’s dependency on oil and gas, while trying to maximise production from our own resources, where they had been discovered. I wrote pamphlets on the subject with Ross Finnie, who distinguished himself for eight years as the Environment Minister in the Scottish Administration. We called for a drive for greater energy efficiency and for policies to develop alternative technologies using smaller-scale generation, moving away from dependency on fossil fuels. Somehow, as the oil price fell and the crisis diminished, all those high ideals fell away, and I find it extraordinary that 35 years later we are still talking about how we might implement them to any significant degree.
As someone who had, and has, no visceral objection to nuclear power, I became increasingly aware that far from being the cheap option that we were promised, nuclear power was economically unaffordable and we had been lied to big time by the industry. However, the problem of trying to develop alternatives was made much worse by the fact that the Atomic Energy Agency was put in charge of supporting and evaluating alternative renewable energy. I might say to the shadow Secretary of State that that too was like putting a vegan in charge of McDonald’s, because the result—predictably—was that if anything looked as if it might become remotely commercially viable, the plug was pulled on further development. So, although Britain developed the first large-scale wind turbines, in shipyards on the Clyde, we had no policy for deployment. It was therefore left to the Danes, who did have a policy for deployment, to become world leaders in that technology. I do not know if Salter’s ducks would ever have generated electricity commercially from marine sources, but I know that the technology was never allowed to prove that it could, because the AEA was determined to ensure that there was no alternative. I wonder whether we are being subjected to the same propaganda today.
At the time it was also argued that we needed large generation stations to power the national grid and, given its format, we probably did. But even then it was clear to me that we should be thinking of moving to smaller-scale generation. Over the years, high-energy manufacturing—of which we have less in any case—has increasingly provided its own power generation as an integral part of its operation, requiring only top-up flows in and out of the national grid. So when I was first elected to this House in 1983 I joined what was then known as PARLIGAES, the parliamentary group for alternative energy studies, and I am currently a vice- chair of its successor, PRASEG or the parliamentary renewable and sustainable energies group. They are not very snappy acronyms, but they are important all-party groups.
All of this predated any inkling of the threat of climate change. It was about reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and finding cleaner, more diversified and more sustainable ways to generate energy. We have wasted at least 30 years getting to this point. As a young researcher in 1972, I compiled the first directory of oil and gas operators and supply companies in north-east Scotland, which included an estimate of the number of people employed and a forward job projection. Interestingly, at the time there were several dozen companies employing a few hundred people. I projected that the number could rise to as many as 5,000, with the same number of jobs indirectly generated, and I was accused of gross exaggeration. Today, the Gordon constituency sustains more than 65,000 oil and gas-related jobs. They are not all based in the constituency, but they are payrolled out of it, and the industry employs an estimated 450,000 people across the UK.
As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I was very pleased that last week, in his first week in office, he visited the All-Energy exhibition in Aberdeen, covering companies engaged in all aspects of renewable energy technology. He saw for himself the impressive emerging technology for offshore and marine renewable energy, and the useful overlap between the technology and systems required by oil and gas and those required by renewables in an offshore environment. Installing a platform, sub-sea connectors, pipes or cabling requires the same equipment and engineering expertise, and there can be a crossover. The important point is that if we can run the second generation of North sea development—which probably has as much oil and gas again to be extracted, although in much more challenging conditions—alongside an expanding offshore renewable industry, we could benefit from huge economies of scale and efficiency by using the same equipment.
Mr Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a powerful speech. Not only do we have renewable energy and oil and gas, but carbon capture and storage. We have the skill sets and the ability to store carbon, and I hope that the failings of the previous Government will not mean that we lose the opportunity to be a world leader in that area, because it could produce jobs and wealth if we can sell that technology instead of having to buy it from others.
Malcolm Bruce
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. As I have said, we missed the boat 35 years ago, and we must not do so again. There is a real risk that that might happen, if we do not get the policies right.
Simon Hughes
The benefit for apprenticeships and jobs is also manifest. People who are training to work on offshore oil rigs understand that in their careers they might work on renewables or carbon capture and storage, so we have to see this area as an apprenticeships, skills and jobs opportunity as well as an energy opportunity.
Malcolm Bruce
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
I hope that the Secretary of State took away several points from the exhibition. Exciting as the development of renewables is, it will not replace oil and gas soon in investment, jobs, tax revenue or exports. That will take some years—but if we run them in tandem, we can build one up as the other declines. Renewable technology will require a number of push-and-pull measures to realise its full potential. For both of them, we require substantial onshore investment in ports and transport infrastructure. As a representative of part of the city of Aberdeen, I am concerned that our infrastructure is not appropriate for a city that claims to be the energy capital of Europe. Our promised bypass has not happened, our commuter rail service has been postponed indefinitely, our city finances are in a considerable mess and we have the two most underfunded councils in Scotland, with money being diverted to other parts of the country. In those circumstances, my message to the Secretary of State—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—is that it is the UK Government who stand to lose if that infrastructure is not right, because some of the investment will go out of the UK altogether.
I welcome several of the proposals in the Queen’s Speech to promote marine energy and to support home energy efficiency, which can help move us away from dependency on the national grid and huge power stations, and make microgeneration genuinely part of the national grid, rather than just a domestic alternative to current generation. As I keep asking at every event I attend, when will we get micro combined heat and power? What steps will be taken to provide an easy way for people to take up feed-in tariffs? I defer to the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) about renewable heat, which is part and parcel of that issue. What can be done to help people with hard-to-heat homes—a question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)? We have many such in Aberdeen, and they are expensive and difficult to tackle.
I would like to address the international dimension. I am a vice-chairman of GLOBE UK and GLOBE International, which played an invaluable role in testing potential policies and negotiating positions in the run -up to the various climate change summits. In fact, in advance of Copenhagen, GLOBE clearly identified China’s concerns, through the climate change dialogue that we run.
Malcolm Bruce
My hon. Friend acknowledges that point.
Unfortunately, had they been properly addressed, we might have mitigated the fallout in Copenhagen. GLOBE gave the UK Government the opportunity to ensure that what happened would not happen, and to see that Europe played a part in the process rather than being marginalised, so GLOBE has an important role to play.
It is unreasonable for developed countries to tell developing economies that they cannot enjoy the same development opportunities that we did—development that led to the climate danger. It is also realistic to recognise that China will not give up its commitment to double-digit growth, which after all has helped 400 million people out of poverty, although hundreds of millions are still left behind. It is also right to acknowledge, however, that China knows the damage that pollution and climate change are causing for its people and environment, and wants all the help it can get to grow sustainably. That is why I and the International Development Committee, which I previously chaired, do not want an abrupt end to the UK’s aid programme for China. It is on the climate change front that we can work together most constructively. We have to give China space, share technology and innovation and recognise that many of the poorest countries are the victims of climate change, not the perpetrators. As the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has already acknowledged, China may well get ahead of us if we do not participate in initiatives with it, so it is in our interests to partner it as much possible.
Poorer and developing countries must be helped to adapt and mitigate the impact of climate change, be given the means to grow sustainably and not find the anti-poverty aid hijacked to fund climate change measures. The previous Government put in place a 10% limit on money being diverted in that way, and I hope—I will hold them to account—that the current Government will not weaken that commitment. Britain can lead the world on climate change policy, and in many ways, despite the criticisms that have gone back and forth across the House, it is fair to say that we have made significant progress, although it has been more about ambitions than delivery, so we now have to deliver.
Only if our targets are turned into policies for practical action can we demonstrate by our results and developing technology what we can offer the world. I would suggest—if I can put it constructively—that we should build on the initiatives of the previous Government and recognise that we can take them forward. If we do that, we will deliver credibility and prestige abroad, and jobs and exports for our domestic economy, and it will give us a new dynamic sector to take up the slack left by the abuses that damaged so much of the financial services sector, which I suspect will never make as big a contribution again. The lesson is quite simple: we can help save the world from climate change disaster, but only if we first save ourselves.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I would like to comment on issues of particular importance to my constituency, now named Sheffield South East. It is virtually the same constituency as Sheffield Attercliffe, but the Boundary Commission decided for some reason to give it a slightly less attractive name, in my view.
First, I want to talk about the situation at Sheffield Forgemasters, which has already been referred to in interventions both by me and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). It is clear that a new nuclear programme and industry will be built in this country. There is majority support on both sides of the Chamber. It is equally important that, if we build this new nuclear industry, as much of it as possible should be built by firms in this country, with British workers getting the jobs. Sheffield Forgemasters is a wonderful success story. The firm was owned by an American company virtually on the brink of collapse. It became a management buy-out when the previous Government, with great ingenuity, used the pension legislation that they had introduced to support not the pensions schemes of people in a bankrupt company, but the pensions deficit being transferred from the American parent company to the new management buy-out company, to enable the buy-out to take place.
Since then, those jobs have been secured, 17 new apprentices have been taken on, the company has full order books, with most of the orders going abroad, and now it has seen the potential to invest in a massive new forging press—one of the biggest in the world—to produce parts for nuclear reactors that only two other companies in the world can produce. If this forging press is not built at Sheffield Forgemasters, that work will go abroad; there is no alternative. That is quite simple.
Sheffield Forgemasters is not the only company that would be affected, given its links with other industry in the city. Davy Markham, which machines the parts that Sheffield Forgemasters make, would also lose out in that process, and Siemens, another firm based in my constituency, would lose out on design work. A whole supply chain will be crippled if this investment does not go ahead. I can understand any new Government wanting to review the previous Government’s decisions, but this is a commercial operation and is supporting a commercial loan. The company is already using that loan and working on, and putting money into, this project, and it will be a tragedy if it is now stopped. We need not only a decision that it can go ahead, but a quick decision, so that this company and the future of British manufacturing in this area does not lose out.
The second issue, linked to the first, is the previous Government’s decision to invest in a new nuclear research centre in the advanced manufacturing park. That is actually in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), but it is right next door to my constituency. That park is a wonderful development: it has the university of Sheffield, Yorkshire Forward—the regional development agency—Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and Boeing, and all are contributing to turning research into practical measures that could improve the technological efficiency of British manufacturing. They are wonderful examples. We need to take that forward into nuclear research, and consider how British manufacturing can learn from the great research and inventions in this country and turn them into innovations and practical projects that can deliver jobs. That was a challenge in which the previous Government were willing to invest. Is that decision now to be reviewed as well? Will this new research centre go ahead? That is a fundamental question.
That is linked, of course, to the decision to cut back on funding for organisations such as Yorkshire Forward, which has an excellent track record of working with industry in Yorkshire and the Humber to deliver what industry wants. In a recent regional Select Committee report, the Engineering Employers Federation, the CBI, the Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses all said that they welcomed what Yorkshire Forward had done. The problem is that, when the Government say at short notice to organisations such as RDAs, “Make cuts, but protect your investment in manufacturing, industry and schemes with an economic benefit”, RDAs are left in an impossible position.
The only cuts the RDA can make are on schemes that are not committed, and the problem is that, even if the schemes that are not committed are the ones that would have the greatest economic impact and benefit, they will still be cut. It is the fact that those cuts have been rushed through that will cause the damage. They have not been considered and do not leave time for organisations such as Yorkshire Forward to consider them properly. I am concerned about the future of our RDAs and the help they provide in difficult times to industries, in particular our manufacturing industry. The question again is: are the Government committed to the new nuclear research centre, which will give great opportunities for British workers and firms to share in the development of our nuclear industry?
I now turn to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. I had reservations about Secretaries of State giving up their ultimate right to sign off decisions, although I had no reservations at all about getting away from the enormously long and complicated inquiries that we have on virtually every major scheme that we try to bring about in this country, whether on transport, energy or whatever. The process was impossible to deal with. The problem now is not merely that the Government seem determined to turn the clock back and recreate a situation in which inquiries are simply benefit days for lawyers and decisions on schemes are not made quickly or in due time with due process. However, the very fact that they are now proposing a change to the IPC and to replace it with something else, or the old system, leads to uncertainty, which will itself lead to delays.
Mrs Spelman
On the Department for Communities and Local Government brief, I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. All the expertise within the IPC is within the planning inspectorate and will be retained for big projects that need to be dealt with in a timely fashion. There is no question of losing that expertise; it remains within the planning inspectorate. The difference is that the decisions will have to be taken by an elected politician—the Secretary of State.
Mr Betts
That seems slightly different from the information that we were given before. I am not necessarily opposed to the Secretary of State having to sign off those decisions; what I am opposed to is returning to the old method of inquiries and to the length of time that they took. If the right hon. Lady is saying that all that we are having is effectively a name change, so that the IPC will now be a branch of the Planning Inspectorate but the process and procedures in the Planning Act 2008, which introduced the IPC, are to be retained, that is different. It would therefore be helpful for a clear statement to be made at some point about precisely what will happen.
Let me turn to high-speed rail, which I also raised earlier today. Again, we have a clear difference in policy between the two parties in government. The issue is important to transport generally and to making our transport greener and more environmentally friendly. The Conservatives in opposition proposed a ridiculous scheme that was going to take a rail line out of Heathrow up to Birmingham, then up to Manchester and then somehow across the Pennines to Leeds. The reality is that the people in Leeds did not want the scheme, because that convoluted route to Leeds would not have saved time; that was one of the few times when Sheffield and Leeds were at one on the issue. We both wanted the high-speed line to branch off from Birmingham and go up through the east midlands to Sheffield and Leeds.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State gave an incorrect statement to the House earlier—I am sure that he did not do it intentionally—when he said that the previous Government did not have a clear policy on the issue. The previous Government’s policy was absolutely clear: it was that a branch of the line would go through the east midlands to Sheffield and Leeds. The Lib Dems supported us on that, and the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and I campaigned on the issue. Indeed, we had a cross-party campaign, involving the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) as well. However, the Conservatives in opposition had a different policy—a policy of going up to Manchester and then across to Leeds.
What is the position now? Will someone please tell us? The Government’s announcement the other day said that they supported a high-speed line. However, they mentioned Birmingham and Manchester, but they did not mention Sheffield, Leeds or Scotland. We have all been forgotten about. As I said to the Leader of the House in business questions earlier, the councils on the route of the line to Sheffield and Leeds, which were due to have a meeting in the next few days to discuss the exact route that the line was to take, have had that meeting cancelled, as though the decision has been taken at least to put a high-speed line to Sheffield and Leeds on the back burner. However, no one is telling hon. Members about that in the House. That is another example of the Government seeming to make decisions, but not informing Members about them in the House. Can we have a bit of clarity on that subject, too?
There are two other aspects of trying to get a greener transport system that I would like to be made clear. The tram-train project is due to pilot in Sheffield. The scheme chosen is a Sheffield to Rotherham connection, with the tram-train coming into Sheffield city centre. The scheme offers a great opportunity, in that although the costs of building new tramlines are particularly high in urban areas, linking underused railway lines into a tram system that already runs into the heart of a city offers real potential. Is the tram-train project one of the schemes to be cut, because it is not up and running, or are the Government committed to it?
Another issue that I would like to explore is the complete absence, as far as I can see, of any comment in the coalition agreement on another area where the two parties have distinctly opposite views—quality contracts for buses, which are important for getting people out of their cars and on to public transport, provided that that public transport has a degree of certainty and integration, and is reasonably priced. As we have seen in London, quality contracts work; as we have seen in places such as Sheffield, deregulation does not. The previous Government introduced the Local Transport Act 2008, which gave local transport authorities the right, after consultation, to go for quality contracts, if they considered them the best way of running transport in their areas.
We were castigated by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—now a member of the transport ministerial team—for not going far enough in Committee on that Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) changed the Bill substantially on Report to give greater powers and opportunities to local transport authorities to introduce quality contracts. However, in Committee as well as on Report and subsequently, the Conservative transport spokesperson said that the Conservatives were committed, if they got into government, to repealing the part of the Local Transport Act 2008 that gave transport authorities the ability to introduce quality contracts. What is the coalition’s position on quality contracts? Is it now intent on repealing the legislation, or will transport authorities that are about to consult on moving to quality contracts—such as South Yorkshire integrated transport authority and the transport executive—be allowed to go ahead with their plans? Again, could we have an answer on that issue, which appears to be missing?
I have two final issues to raise. Recycling was not much mentioned. I accept that recycling and how it is done is a matter best left to local authorities, but when the Secretary of State reads Hansard, perhaps he could have a word with the Lib Dem-controlled council in Sheffield. The council is seeking to remove from many of my constituents the green and blue bins for garden and paper waste, which are extremely popular, and replace them with green sacks, which rose thorns poke through and which people complain about, and, for paper waste, with blue boxes about the size of the Dispatch Box, if hon. Members can imagine that—boxes which, first, in many cases people cannot get two weeks of paper waste into, and which, secondly, people who are elderly or have a back problem cannot lift. That is a major disincentive to recycling. We are talking only about a local issue, and in the end it is a matter for the local council. However, now that the Lib Dems have so much power in the coalition, perhaps they could at least encourage some of their local councils to behave a bit more responsibly.
There is a lot more that I would like to say, particularly about the future plans for local government. I would support any moves to decentralise and devolve powers, but I just suspect that part of the agenda is about giving local authorities more power and less money, and then blaming them for the decisions that they have to make. However, we will no doubt have discussions about those issues in future. If the Government are really serious about reforming local government finance and giving more powers to local government to raise money, they will have my support and I will want to engage with them on the issue.
The Government could do an awful lot to reassure me. Let us deal properly with the decision on Sheffield Forgemasters, ensure that the nuclear research centre goes ahead, have a proper agreement on bus deregulation and get the high-speed rail link to Sheffield, and I will be happy.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Thank you for allowing me to make my maiden speech in this debate on the Gracious Speech, Mr Speaker. It is a particular pleasure to see you in your place, as I recall receiving public speaking training from you 20 years ago, so I hope that this speech shows that I have absorbed some of the wisdom that you imparted.
I wish to start by congratulating my predecessor on his achievements in the House on behalf of the people of Suffolk Coastal. John Gummer was, and is, one of the nicest, and most charming and immaculately turned-out former Members of this place. He had real intellect, capability, foresight and integrity, and he was an excellent debater in this House who commanded great respect. He will be remembered for his distinguished record in government—there are too many posts to list. However, not quite so often recalled is that he was chairman of the Conservative party at the time of the Brighton bombing, when he showed his cool under pressure, a quality that shone through in all his service as a Member.
John was ahead of others in recognising the challenge of the environment, although my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, in her 1989 speech at the UN, also warned of the issues that we face today and will face in future. However, the environment was the main reason for John’s departure from the House, so that he could make progress on global environmental initiatives. I believe that it was his wife Penny who commented that he is the only MP to give up being a Member in order to spend less time with his family, rather than more.
John was a man of principle in the House who will be remembered fondly by his constituents for his many years of diligent service. I was often told on the doorstep that I had big shoes to fill—luckily I take a size 8. John championed many local issues that I will continue to fight on. For example, he fought for better cardiac services at Ipswich hospital, and he was a strong voice on estuary and coastal erosion, as well as on farming and so many more issues that affected his constituents. I will keep fighting on those same issues, although I will not be John Gummer mark 2, and nor will my hon. Friend the new Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer).
I am very different from John, in that I am the first woman to represent a Suffolk seat. I am proud of that fact, which conveniently allows me to say a little more about my wonderful constituency of Suffolk Coastal. It is a truly pioneering place. Not only did we have the first woman mayor in the country, back in 1908 in Aldeburgh, in the shape of Dame Elizabeth Garrett Anderson—one of her pioneering achievements, in addition to those in the field of medicine—but radar was developed at Bawdsey. Indeed, the first text message was sent from Martlesham, where also fibre optics were developed by BT.
I hope that hon. Members will indulge me if I take them on a quick tour of my constituency. There are more than 100 parishes—hon. Members will be pleased to know that I am not going to name them all. They are special places, starting at the very top with Henver with Hulstead and continuing right down the A12 to the edge of Ipswich and on to the tip at Felixstowe, the premier container port of the UK, with a variety of market towns such as Halesworth, Saxmundham, Leiston and Woodbridge in between. There are also many special villages, including Westleton, where I live.
There are so many wonderful places in my constituency that I have to boast about them. Indeed, I have been approached by green-eyed Members who have visited my constituency. I welcome you all, especially if you are going to spend money there. Indeed, there are current and former Opposition Members who have second homes there, and many bird-twitchers come to visit the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’ world-renowned Minsmere reserve.
The defining feature of my constituency is its 74-mile coastline, with its delightful tourist hot spots of Aldeburgh and Southwold. However, the coastline—along with the estuaries—is really suffering from erosion, and I warn my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I shall be fighting hard to change the policies at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which seems happy to allow parts of my constituency simply to wash away into the sea, and to allow its devolved agencies to spend tens of millions of pounds on consulting on how we can allow that to happen, rather than using the cash to shore up the defences. I am not trying to be Canute—I am not telling the waves to go back—but nor do I want to be the person who is happy just to throw up their hands in the air and surrender.
I shall be pursuing many other rural issues, including farming. Suffolk Coastal is well known for its pigs, poultry and potatoes—and many other vegetables. I shall also be pressing on key rural issues such as access to health services, fuel poverty—especially among those who depend on oil and liquefied petroleum gas—our post office network and, of course, broadband access.
My diverse constituency also contains our beloved nuclear power station at Sizewell. I hope that we shall have many more reactors there—certainly at least two— before the end of the decade. Several offshore wind farms are also being constructed, with more planned. Suffolk Coastal is ready to take the lead in the low-carbon economy, and I hope that our coast will be able to take on the new alias of the “Green Coast”. So I welcome measures in the Gracious Speech on the low-carbon economy and the green investment bank.
I am really pleased by the calibre and pedigree of our new Ministers. If I may be so bold, I should like to extend an especially warm welcome to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. and real Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. and real Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice). They are people who really understand and value the countryside, and my constituents have been crying out for that for the past 13 years. Indeed, I hope that my hon. Friends will visit my constituency soon, not only to see how wonderful it is but to see the challenges that we face. Sadly, houses in Thorpeness are losing their gardens as we speak.
The Gracious Speech offers an ambitious programme for our country. I, too, am ambitious for my constituents of Suffolk Coastal, and I hope to play my part as the Member for that constituency in delivering success for Suffolk Coastal and for Britain.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her excellent maiden speech. Her love for her constituency really shone through.
As I rise to make my own maiden speech, I am conscious of, and deeply humbled by, the great privilege that the people of Islwyn have given me by electing me as their Member of Parliament. It is also a great honour to follow in the footsteps of two great champions of the Labour cause. The first MP for Islwyn was Neil Kinnock, and I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that his vision and foresight as the leader of my party contributed greatly to our victory in 1997.
I am also extremely honoured that my immediate predecessor was Don Touhig. I was fortunate to work for Don during the last four years of his 15 years as a Member of Parliament, and I witnessed at first hand the determination and commitment with which he fought for his constituents. The lives of countless constituents have been improved through his efforts, and, as a result, he is held in the highest regard by the people of Islwyn.
Don Touhig was also a great servant of this House, serving as a Minister at both the Wales Office and the Ministry of Defence. He was held in high esteem by all who worked with him. On a personal note, I am proud to call him my friend, and his words of advice and guidance in my first days in the House have been invaluable. I, too, have some very big shoes to fill, and I can promise the people of Islwyn that I will do all that I can to live up to the high standards set by my predecessors.
Islwyn comprises a series of small towns and villages scattered along the mountains and valleys of west Gwent, nestling comfortably in what could be termed the bible belt of Welsh rugby union. My constituency, like many parts of south Wales, suffered terribly at the hands of the last Tory Government. As a former mining district, Islwyn lost many jobs with the closure of the pits. Whereas the Tory Government abandoned the people of the valleys, I am proud to say that the last Labour Government stepped in to encourage companies to invest in south Wales.
One example of that is the support that the Government gave to General Dynamics, which was encouraged to come to my constituency, and which is still creating jobs for us. One of the last acts of the Labour Government was to award the contract for the new specialist vehicle to General Dynamics. In my constituency alone, that decision will create 200 new jobs and secure a further 250. That is the sort of support for industry and jobs that is so vital to delivering economic recovery, and I urge the new Government to follow the example set by the previous one in that regard.
Those of us fortunate enough to be born in the south Wales valleys grow up with a deep sense of community and belonging. Above all, valleys people are known for their generosity, kind hearts and resilience. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the campaign to restore the Newbridge Memo, the memorial hall in the centre of the town. The Memo was built in 1924 by the contributions of local miners, as a lasting memorial to local servicemen who lost their lives during world war one. The name of every serviceman from the town who answered the call to serve our country is listed on the walls of the Memo. The names are not just of those who gave their lives, but of everyone from Newbridge who was ever called to the colours.
The House should be aware of how important coal mining was for the Welsh valleys. Sadly, however, many people have forgotten how significant coal mining was to our communities in south Wales. It is, therefore, extremely important that the restoration of the Memo goes ahead, because, for some of us, it is our last link to the historic past of the valleys in which we were born. The Memo is not a celebration of the great and the good; rather, it serves as a tribute to the role that working-class people played in making this country of ours great. Thanks to the efforts of the Friends of the Newbridge Memo, it is much more than just a memorial to a bygone age. It is the living, beating heart of the town of Newbridge. It is a palace for the valleys—a palace for working people to enjoy and celebrate. It deserves a great future. Like my predecessor, who threw his weight behind the campaign, I will do everything that I can to see it restored to its former glory.
For me, that campaign demonstrates the strong and vibrant sense of community that is prevalent in Islwyn. However, that is not to say that we do not have our problems. The credit crunch has come to our attention on a national scale in the recent past, but many people in Islwyn have been experiencing a crisis of credit for many years. Unlike many other EU countries, the UK does not guarantee people legal access to affordable credit. Lenders can refuse to lend to anyone, for any reason, and they can charge any price for their lending. They can, and do, impose interest rates at percentage rates in the thousands.
When I did some research into this, I found that Safe Loans, for example, charges a typical annual percentage rate of 2,120.1% on 30-day loans, and that Wonga charges a typical APR of a huge 2,689%. I can well remember that, when I was a child, doorstep lenders such as Provident would charge high interest rates and hammer on doors while people cowered inside because they did not have the money to pay them. These extortionate rates of interest are simply disgraceful, and we should not allow companies such as those to take advantage of the vulnerability of some of the poorest in our society. The fact that we tolerate such practices means that many people are unable to obtain credit without extortionate cost.
One answer is for the Government to provide support for the credit unions, which provide credit at reasonable rates to people who would otherwise not have access to it. The Islwyn Community credit union, like all credit unions, is committed to building its members’ wealth. By contrast, our banks seem to have been committed for too long to building wealth only for themselves. Banks really should take a leaf out of the credit unions’ book, and see their role as being a part of the community, rather than trying to profit from it.
The last Government provided £98.75 million-worth of support to credit unions and community development finance institutions, which provide support for small businesses. They also legislated to ensure that credit unions can fairly compete with mainstream providers of financial services. As a result of these measures, credit union membership has more than doubled since 2000, yet strengthening the credit union movement is only a small step in tackling financial exclusion. In their last Budget, and in subsequent announcements, the last Government pledged to introduce a range of measures to tackle financial exclusion, including requiring banks to provide bank accounts to all consumers with a valid address, transforming the Post Office into a people’s bank, and consulting on requiring banks to disclose the extent to which they are under-serving their communities. If seen through, these measures would ensure that bank operations serve all parts of the community, so they can really make a difference to tackling financial exclusion. I urge the new Government to adopt and pursue these measures with all the vigour they can muster.
In addition to the problem of financial exclusion, we find ourselves in a unique economic situation that will require us to make large cuts to public spending, which will affect all parts of the United Kingdom. In making these cuts, we must ensure that we do not hurt the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
Under the last Government, hundreds of thousands of people were lifted out of poverty, and we must ensure we do not send those people back into it. There are some in this House who propose cutting tax credits. To do so would pass the burden for reducing the deficit on to families that are struggling to make ends meet. To cut tax credits would punish the poor for the greed of the very rich. This would be morally reprehensible, and I urge the new Government to protect tax credits, as doing so would shield the poorest and most vulnerable in our society from the impact of the crisis.
I am also deeply concerned about the Government’s plan to abolish the child trust fund, which will jeopardise the future of our children by cutting down on their options as they enter adulthood. For well-off parents, it might—just might—be possible to fund trust funds to support their children, but for those who are already struggling to get by, the state-supported child trust fund is the only chance they have of producing a nest egg for their children. I therefore urge the new Government to reconsider and ask them to reinstate the child trust fund and protect the future of our children.
We face great challenges ahead, but in facing them we must strive always to make choices that are fair and equitable. As we tackle the deficit, we must strive to protect the vulnerable and the young. We must also seize the opportunities this crisis presents to build a fairer financial system in this country. If we do, we will build a fairer and more just country, which will mean a greater Britain—not just for some, but for all.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am very grateful indeed to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak on the Gracious Speech. May I say how well the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke in his maiden speech? I must also pay tribute to my predecessor, Laura Moffatt, who represented the Crawley constituency for 13 years. Laura did that job extremely diligently. I pay tribute to the work that she, a former nurse, did in speaking up in this place on behalf of, and seeking to change the regulations for, health care workers who suffer from needlestick injuries. She certainly helped to provide a safer environment for the front-line health care workers whom we rely on in our national health service. That is highly commendable. Even before she was elected in 1997, she had a long and distinguished career as a member of Crawley borough council and she was also a former mayor of the borough, holding such important positions as chair of the housing committee. We should all pay tribute to Laura for her long public service as a nurse—she was the first nurse ever elected to this place—as a borough councillor, as a mayor and, most recently, as Member of Parliament for Crawley.
Crawley is a great borough and a great constituency, and it is my great honour to have been elected by the people of Crawley to represent them in this Chamber. Crawley is a new town, but has a long history. The three principal villages that made up the original area were Crawley, Ifield and Worth, all of which were mentioned in the Domesday Book, but it was perhaps in the middle ages that, through its iron working, Crawley really started to flourish as a centre of industry. Many of the remnants of that industry, in the form of hammer ponds, still exist in the area: there is still a hammer pond in the centre of Tilgate park—the premier park of the constituency—now providing a great leisure facility for families to enjoy when the weekends are sunny.
Several centuries ago, Crawley expanded further as the main stopping-off place for people travelling from London to the south coast. Notable buildings include the medieval George hotel in the high street, which is still a hostelry today. Perhaps Crawley really came into its own when it was designated as a new town after the second world war. It was originally designed to have a population of approximately 50,000 people, although it has grown to in excess of 100,000 people today. It is a very successful community.
Whether they be first or second generation, people in Crawley have typically come from somewhere else either in this country or from around the world. I am a migrant to Crawley constituency myself. However, there is an extremely strong sense of community for a new town, which holds the local community in very good stead indeed.
One of the most significant industries—in fact, the most significant—in the constituency is the nation’s second-largest airport, Gatwick. It is a major local employer and driver of the local economy. I am delighted that the new coalition Government, West Sussex county council, Crawley borough council, the new owners of Gatwick airport, as well as myself, all agree with the future way forward for the airport in that we all want to see passenger numbers grow from the current 35 million throughput passengers a year up to a potential 45 million, and we want to see many more scheduled flights rather than just charter and low-cost flights departing and entering the airport. Equally, we agree with the new coalition Government and the new owners of Gatwick airport in rejecting runway expansion at this time. I think that that will provide the economic growth that we need for the airport and therefore for the local economy, while safeguarding and helping to protect the local environment. The balance between achieving economic development while ensuring that we protect and enhance our environment rather than destroy it as we go forward was debated earlier today and it will continue to be debated not just as an issue relevant to my constituency, but to the country as a whole.
I wish to raise another issue relevant to the Crawley constituency—health care. It was a source of great regret when, five years ago, Crawley hospital saw its A and E department downgraded so that people had to travel 10 miles up the road into another county to receive those vital services. Several years prior to that, Crawley hospital saw its maternity unit transferred out of the constituency—indeed, out of the county as well. During the obviously happy time when my two children were born in 2003 and 2005, it was a source of regret that they could not be born in their home town. Another source of regret is that Crawley is the only settlement in the UK with a population of more than 100,000 that does not have a hospital to supply A and E and maternity services. I was involved in an important campaign which I co-chaired with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude) to get those hospital services brought back to the important population and transportation centre that the Crawley constituency represents.
I want to mention one special community that has come to live in Crawley. I mentioned that many people have chosen to settle there from around the country and around the world. Citizens of the Chagos Islands, particularly of Diego Garcia, were exiled from their home islands in the late 1960s. A decision was made by Order in Council—it did not come to this place, which I think was quite wrong—to make way for an airbase on Diego Garcia, which meant that those people were deported from their home island against their will, and they had to live in relative poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Seven years ago, they started to arrive at Gatwick airport and they have been very successful in making Crawley their home. There is now a population of nearly 2,000 Chagossian and Diego Garcian people and their descendants in Crawley.
I look forward to arguing on behalf of those people, during my time as Member of Parliament for Crawley, that they have a human right to return to their islands should they so wish, either to visit or to live there permanently. I believe that, having been removed in quite a shameful way, they should be allowed to claim that human right. It is an honour to be given the opportunity to speak on their behalf in my maiden speech.
Tomorrow, I shall cease to be leader of West Sussex county council, a position that I have been privileged to hold for nearly seven years. I cannot help thinking that, after being a somewhat big fish in a small pool, I am now a somewhat smaller fish in a somewhat larger pool. I hope that, as I become used to these larger waters, I shall be able to speak up for the rights of local government and the principle of decentralisation of power away from Whitehall to our local authorities. I believe it is a very important principle that, where services are largely locally delivered, they should be largely locally decided on. I look forward to playing my part in this coalition Government in the devolving of power down to our elected local governments, and the extension of the authority that individuals and communities have over the important public services that are locally delivered.
Let me again thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker, for calling me during the debate on the Gracious Speech. I am grateful for the attention of the House.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), both of whom were generous to their predecessors and passionate advocates for their communities. They are welcome additions to the House and I have no doubt that they will benefit our public life.
Let me also pay tribute to the former, now shadow, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). He undertook his duties with rare passion, commitment and insight, and I believe that all of us, in the House and in the country, are the better for it. In Copenhagen no one worked harder to secure a deal, and at home I expect the heavy lifting represented by the last Government’s energy policy to bring substantial relief to the new Government. I urge them to build on what we achieved. I certainly hope that they will do so, especially when it comes to nuclear energy, on which I declare my usual interests.
Let me also congratulate the new Secretary of State and the new Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), on their appointments. It would have been an unlikely pairing only a few weeks ago, but I wish them both every success. Energy policy is undoubtedly one of the most important issues of our age, and as such it should be above the often petty squabbles of party politics both inside and outside this place. Energy policy and the increasingly vital set of policies that rest upon it—particularly environmental and economic policies—require a common approach supported by a broad consensus of support. I look forward to playing my part in helping to achieve that and achieving it quickly, because time is running out for us all. Critical decisions must be made now, and the momentum established by the last Government must be maintained in the national interest, the interests of the House and the interests of the people of this country.
Although I was pleased to note the reference to energy policy in the Queen’s Speech, I regretted the absence of any specific mention of nuclear energy, on which I now wish to concentrate. Some important issues need to be clarified and I hope that either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will address them.
Let me begin with the subsidy for nuclear power generation. Much has been said today, and written in recent weeks, by the new Ministers, but clarification is now urgently required, not just for the House but for investors. I have always supported public subsidies for new nuclear generation, which I consider necessary to facilitate its establishment in the United Kingdom. After all, nearly every energy source in the UK receives, or will soon receive, one subsidy or another—for instance, through grants for landowners to grow biofuels or erect windmills, for the establishment of gas storage facilities, or for the development of carbon capture and storage. All those activities are in some way subsidised by the public purse. It is recognised throughout the developed world that energy policy and power generation are too important to be left to the market; they need the strategic support and intervention of Government. Why should nuclear be different?
Let us consider what subsidies will be necessary for new nuclear generation in this country. The Civil Nuclear Constabulary is an essential part of our nuclear industry, as are the Office for Civil Nuclear Security and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. All those bodies exist to support our nuclear industry, and all are supported by significant sums of public money. Does that funding, which is wholly and exclusively required by and because of the nuclear industry, represent a subsidy for the industry? By any definition, it does. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has no plans to remove these organisations or reduce their budgets?
The national grid requires serious public investment to facilitate the new generation of new nuclear power stations that the nation needs. The case for it is unarguable. Is that a subsidy? Will the Secretary of State commit himself today to making the necessary investments, along with new nuclear developers, to make new nuclear happen now, particularly in my constituency?
The process of establishing an underground deep waste repository—physically, economically and politically—will require billions of pounds of public money, some of which will be required during the present Parliament. New nuclear development demands that the project finally be implemented. Is that a subsidy? Will the Secretary of State commit himself today to continuing the policies of the last Government in that policy area, particularly in connection with the principle of voluntarism?
Britain’s nuclear renaissance could and should create about 100,000 new jobs, well paid and highly skilled, but our manufacturing base requires strategic help to maximise the benefits of our nuclear programme. Sheffield Forgemasters, and other crucial elements of the supply chain in West Cumbria and Barrow, require financial support from Government to help us to develop our industrial capacity and capability and to deliver our programme. Is that a subsidy, and can the Secretary of State confirm today that all pledges of financial support for the supply chain made before 6 May will now be honoured in the national interest?
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is by far the biggest departmental financial responsibility of the Secretary of State, undertakes remarkable and unique work. Its establishment was necessary and a real success of the last Government. I shall deal with NDA issues in more depth shortly, but let me say now that the NDA sustains the UK’s nuclear work force and the skills base that is necessary if our new nuclear programme is to succeed. Public money is required. Is that a subsidy?
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for visiting the Sellafield site in my constituency yesterday to apprise themselves of issues associated with it and with the NDA. It was a welcome portent, and I am grateful for them for visiting the site at such an early stage. However, it is important for those who pursue policies in this sphere to recognise not just the successes but the failures of the past. I do not think that we should look to the United States for examples of what to do; it is probably better to look to it for what not to do. It is imperative, however, that funding for the NDA and for nuclear decommissioning, particularly at Sellafield, is not only ring-fenced but increased. The decommissioning mission, and the credibility of the nuclear industry and the nuclear renaissance, depend on our ability to undertake those tasks.
Albert Owen
Once again, my hon. Friend is showing great expertise. Would not one way of helping the NDA to obtain resources be to extend current nuclear power station generation? Nuclear power stations are safer now than they have ever been. Such action would not only help the NDA, but meet our future energy requirements.
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I hope that he and I can lend our expertise to the new Government so that the issues can be examined in a considered, grown-up way, and solutions found that will benefit not just the NDA but our communities. The commercial missions for which the NDA is responsible, particularly reprocessing and fuel manufacture at Sellafield, must surely continue. THORP, the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, is still the largest single yen earner in the United Kingdom economy.
The Sellafield MOX plant has had its problems—they are well detailed and we know them—but it has just secured some new contracts. Together, they represent potentially billions of pounds of investment into the UK economy and the local economy. Increasing commercial revenues is also the single most effective way of reducing the decommissioning burden upon the taxpayer. I look forward to working not only with the Minister of State and Secretary of State, but with everybody who has an interest in these issues across the House to make sure that that takes place.
I will always work with anyone on either side of the House who understands the needs of my constituents and recognises and supports the ambitions of my community in the way that the last Labour Government did. So far, however, there are a number of weaknesses that I am duty bound to point out in the approach towards nuclear that the coalition Government have expressed. I want to help the Government to remove these weaknesses, but it will require change on their part.
The notion of no new nuclear without any public subsidy should be abandoned. Public money inevitably will be used in the way in which I have outlined. Funding for the NDA must not only be maintained, but increased. The NDA, a vital and uniquely important body, must itself be maintained and unequivocally supported. Above all, the energy coast programme, enthusiastically supported by two previous Prime Ministers and the last Government, must be supported and funded. The programme of works within the plan is entirely within the national interest. Let me be clear; if the funding pledged by the last Government to the new West Cumberland hospital, to our cottage hospitals in Keswick and Milham, to our new health centres, to our new schools and to higher education investment and more is cut by the Government, the consequences of that for my constituents, and for the Government, will be profound.
We must continue to secure new reprocessing contracts and fuel manufacturing contracts at Sellafield. Refusal to do this would be to work against the best interests of this country. As an Opposition Member, I am paid to scrutinise but I will not oppose for the sake of it. Where I believe the new Government get energy policy right, I will support them. Where I believe they get it wrong, I will not. I wish them well. Let us quickly remove these potentially very serious weaknesses and work together.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Mr Speaker, congratulations on your re-election and thank you for giving me the privilege of speaking in the Queen’s Speech debate.
I have had the privilege of being elected for the same part of my borough for the eighth time and I say to colleagues elected for the first time, to whom I pay tribute, the excitement does not pale just because we have gone through the democratic process again. The honour is always as great and the sheer equality of the democratic process, which means that everybody’s vote counts the same, reminds us to be humble about the privilege we have of being here.
I am seeking to speak in this debate because, in the last Parliament, I was responsible in our party for these issues. I enjoyed that task immensely and have taken a long interest in environmental and energy issues. I wish the two Secretaries of State and their ministerial team all the best in what is one of the most important areas of public policy for us to get right.
As someone who sat for 27 years on the Opposition side of the House, haranguing Government to be greener—[Hon. Members: “Come back.”] No, I am certainly not coming back. I plan to stay on this side of the House for the rest of my career. It is encouraging to hear the Government say—I believe them—that this will be the greenest Government ever, which will be in everybody’s interest. It was great that one of the first things the Government did was to sign up, as a Government, to the 10:10 campaign, which I endorsed on behalf of my party on the day it was launched last September at Tate Modern.
I draw the attention of the House, and those outside, to the huge number of policy commitments made in the areas of energy and climate change and environment, food and rural affairs; 24 specific commitments of policy made under the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and 18 made under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That shows the seriousness of intent of both coalition partners to the enterprise of changing the way in which we do business in Britain.
It would be remiss of me to fail to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). He knows that I hold him in high regard and had a very good working relationship with him. I applauded him when I thought he was doing the right thing and encouraged him in the work he did at Copenhagen. I thanked him for that and I do so again. He also talks a good talk as well as having real convictions in policy terms. I wish him well in his leadership election and I say to him that we were glad to have him as the first Secretary of State for the Department. He set a high standard to be followed; I am sure it will be. We had disagreements on certain issues, but I would not want that to undermine the value of what he did. The Government did not always meet their targets—on biodiversity, fuel poverty or renewables, for example—although one would not normally have known that to hear the then Secretary of State. I hope that the new Government will do better.
I want to select a couple of subject areas that I think are important and to encourage the Government to be strong. I will then deal with two things of huge importance. First, it is important that the Government have made the commitment to the green investment bank. If we are to have a sustainable economy, we need the mechanism to fund the initiatives that come with it. That relates to the future of apprenticeships and sustainable jobs in the manufacturing industries of the future. We have missed many tricks over the past 25 years by not being ahead of the game. Other countries have overtaken us and we must now catch up and go forward. Colleagues who are warning that the review of investment decisions made by the previous Government means the end of that should bide their time. This Government will not want, as a matter of policy, to pull the plug on good green investment decisions made by the last Government.
Secondly, as I indicated in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, it is a real challenge, but a real opportunity, to make every home in Britain that is practicably able to be a warm home. More than 25% of the emissions in our country come from the domestic sector, or badly insulated homes. The programme that the Liberal Democrats put in their manifesto was ambitious; it granted people up to £10,000 to be spent in a home that passes the test and worked that through the devolved Administrations and local government in England. I hope that the new programme will allow a programme to start in 2012 for 10 years. That would make a fantastic contribution, not just to reducing fuel bills for people, to preventing untimely deaths of the old and vulnerable and to reducing our emissions, but it would produce huge numbers of jobs and apprenticeships in the building and construction industries. It is a win, win, win, win agenda item. As a postscript, let us not forget the homes that are off the mains, because they need assistance too.
Thirdly it is important that the Government continue to build and support small rural communities that have suffered too much from the loss of primary schools, post offices and, sometimes, pubs, as well as the loss of cheap housing for people who work on the land. That must remain a focus of Government across the UK and I know that Ministers are aware of the importance of them as the lifeblood of rural communities.
Lastly, it is great that we have had so quickly the decision that there will not be a third runway at Heathrow and that we will not have expansion at Gatwick and Stansted. We must understand that it is not necessary to go on building more airports and airport capacity in the south-east. If we go ahead, as we will, with a high speed rail network—not just in Britain, but across Europe—people will begin to understand the environmentally better ways of travelling. That requires other things; my friends in the Department for Transport know that it requires fare structures that work better and encourage people to use trains by making travelling across Europe something one can do as easily by train as one has in the past by plane.
The first of the two big issues that I want to flag up is biodiversity, alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. This is the international year of biodiversity but the EU target to halt the loss of biodiversity by this year has been missed. I ask all Ministers to look at the report issued last week by the United Nations and the international committee set up to deal with these matters. The report makes it clear how badly we are doing and how serious the issue is. It says:
“The target agreed by the world’s Governments in 2002, ‘to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth has not been met…Species which have been assessed for extinction risk are on average moving closer to extinction…Natural habitats in most parts of the world continue to decline in extent and integrity…Extensive fragmentation and degradation of forests, rivers and other ecosystems have also led to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services…The five principal pressures directly driving biodiversity loss (habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change) are either constant or increasing in intensity.”
I hope the Government will take this issue seriously in all their Departments, and not only at home in the four countries of the UK, but across Europe and internationally. Unless we save the land of which we are the stewards, we may not have a land worth saving, and there may be greater risks as well.
It would be surprising if the second matter I commented on was not the nuclear industry, especially as I am following the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who stands up vigorously, and very coherently, for his constituency, which is what I would expect. My party and I do not agree with nuclear power. I have not changed my view as a result of the election. We think that it would produce too little in terms of energy, that it would be too late and too expensive, that it would need public subsidy—in effect, the hon. Gentleman accepted that—and that it would be too dangerous. The process that has been negotiated and agreed has been arrived at as a result of an acceptance by my colleagues in government that there is majority support in the Government and across the House for nuclear power, but it does not seek to change the mind of those of us who think it is the wrong way to go.
I hope that that approach will be coupled with one other thing. I have made this request to both the previous and current Secretary of State. The Government are required formally to justify proceeding to nuclear power. That is called the process of justification. It is required under European Union law, and it looks at the cost-benefit analysis and the health risks. A draft justification has been written, but the Secretary of State is entitled to call for a public inquiry on the justification for nuclear power. It need not be a long inquiry—it could last for a year—but I believe that if we are to have science and evidence-led policy, the right way to proceed towards making the decisions on these matters, coupled with the view that there should be no subsidy, is for the Government to announce in the near future that there will be a public inquiry into the justification. I might add that I do not believe that we in this country will ever have a future generation of nuclear power if the private sector has to pick up the pieces, but we will wait and see.
Albert Owen
Although the hon. Gentleman and I hold diametrically opposed views on nuclear power, I respect the firm stance he takes on the matter. What he has just said about kicking things even further into the long grass will dismay those people who want to invest in the industry now, and are prepared to do so. Will he explain his party’s policy—not the coalition’s—on the extension of current nuclear power stations, which are generating safely as we speak now? Will they have the opportunity to extend their generating life and thus maintain high-skill jobs in this sector?
Simon Hughes
First, let me say that, in the context of the hon. Gentleman’s beautiful island, I understand why he holds to his position on this matter. I understand, of course, that Wylfa has produced jobs in the nuclear industry, as Trawsfynydd did before it, and that the people in north Wales need jobs. We hold different views, and that is the result of all sorts of factors working on us. My party’s policy is that we would continue to use the existing fleet of nuclear power stations, but we would not artificially continue them and we would not want to build new ones. That has been the Liberal Democrat policy over the years. We are obviously in new territory now, and there will be new processes, and the hon. Gentleman and I will, no doubt, continue to participate in the debates on the matter.
The fact that part of my constituency, which is just over the bridge, has had MPs continuously since 1285—or, perhaps, 1295—reminds us that we are all just passing creatures in this place. There are two big issues that my constituents would expect me to mention. We still need affordable housing in large measure, and that must be a Government priority. Of course tackling this is difficult, but things need to be improved and we need many new properties to be built. I do not think there is a single constituency in the country that does not have an affordable housing need, and Bermondsey and Old Southwark certainly has that need. We will also continue to need apprenticeships and jobs in lasting industries, and I will take every opportunity to encourage the Government to address that.
I want to end in a slightly unusual, personal way. For my family, 27 May is a difficult day, as it is the anniversary of both our grandmother’s death and my dad’s; he died on 27 May a long time ago—in 1976. He would have been very excited, as any parent would, at his son sitting in Parliament, although he never lived to see that, but he would have also wanted me to be here to do something, because that is what he was all about. His agenda would have been, “Make sure you support manufacturing industry.” He was a brewer and understood that unless we make things, we do not earn to pay our way. He would also have said, “Make sure that young people have the chance of going on to college even if they cannot afford it.” He would have encouraged me to oppose tuition fees, which I do. Lastly, he would have said, “Make sure we continue to look after our troops in the front line, when they go and fight for our country,” which we must do. I will say one other thing in his honour. He died of cancer, and we must continue the research and development to ensure that fewer people die of cancer and that diagnosis happens quickly so that people have the best chance of being treated, for all our families and all our constituents.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I also thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for laying the runway for me to take flight today, and for touching at the end of his speech on some very poignant issues, which are relevant to many Members of all parties. He talked about supporting our troops, supporting employment and job development, and supporting cancer patients. That last issue is personally relevant to me and my family, and I echo the hon. Gentleman’s call that this Government must release funding to ensure certain cancer drugs are available for cancer sufferers, so they do not have to pay for them themselves. I support that call.
All new Members are awestruck when we enter the Chamber. There is anticipation about what lies before us as parliamentarians, and we are also fully aware of the history of this place. I was graciously mentioned by speakers in Tuesday’s debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). They both encouraged me by saying, “Don’t worry, it’s okay to be talked about in this place. It’s when you’re not talked about that things are not so good.” They gave me a very warm welcome: they said, “Welcome home.”
Being welcomed home here is a bit more relevant to me than it might be to some other Members whose fathers have sat on these Benches for 40 years or so—I am thinking of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), although he beats me in one regard, as his father sat on these Benches for 50 years. Although it was said earlier that most people leave this House to spend more time with their family, I suppose it could be said that I come to this House to spend a little more time with my family members, who have sat in this House or sit in the other place now. It is therefore good to be here.
I have to follow in giant footsteps. My constituency boasts the Giant’s Causeway and I have to follow, ever so lightly, in the footsteps of a giant public representative, who represented North Antrim for four decades and made the case on behalf of its people without fear or favour. He made an imprint on not only Ulster politics, the politics of this House and British politics, but on Irish politics, and I salute him for the stand that he made. I know that when making a maiden speech one has to say something complimentary about one’s predecessors. One hon. Member advised me that I could use parliamentary privilege to say what I want about my father, but I must say that what you see is what you get with him; there is nothing else to tell hon. Members, and perhaps that will come as a relief to many.
I am very proud of the former Member of Parliament for North Antrim, my father, who represented the constituency so well. He set me a challenge before the election, saying, “If you don’t get elected, you are no son of mine.” I am glad that the 19,000-odd people who voted for me confirmed my parentage on election day and did not leave me with that scar. As I say, it is a privilege to follow someone who has been not just part of history, but a history maker. That greatly encourages me and I salute my father, the former Member, today.
Given the longevity of my father’s service, I do not have many texts to look back through to read maiden speeches made by former Members for North Antrim. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to warn you that the previous maiden speech made by a Member for the constituency was considered to have broken every rule in the book. By all accounts, it was far too long and was definitely controversial—the Member was called to order while making his speech—and I understand that, at times, it was even far too loud. I hope that you will indulge me today; I will not commit any of those misdemeanours. Perhaps on other occasions you will indulge us Ulster Members as we continue our controversies from time to time.
The contrast between the time when the former Member for North Antrim made his maiden speech in 1970 and the time when I do so could not be more stark. When he made his speech, Ulster was tearing itself apart; there was civil unrest, economic uncertainty and political instability. I am glad that today, when I have the privilege of making my maiden speech on behalf of the electors of North Antrim, we know that the helplessness has given way to hope and that the heartache has given way to heart rejoicing, and we see that terrorism has been turned on its head and that there has been a dramatic change in the situation in Northern Ireland. It has lead to hope and to economic opportunity, despite the cuts being threatened by the Government. It is an opportunity for all the people, and I welcome that. I look forward to working in this Parliament to make that hope become a reality for all my constituents and all the people of Northern Ireland, because that is incredibly important.
I also believe that instead of terror being the order of the day, criminality has, in many instances, taken over in Northern Ireland, as it has in any other part of this United Kingdom. The Independent Monitoring Commission reported on Northern Ireland yesterday, but by and large terrorism has been checked, although problems with dissident republicans remain. I am aware that combating crime is as relevant to dealing with the issues in my constituency and my country as it is to dealing with issues in the rest of this nation. I wish to concentrate my remarks and make an appeal to this Government on combating crime.
Fuel smuggling and fuel laundering in Northern Ireland account for a loss to the Exchequer of £245 million a year, but it could be stopped almost immediately. It could be checked, with the criminals put in the dock, and people whose lawful trade is affected by smuggling would see it brought to an end. How can that be done? I shall make two suggestions and I hope that this Government are listening. I hope that they will reduce fuel duty in regions such as Northern Ireland. It shares a land border with another member state whose duty is lower than ours and therefore attracts the smugglers. The Government should fingerprint or DNA our fuel, so that it is impossible to launder and so that we can catch the culprits involved in that illegal trade. I hope that the Government will do that and make moves to build on some of the development work that was done by the previous Administration, who were examining that approach as a way forward. I also appeal to this Government not to increase that duty in a region whose energy costs are already so high that they are disproportionate. They affect business and the wherewithal of the economy to cope at this time. I hope that the Government are listening to that plea.
I shall conclude by commenting about my constituency. Although I was attracted by many of the remarks made by some of my colleagues in their maiden speeches about how wonderful their constituencies are, I believe that my constituency is the finest constituency—not because it has returned me but because it is a wonderful place. It has the geographic splendours of the Giant’s Causeway and the Slemish mountain and enjoys some wonderful cities that have brought forward some wonderful people. For example, the market town of Ballymoney brought forward my sporting heroes—the motorcycle racers Joey Dunlop and Robert Dunlop. The market town of Ballymena is known as the city of the seven towers and I hope that during my tenure as Member of Parliament, Ballymena will get city status and become a city not just in name but by charter. There is, of course, the holiday resort of Ballycastle and the 20 or so villages in between that make up the backbone of a large rural constituency that boasts tobacco manufacturing, bus making and whiskey brewing in the oldest whiskey distillery in the United Kingdom, and indeed in the world, Bushmills. Of course, we also have the manufacture of tyres at Michelin and of agri-food, which is probably our largest single industry. Those industries alone employ the vast bulk of people in my constituency.
Today, we are dealing with DEFRA issues, and I was disappointed that the Queen’s Speech said very little about agri-food production, as I believe that agri-food production is the way forward. It certainly is for my part of the United Kingdom. It is important in creating jobs, employment and development. I wish that there was a little more coming from those on the Government Front Bench about frustrating a European agenda that is clearly against Northern Ireland producing its food, and which frustrates the production of that food. I hope that the Government and this Parliament will stand up to those who would seek to frustrate us in the production of our food, just as we stand up to other more powerful nations, such as Brazil, Argentina and other countries across Europe, that produce milk, beef and lamb. I hope that we will get support from the Government. One way that they could do that would be to make good on the promise that was made before the election about an ombudsman for the supermarkets. I hope that that is done, because it will be essential in stopping the perception that prices are fixed.
I want our farmers to be a success. I want to see new talent and new blood coming into farms. Although I am delighted that my father worked until he was 84, I meet farmers every day who are still working at 84 and their 50-year-old sons cannot get into farming. I want to see their grandsons getting into farming and that will only happen if the Government stand up to support our agri-industry.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). It seems that his constituency has yet another passionate and powerful advocate to represent it in this Chamber. I am sure that Members will also have been delighted to see his father present in the Gallery to witness his speech. I, too, have the distinction of following in giant footsteps, and I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity so early in this Parliament to pay tribute to my predecessor, Michael Howard.
Michael Howard will be known by many Members on both sides of the House for his 27 years of service to his constituents and his fine record in Government, too, as Secretary of State for the Environment and for Employment and—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) will allow me this observation at this moment—as possibly the finest Home Secretary that this country has seen since the war. He will also be fondly remembered by Members on this side of the House for his leadership of our party. He did not lead us to ultimate victory, but we would credit him with turning the corner of our fortunes and laying the foundations for the success that we enjoyed at the last general election. I was also privileged in my four years as the prospective parliamentary candidate for Folkestone and Hythe to benefit from his friendship, judgment and insight. I was very grateful for that.
In an interview for a book published recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned that Michael Howard had one of those brilliant lawyerly minds that meant that he could win an argument even when he was in the wrong. I am sure that all those who have known him and worked with him will have seen that quality represented first hand. He was undoubtedly one of the finest politicians of his generation in the Conservative party and we remember him warmly for that. He was also dogged and determined in the pursuit of the interests of his constituents. In that regard, he was certainly a man who had something of the fight about him and something of the right about him.
I have the distinction of being the fourth Member to be elected to serve the constituency of Folkestone and Hythe since its creation in 1950, although the Cinque Port towns of Hythe and New Romney, within its boundaries, have been represented continuously since the very first Parliament was summoned by Simon de Montfort in 1265. I am conscious—as were previous speakers, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said—that I follow not just one distinguished predecessor, but a long line of people who have represented the people of Folkestone and Hythe in Parliaments over the years. That is certainly a great honour.
I should like to indulge the House with reference to two former Members whose careers might be particularly relevant to the political times that we find ourselves in today. Sir Edward Watkin, who was a Victorian railway magnate and responsible for one of the early attempts to build a channel tunnel at Folkestone, rebelled from his party in 1886 and sat as a Liberal Unionist in support of the Conservative Administration of the time. Sir Philip Sassoon, who created the beautiful Port Lympne estate in my constituency and was a cousin of Siegfried Sassoon, the war poet, was elected as a Conservative Member, but in 1920 served as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to David Lloyd George in a post-war coalition Government.
The constituency is large and varied. It stretches for some 20 miles along the coast, from the Battle of Britain memorial just to the east of Folkestone, to Dungeness and the Kent-Sussex border. Inland, it includes the unique landscape of Romney marsh and the beauty of the Elham valley and the north downs. The entrance and exit of the channel tunnel is based in my constituency. Folkestone itself, although no longer a seaport and ferry port, is undergoing a very exciting process of regeneration, as it becomes a new hub for creativity and the arts, and I believe that it has a very bright future.
The constituency also included for the first time in an election the Saxon Shore ward, taken in from Ashford borough, but true cartographers would probably say that the constituency’s boundaries are constantly changing, not owing to the pains of the Boundary Commission but because of the shifting shingle peninsula at Dungeness, which is constantly moving with the climate. The force of nature is seen by the location of lighthouses that were once offshore but are now hundreds of yards inland. It is a truly unique place in the English landscape. Charles Harper referred to it in his 1914 guide to the Kentish coast as
“one of the most remarkable places in England...a waste of shingle, with here and there a sparse patch of gorse, and stretching as far as the eye can reach.”
That landscape has not changed much but for the notable addition of the arrival of nuclear power in the 1960s. Nuclear power at Dungeness is an issue in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), the Minister for energy, knows that I have taken a strong interest, and on which I have corresponded with him. I should like to address some remarks in this debate to nuclear power at Dungeness.
Dungeness A power station was given approval in 1959, and a B-generation power station was commissioned in the 1960s and opened in the 1980s. That power station is due to start being decommissioned in 2017. There had been a long-held assumption in my constituency that we would be benefit from a new generation nuclear power station, as part of the Government’s new build programme. Earlier in the debate today, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) cautioned us against sending out mixed messages on the future of nuclear power. Certainly, my constituents heard a very evident mixed message from the last Government: Dungeness was originally included on the Government’s list of possible sites for new build nuclear power stations and was then removed last autumn, and there has followed a consultation process in which my constituents have taken an active and lively interest.
There is a great deal of support for nuclear power in my constituency. I am sure that hon. Members who have nuclear sites in their constituencies know that there is a good deal of support for them, because they generate a huge number of jobs and important support for the local economy. In my constituency, the area of Dungeness and the Romney marshes remains a relatively deprived part not only of my constituency, but of Kent and the south-east of England. Nuclear power could play an important part in my community.
It appears from the consultation process launched by the last Government that one of the main reasons why Dungeness was taken off the Government’s list of potential sites was the objections of Natural England. It is one of the Government’s statutory consultees, and in some ways it is only doing its job, but its assessment, based on the habitats regulations, was that the loss of the vegetated shingle in the area around Dungeness power station could not be mitigated, as the landscape was unique. All of us in my constituency would agree that it is a unique landscape, but we are also mindful that the potential development land for the new power station is only 1 per cent. of the entire protected site of special scientific interest around Dungeness, Rye and Romney Marsh; we are talking about a relatively small area of development.
When, in 1959, the Minister of Power gave consent for the first power station to be built, he reached the conclusion that the mitigation necessary, and the damage to the area, was so small that it could not be said that the building of a power station compromised the integrity of the whole site. I know that my constituents will hope that the new Government can look again at the case for nuclear power in Dungeness and will draw a similar conclusion—that it may be possible to work to mitigate the impact of the building of a new power station without compromising the integrity of the entire site, which is greatly valued not only by my constituents but by people across the country. We see the great value that nuclear power has for our community, and we would like to encourage and support it.
In conclusion, my constituents believe that having a sustainable environment is foremost among everyone’s interests in the decades ahead, but we should also have a sustainable sense of opportunity for people, so that there is an opportunity for work, for a decent life, and for people to provide for their families and children, so that people can hope that their children will have a better standard of living than they have enjoyed. We might say that those are eternal dreams and ambitions, held by every generation, but they are only delivered and realised by the decisions that we take in this House every day.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech today in this debate, as the Labour and Co-operative party Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins); indeed, I travelled through his constituency just a couple of weeks ago, while many other new Members were here having their photographs taken, on my way to see Fulham perform in the Europa league final in Hamburg. Sadly, we were not successful, but it was a great opportunity to go through the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
It is a pleasure to take part in the same debate as the hon. Members for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for Crawley (Henry Smith), and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), and my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans); they, too, are making their maiden speeches this afternoon. I note your entreaty for succinct contributions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will seek to ensure the appropriate conciseness in my remarks.
I would like to begin, as is customary, by paying tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Tommy McAvoy. It is testament to the respect felt for him, and the affection in which he is held in Parliament, that I have, over the past couple of weeks, been approached by Members of all parties, Officers of the House, and staff in the Library, the Tea Room and elsewhere in the parliamentary estate, all of whom without exception have told me of their high regard for him. As many returning right hon. and hon. Members will know, Tommy held the record for being the longest serving Government Whip; his 13 consecutive years in post—first as the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, and latterly as Deputy Chief Whip—are testament to his success in using his personal, particular mix of authority, subtlety and tactical acuity to help this place to run smoothly over many years. Over the course of this week, I have, from the Labour Benches, observed the frequent presence in the Chamber of his successor in the role of the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael); I have seen him prowling contentedly in the Chamber, and I hope that he is able to live up to his forerunner, my predecessor.
Of course, as a Government Whip, my predecessor was not able to take part in debates in this House, so this is the first time that a Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, as currently constituted, has had the honour and the opportunity to speak in a debate in the Chamber, but that does not mean that my predecessor was silent in the constituency—far from it. As many people have said, “You always know what Tommy McAvoy is thinking, because he tells you.” His robust defence of the interests of his constituents is renowned in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. I know that it is one of his proud achievements that although he entered this House in 1987 as the Member for Glasgow Rutherglen, by the time he left, he had been instrumental in ensuring that the historic royal borough of Rutherglen had re-established its separate and distinct identity as part of South Lanarkshire, and he had enabled the good people of Toryglen to be represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris).
Whereas Tommy was born and bred and has lived all his life in Rutherglen, it does not take the most acute observer to work out that, like the hon. Member for Crawley, who spoke earlier, I am a migrant to my constituency. I am one of the many people who have chosen to settle slightly later in life in the constituency—in my case, in Cambuslang.
Indeed, in some ways it is perhaps the responsibility or, maybe, the fault of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) that I am here at all. His visit to my school in Tonbridge in the run-up to the 1992 general election inspired me to join the Labour party, in the people’s republic of Tunbridge Wells. Although I am not sure that that was quite his intention in speaking to a group of sixth formers in his constituency, I am grateful to him none the less.
It is particularly appropriate that I am able to contribute in this debate, as my constituency has a long and proud association with the famous Lanarkshire coalfield. The legendary Mick McGahey is of course closely associated with Cambuslang, Scotland’s largest village, where I and my family are privileged to live; and in Blantyre we are fortunate to have, thanks to the efforts of South Lanarkshire council, the people of Blantyre and many other local agencies, one of the most successful reinstated and revitalised miners welfare facilities, serving the very heart of an historic and proud community. I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) to sample the unique hospitality of the Blantyre miners welfare society and social club next weekend.
The communities that make up Rutherglen and Hamilton West are proud and principled places, with a strong and enduring sense of community and a welcoming and hospitable outlook. From Shawfield—once the home of Clyde football club and still the venue for arguably the best night out of greyhound racing in the United Kingdom—to Meikle Earnock up the hill in Hamilton and all points in between, the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West are decent and genuine, and it is both a pleasure and an immense privilege to be their representative in this sovereign Parliament.
In preparing for this maiden speech, I was struck by how my predecessor’s maiden speech in 1987 focused on the importance of jobs and investment, during a debate about the then Scottish Development Agency. Over the past 13 years considerable investment in the constituency and all its communities has helped to improve facilities and support jobs, but as we begin to emerge from the worst global recession since the 1930s it is vital that we take the opportunity to rebalance our economy. The potential is immense for new jobs and skills in energy and related engineering, manufacturing and technology that can benefit the environment and provide export possibilities and skilled jobs for people in constituencies such as mine.
However, as various speakers in today’s debate have said, those skills and opportunities will be realised only with the right support and incentives for business. I was fortunate to be in the Chamber yesterday to hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), and although he chose not to answer every single question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) put to him, no one could fail to recognise the zeal with which he appeared to enjoy cutting the child trust fund for my constituents, cutting jobs for young people in my constituency through the future jobs fund and, perhaps most worrying of all, cutting the strategic investment that could provide jobs for my constituents in the future.
I welcome the green investment bank, which was also in our election manifesto, but it is a matter of real concern that £34 million of the cuts to the Department of Energy and Climate Change seem to be from business support schemes, which would help to start some of the work that we need to do to improve the way in which we produce energy. The cuts to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills also seem to endanger regional development agencies and the consequential funding for the equivalent bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Without wishing to be overly controversial, I should like to express my sincere hope that in this brave new world of the new politics of the alliance of the two old parties, the other wing of the Liberal party—notable in the comments of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) earlier—will be able to assert at least some of what it stood for in the general election, in order to ensure that opportunities in energy, industry and manufacturing are not lost amid the rush and enthusiasm of the Liberal party’s other faction to adopt what I think is a dangerous, short-termist and unenlightened policy.
I am grateful to the House for extending me the courtesy of hearing my maiden speech in silence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) said yesterday, although I do not expect to be heard in silence in future, I will not be silent in seeking to represent the interests of my constituents in Rutherglen and Hamilton West to the best of my ability.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to address the House for the first time and to take part in what is turning out to be a fascinating debate with some excellent contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on an excellent and heartfelt maiden speech.
I start by paying tribute to some of my predecessors. Ealing Central and Acton is a new seat and for the past five years it has been well represented by the now hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who drew on many years of local government experience and his legal background to offer wise advice and counsel. We locked horns on occasions, but on at least two, we were on the same side. The first was to oppose the attempt to impose the infamous west London tram and the second, more recently, was the opposition to any further expansion of Heathrow airport. I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman put his principles before his career when he stood down from his Government position to pursue that campaign. I hope that he is as pleased as I am with the new coalition Government’s early announcement that there will be no third runway at Heathrow. It also seems that the British Airports Authority has finally got the message.
I would also like to mention the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), whom I have got to know rather well in the past year or so. His boundaries were changed alongside mine and, as he put it to me rather graphically, “You got your best bits from me and I got my best bits from you.” So I say to him, thank you for that. I do not need to tell the House what a larger-than-life character he is. He is much loved for his work in the House and his commitment to his constituents. I hope that, in years to come, I can go about my job with the same good humour with which he goes about his.
However, the person I see as my closest predecessor is, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). He represented the old Ealing, Acton seat for 23 years and, regardless of people’s political allegiance, he is remembered with warmth and affection throughout the constituency. He was the first famous bicycling politician—the bicycling baronet. In Ealing, we still have many photographs of him with his bicycle—and his bicycle clips. He deservedly has a towering reputation in Ealing and Acton. He is always welcome there and I am very aware that I have large shoes to fill—literally, as well as metaphorically.
Ealing Central and Acton is one of the most diverse constituencies one can imagine. The boundary changes have deepened that diversity—the constituency is truly a rich tapestry. We have a long-standing Polish community, an Asian community, an Arab community, a Japanese community and an African community, including a growing Somali community. I want to mention the brilliant work of the Tallo centre in south Acton, which operates on little funding and eases the path of Somalis who come to this country and into our community. When I called there recently during the election campaign, I found two of the staff embarking on their new campaign against female circumcision in the Somali community. That is perhaps a useful reminder to us all that not everyone who comes here to live a better life can leave all their torment behind them. As the local MP, I look forward with all my heart to supporting the work of organisations such as the Tallo centre.
Both Ealing and Acton have long histories. Acton was originally a Saxon village and the name comes from the word meaning “oak tree.” It was transformed by the industrial revolution and quickly developed a great reputation for its washing and laundry industry. Indeed, some of the names in Acton still reflect that history—for example, Bollo lane.
Of course, Ealing, too, has an illustrious history. Its icon is an oak tree, which links it neatly with Acton, but I suspect it also represents the famous oak trees on Ealing common and so many of our other wonderful green spaces, of which we are truly very proud. Ealing has for long years been known as “The Queen of the Suburbs”, and if any hon. Members would like to take a stroll with me through some of the streets, they will see exactly why it still is.
The earliest surviving census in this country comes from Ealing—from 1599—and John Quincy Adams chose Ealing as his place of residence in 1815 when he came to this country to serve as the American Minister. In 1901, Ealing adopted a coat of arms and a motto—“Respice Prospice”—which means, “Look backwards, look forwards.” The good voters of Ealing and Acton may have taken that rather literally when, as it transpired on election night, they voted for me as the MP but also for a Labour council. I will leave others to decide which is which.
There can be no discussion of Ealing without mention of the famous film studios, which are the longest continuously working film studios in the world. They bring great lustre to the borough and have played a significant role in putting the UK at the heart of the international film industry. Who can possibly not have heard of such titles as “The Lavender Hill Mob”, “Passport to Pimlico” and “Hue and Cry”? The studios are also just about to remake their “Doctor at Large” series.
On a more serious note, it will be imperative to keep all that history in mind when considering plans to regenerate Ealing and Acton town centres, for regenerated I believe they must be if they are to stride confidently through the 21st century. Crossrail will help. There must be development, but it must be done sensitively in order not to trample on the history and character of the place. I hope to work closely with the local council and other agencies to ensure that we get things as right as we possibly can.
I look forward to continuing some of the campaigns that I started as a candidate. I have a local transport committee, which meets regularly to discuss Ealing Broadway and Acton main line stations, and I shall continue to campaign—for as long as it takes—to ensure that we keep our A and E departments at both Central Middlesex and Ealing hospitals.
There is much in what we are discussing this afternoon for me to recommend to my constituents. Protecting the environment for future generations and finding ways to make our economy more environmentally sustainable are things that I know the people of Ealing and Acton care passionately about, and that I can support. I should like to put on record at this stage that I am proud of the Conservative record on environmental matters. After all, it was a Conservative Government who introduced the Clean Air Act 1956, which did so much to get rid of the smog in London, and another Conservative Government who introduced tax incentives to ensure that people switched to lead-free petrol. A Conservative council—Westminster city council—pioneered the low emission zone, and a Conservative Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, was probably the first Prime Minister to choose to make a major speech on the environment, as she did in the late 1980s. In that speech, she reminded us that we are not freeholders on this planet, but leaseholders, and that our duty is to ensure, like all good leaseholders, that we pass on this planet to future generations in the same if not better order than that in which we found it.
However, one issue that I wanted to touch on—it comes within the DEFRA remit—is dangerous dogs, which have become an increasing problem in Ealing and Acton. I was delighted to see that the coalition agreement goes into some detail about tackling that. I am a little disappointed that it is not an immediate priority—I hope it will be, and I am sure it needs to be. We have problems in the parks throughout Ealing and Acton, and I think it is unacceptable that in this day and age, people cannot enjoy their wonderful green spaces because of the blight of such dangerous dogs.
We need to look again at what we do to protect people while supporting the vast majority of responsible dog owners. Principally, this is an issue of enforcement. I am not sure that yet another form of licensing will make any difference, because after all, as we all know, the good guys buy their licences and the bad people do not bother. It is an issue of enforcement. I hope that the Government will look at that, introduce measures, and see how we can toughen penalties and crack down on people who consistently flout the law.
I fully support the measures set out by the Government to increase energy efficiency. In particular, the green deal will make a big contribution to reducing carbon emissions across the UK, but it will also bring direct benefits to householders. People have often raised with me on the doorstep their worries about fuel bills, and these proposals will pay for themselves through savings on energy bills in the future, so it really will provide a double bonus.
I am proud to stand here representing Ealing Central and Acton and I look forward to speaking out on behalf of my constituents whenever the occasion arises.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) on a very fine speech, and I also congratulate everyone who has made a maiden speech today. It was a real pleasure to be in my place, especially to hear the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I always believed that his father would one day look down on us all—I just did not think that it would happen this quickly.
I was concerned when the Secretary of State opened this debate by talking about consensus. I have been involved in the energy industry for almost 40 years, and if we had had some consensus over those decades we might not be in the mess we are in today. How can we have consensus when the Secretary of State opposes nuclear power, and his party is cautious—to put it mildly—on the use of coal? The Liberal Democrats in my area are completely anti-coal, no matter where it comes from or how it is burnt. Some of the partners in the new coalition are climate change deniers, so confusion is more likely than consensus.
Confusion is the last thing that we need in this debate, because we have had far too much delay already—and I blame the previous Government as much as the current one. My Government, in their 13 years, did not do as much as they should have done. In particular, they did not wake up quickly enough to energy security issues and the use of coal, especially coal from the United Kingdom. However, they did wake up to those issues more quickly than the Government before them, who spent 10 years decimating the coal industry in this country, which is an issue not just in the interests of security of supply, but because we were leading the world in clean coal technology. When we closed the coal mines in the 1980s and early 1990s, that clean coal technology went down the drain along with access to some of the most impressive coal reserves to be found anywhere in the world.
The Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change spent the last year and a half going through some of the many issues, and making good progress with little partisanship. However, we must face up to certain problems. For example, there is a huge skills gap across the energy sector, partly as a result of the privatisation of the industry in 1990s, with companies focusing on shareholder profits and driving costs down, not on investing in training and skills. Another question is where the finance will come from. It is estimated that we need £200 billion in 10 years if we are to meet the challenge facing us. If we compare that with the fact that in the past 20 years £100 billion was spent on upgrading the water system, we can see the scale of the challenge.
We have an opportunity to have the most integrated energy system anywhere in the world, with wind, tidal, nuclear, coal and gas—as long as it continues—and we must get to grips with that as a matter of urgency. We must also recognise that the national grid is not fit for purpose. I notice that the coalition’s document talks about building an offshore grid, and I welcome that, but we also need to put right the problems with the onshore grid. We have a regulator that, by its own admission, is not fit for purpose. Thankfully, it began to realise, with its report “Project Discovery” last year, that it was not doing the business—something that we have all known for a long time—and we need to make it do the business.
I intervened on my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State to make a point that I have raised several times already and will continue to raise—that this country is importing coal from countries where miners are being killed in their thousands every year. China kills six and Ukraine seven miners for every million tonnes of coal it produces. It is a scandal. If it was young, Asian kids stitching leather footballs, we would refuse to let the produce enter the country, but because it is energy, we close our eyes.
I want to raise another matter with the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change: the increase in fatalities and injuries in the UK. Over the past 10 years, as the number of mines and miners has decreased, major injuries have almost trebled and fatalities have risen fourfold. I hope to take that matter forward with the new Secretary of State and energy Ministers.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
I would be pleased to receive a delegation from the hon. Gentleman and others similarly concerned about those issues. I take them very seriously indeed, and I will be keen to address them at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr Anderson
I appreciate that. I realise, from the work that the Minister and I did together on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the genuineness of that offer, and I will certainly pursue it with him, interested colleagues and people in the mining industry.
In the past five years, there has been a huge step change in the north-east in relation to the opportunities and potential for finding a way forward in an economic way using the new green jobs. We have seen the potential of carbon capture and storage, and along with the university of Newcastle upon Tyne we are developing the potential of underground coal gasification to access some of the billions of tonnes of coal that still lie under the North sea. We hope to build wind turbines on the bank of the River Tyne, using the Narec facility in Blyth, which is developing cutting-edge wind turbine technology. The Secretary of State mentioned the development of electric cars by Nissan, and in my constituency, we are developing the infrastructure to charge those cars.
The reality, however, is that all that is being held together by one organisation—the regional development agency—and when we from the north-east say, “Do not do away with the RDA,” we do not say so because we like quangos or because we want to see civil servants kept in jobs; we say it because the RDA works. It has worked in the development of a low-carbon economy, and it is working in trying to make sense of what has happened at Corus. We believe that, if the RDA is removed, it will have a major impact on the economic development of our constituencies and our part of the country. I urge the Secretary of State to argue with the Treasury that the RDA in the north-east is a special case.
In preparing for this discussion, I looked back to the Queen’s Speech in 1979, because, from the commitments in the Conservative party manifesto, it seems that what it suggests is the way forward for the country now is similar to what was suggested in 1979. That Queen’s Speech read:
“My Government will give priority in economic policy…through the pursuit of firm monetary and fiscal policies.…and increase competition by providing offers of sale, including opportunities for employees to participate where appropriate… Members of the House of Commons will be given an opportunity to discuss and amend their procedures, particularly as they relate to their scrutiny of the work of Government… Legislation will be introduced to promote greater efficiency in local government… My Ministers will work to improve the use of resources in the National Health Service and…facilitate the wider use of primary care… Measures will be introduced to…control…immigration… My Ministers will take steps to…reform…the general law.”—[Official Report, 15 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 48-51.]
There is nothing unusual there. It is what I would expect from a Conservative party trying to get back into power after 13 years in the shadows. However, I did not expect it to be supported in its attempts, unfortunately, by the Liberal Democrats, but it has been. The latter have signed up to a Thatcherite agenda: cuts to welfare; attacks on the public sector; attacks on workers’ terms and conditions; unemployment used as a tool of public policy; attacks on democracy; and attacks on political party funding. We have, indeed, gone back to the future. And what else? There is good news for the bosses: corporation tax cuts; national insurance for employers stopped, but national insurance for employees increased; and a review of the pension age, so that those who have worked all their lives will have to work even longer—it does not matter that they might have started work at 15, because in the near future, they will have to continue until they are 66.
Then there is “freeing up schools”—again, a matter of ideological dogma, with the terms and conditions of teachers and other classroom workers to be put out to the highest bidder—and the privatisation of Royal Mail, with the pensions, pay and jobs in the Royal Mail to be put at risk. Then there is political reform. I was surprised during the election campaign—although I probably should not have been—to hear the Liberal Democrats talking about the link between the trade unions and the labour movement as corrupt. That is an absolute slur on one of the biggest democratic organisations in this country.
The people in Blaydon had a clear choice in the 2010 election, and 7,000 of them made that clear choice when they voted for a gentleman called Glenn Hall, a man who stood firm and true in his beliefs, which were those of the Conservative party. Some 7,000 of my constituents said, “We’ll vote for that,” whereas 61,000 said, “No, we do not want that,” 13,000 of them saying, “We support the Liberal Democrats.” However, they did not support the Liberal Democrats to put the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) into No. 10 Downing street. Unfortunately, Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches have let those 13,000 people down, because they have let the Conservatives back in with an agenda that takes us back to where we were 30 years ago, and we are going to end up in the same situation.
The people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the north-east of England are now seeing the reality of what the Liberal Democrats have done and the mistakes that they have made. People such as me and other Members will ensure that they continue to see those mistakes. The excuse of the Liberal Democrats is: “It’s all about Greece.” Well, there is only one thing that the Liberal Democrats in this House have shown in connection with Greece—and that is that they want to climb the greasy pole.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and welcome you to your post, if only for a short period. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on his speech. I did not necessarily agree with everything that he said, but I do not doubt the passion with which he said it. I should also like to congratulate all those who have spoken today, particularly the new Members, whom I welcome to the Chamber. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for returning me. I will do what I am sure everyone in the House promised to do—that is, to do my utmost to uphold that trust and serve my constituents’ interests in this place, but also try to pass good legislation.
We meet in interesting times, with our coalition Government in place. Lord Edward Cecil defined compromise as
“An agreement between two men to do what both agree is wrong.”
I hope that that does not define the nature of our coalition Government. I certainly hope that it will not, for the good of the country; and indeed, I welcome many aspects of the Gracious Speech. For example, on immigration, my constituents are pleased about the annual cap that we will introduce for non-EU immigrants, the creation of a border police force and transitional controls with regard to EU members, and I say that for a number of reasons.
First, immigration was a particularly important issue to my constituents in the general election. Secondly, there was a concern—certainly locally, if not nationally—that the fact that both parties seemed reluctant to discuss the issue lent support to the British National party. Many people in my constituency were tempted to vote for the BNP, but coming out with clear and strong policies has helped to stop that inclination, at least locally. By addressing people’s points, I hope that we can put their fears to one side. It is a sad reflection that when we left office in 1997, there were no BNP councillors anywhere in the country, yet today we have approaching 60. That reflects the fact that the former Government’s immigration policy was an absolute shambles, and people were rightly concerned about that.
I also disagree with the Labour party and even some of my Liberal friends, and particularly with my Liberal opponent, who said that we should not encourage the BNP on to the stage or give it the air of publicity. However, we have to pull the BNP out of the shadows and show people what it stands for if we are going to take the party head on. I therefore think that the immigration policies announced by the coalition Government are a positive step.
On law and order, I am pleased that we have made it clear that we are going to be tougher on the criminal. Real concern has again been expressed by my constituents that the recorded crime figures clearly show that violent crime is on the increase. The coalition Government’s assurance that we are going to get more police out of the police stations and on to the streets by reducing red tape can only be a good thing. The time has come to get tougher with the criminal. My constituents all know that the criminal chooses to commit a crime and that the victim has no choice in the matter. They are therefore very pleased with these policies.
I am also delighted by the announcements on Equitable Life. For too long, its policy holders have been denied justice, and it is about time that the ombudsman’s recommendations were implemented. It is good news that they are going to be.
I was reassured by what I heard from our Front Bench about the fact that we are going to work towards an obligation for energy companies to provide information on the cheapest tariffs on all domestic bills.
I was pleased by my Government’s commitment to bear down on the deficit. The larger the size of the deficit, the heavier the weight on our economy. That is something that the Opposition do not realise. If we want a prosperous economy in which we will be better able to pay for our public services, we must get the deficit down. The argument that any reduction in spending is somehow taking money out of the economy is fundamentally flawed. Every pound that is borrowed and spent, by any Government, is a pound taken from the private sector. A private sector-led recovery will be essential in our fight to reduce the deficit.
I have one or two questions to put to those on my Front Bench about the new coalition agreement, one of which the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) is particularly well positioned to answer. It is about Travellers. She will know that the issue of Travellers is an important one not only in my constituency but in others, particularly in the south-east. My constituency has the largest illegal Traveller camp in the country—some say it is the largest in Europe—at Dale Farm. Travellers bought some green belt land there—there is nothing wrong with that—but they then illegally and speedily developed it, to the point where it is now the largest site in the land.
A forced eviction is now due. We have gone through the planning process and that has been flipped over into the legal process. We have gone through both processes and we are now, sadly, at the point of a forced eviction. I say “sadly” because I have been to see the Travellers, and I have tried to persuade them that we all want a peaceful resolution to the issue, and that the best way to achieve that is for them to move off peacefully. To date, however, they have refused to do that.
No one is seeking to penalise or discriminate against Travellers. All we are saying is that anyone who lives in our community should abide by the same set of rules. There should not be one rule for the law-abiding majority and another for the Travellers. I say the same thing to anyone—Traveller or non-Traveller—who asks me about developing on the green belt, or who has already done so. The law needs to be upheld. I am concerned that there is no mention at all of our policies towards Travellers in the coalition agreement—
Mrs Spelman
I might be able to help my hon. Friend on this matter. In the Communities and Local Government brief, there is mention of a Bill from that Department that will contain measures on this subject, as has already been made public. Those measures will close the retrospective planning permission loophole in this regard and extend the power of stop notices so that they can go beyond 28 days. Most importantly, given the part that my hon. Friend’s local authority has played in providing authorised sites, the measures will give an incentive to local authorities to provide more authorised sites. They will also recognise that the cost of that should not fall on the council tax payer, and that will be recognised in the local authority grant. I hope that that gives him some comfort.
Mr Baron
It does, indeed, and I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. However, the Conservative Green Paper also discussed the provision of more sites. While I have been a strong advocate of the need to give councils much stronger powers to deal with Travellers who illegally develop the green belt, I also believe that we must look at the issue in a balanced fashion and realise that there is an acute shortage of sites across the south-east. It worries me that although our Green Paper mentioned the need for greater provision of sites, that was not in the manifesto and it was certainly not in the coalition agreement. Perhaps in the fullness of time, my right hon. Friend might be able to provide further clarification.
The all-party group on cancer, which I chair, conducted an in-depth inquiry into cancer inequalities in this country. All the evidence suggests that inequalities in both treatment and outcomes for cancer patients have been growing. We came up with eight recommendations, the most important of which was the introduction of a one-year survival measure. We felt that we should try to move the focus of the NHS away from input-based targets and more towards measuring how well the NHS actually performs in making people better. The one-year survival measure was our key recommendation, as it was clear from all the evidence that if we were to catch up with our European neighbours on average one-year and five-year survival rates, we had to improve on early diagnosis. That was key: the sooner we could get people diagnosed, the sooner the treatment could begin. That could save literally thousands of lives in this country.
The pledge in the coalition agreement states that the aim will be to measure success on results like improving cancer survival, so the question I am asking now—I do not expect an immediate answer, but one in the fullness of time—is whether that commitment extends to introducing one-year survival measures. The required statistics and information are already being produced, courtesy of the NCIN—national cancer intelligence network—so there would be no additional costs. We have to bring this out of the cupboard, shine a light on it and make sure that PCTs know that we are looking at the figures and seeing how well they are performing in improving survival and the outcomes for patients at the one-year mark. The eventual aim is to apply a five-year measure, as happens on the continent, but we felt that a one-year measure would be enough to get the ball rolling. I shall seek further clarification on this issue from my Government.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about Afghanistan. As you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and some other Members will know, I was against our involvement in Afghanistan from the very start. I felt that we fundamentally underestimated the task in hand and that it was never clear quite what the mission was. That was borne out last year when the Prime Minister seemed to flip-flop between justifying our presence there by saying that we were somehow protecting the streets of this country from terrorism, and threatening President Karzai almost in the same breath by saying that unless he cleaned up his act politically, we would withdraw our troops. Those two statements and positions did not, and still do not, sit well next to each other.
As an ex-soldier, I fully welcome the promise to rebuild the military covenant to support our troops and their families, particularly when it comes to mental health issues, and to make sure that our troops are fully equipped. I urge our coalition Government and Front-Bench colleagues to understand that on this issue we need not just fresh thinking, but a fresh approach. We need to ensure that our aims are clearly stated, so that we can measure according to them the criteria for bringing our troops home. If we cannot do that and the mission continues to be the fudge that was, unfortunately, only too apparent under the last Government, lives will be needlessly lost and we will be no closer to bringing our troops home.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to you for calling me to speak today, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I am sure you know, the environment is a subject dear to my heart, and I shall return to it in a moment.
I think that anyone would find making their first speech in the Chamber daunting, given its history and traditions and the many momentous events that it has witnessed. However, I have an additional responsibility, which is to speak not only as the new Member of Parliament for Brighton, Pavilion, but as the first representative of the Green party to be elected to Westminster.
We must go back several decades, to the election of the first nationalist MPs in Scotland and Wales, to identify the last maiden speech made by a member of a new national political party. Perhaps a better comparison would be with the first socialist and independent Labour MPs, whose arrival over a century ago was seen as a sign of coming revolution. When Keir Hardie made his maiden speech after winning the seat of West Ham South in 1892, there was an outcry, because instead of a frock coat and top hat he wore a tweed suit and a deerstalker. It is hard to decide which of those options would seem more inappropriate today.
What Keir Hardie stood for, however, seems much more mainstream now: progressive taxation, votes for women, free schooling, pensions, and abolition of the House of Lords. Although the last of those is an urgent task that is still before us, the rest are now seen as essential to our society. What was once radical, even revolutionary, has become understood, accepted and even cherished.
I am helped today by the admirable tradition that in their first speech to the House, Members should refer to their constituency and to their predecessor. David Lepper, who stood down at the election after 13 years’ service as Member of Parliament for Brighton, Pavilion, was an enormously hard-working and highly respected Member whose qualities transcended any difference of party, and I am delighted to have the chance to thank him for his work on behalf of the people of Brighton.
It is also a great pleasure to speak about Brighton itself, or Brighton and Hove as the city is rightly called. It is, I am sure, well known to many Members, if only in connection with party conference time. My own party has not yet grown to a size that would justify the use of the Brighton Centre—although I hope that that will change before long—but I can tell Members who are not familiar with it that it is one of the United Kingdom’s premier conference venues. There are also the attractions of the shops and cafés of the Lanes and North Laine, the pier, and, of course, the Royal Pavilion itself, which gives its name to the constituency. Beyond the immediate boundaries of the constituency and the city is the quietly beautiful countryside of the south downs and the Sussex Weald.
Brighton has always had a tradition of independence, of doing things differently. It has an entrepreneurial spirit, making the best of things whatever the circumstances, and enjoying being ahead of the curve. We see that in the number of small businesses and freelancers in the constituency, and in the way in which diversity is not just tolerated or respected, but positively welcomed and valued. You have to work quite hard to be a local character in Brighton.
We do not have a single dominant employer in the constituency. As well as tourism and hospitality, we have two universities, whose students make an important cultural as well as financial contribution to the city. A large number of charities, campaigning groups and institutes are also based there, some local, others with a national or international reach, such as the Institute of Development Studies. All those organisations do excellent work, and I look forward to supporting them during my time in this place.
Many of my constituents are employed in the public and voluntary sectors. They include doctors and teachers, nurses and police officers, and others from professions that do not always receive the same level of attention or support from the media or, indeed, politicians. But whatever role they play—as social workers, planning officers, highway engineers or Border Agency staff—we depend on them. I am sure that Members on both sides agree that all those who work for the state should be respected and their contribution valued. Particularly at a time of cuts, with offhand comments about bureaucrats and pencil-pushers, that becomes even more important.
There is also a Brighton that is perhaps less familiar to hon. Members. The very popularity of the city puts pressure on transport, housing and the quality of life. Although there is prosperity, it is not shared equally. People are proud of Brighton but they believe it can be a better and fairer place to live and work. I pledge to do everything I can in this place to help achieve that, with a particular focus on creating more affordable and more sustainable housing. We have more than 11,000 people on the housing waiting list in the city and we need urgent action.
Brighton was once the seat of the economist Henry Fawcett, who was elected there in 1865. Shortly afterwards, he married Millicent Garrett, later the leader of the Suffragists, a movement he himself had encouraged and supported. He lent his name to the Fawcett Society, which is still campaigning for greater women’s representation in politics. The task of ensuring that Parliament better reflects the people it represents remains work in progress. As the first woman elected in Brighton, Pavilion, this is work that I will do all I can to advance. I pay tribute to the wide range of organisations in Brighton and Hove that work with women, which do some fantastic work. They include Rise, which works with women who have been subject to domestic violence.
I said when I began that I found this occasion daunting and perhaps the most difficult task is to say a few words about the latest radical move that the people of Brighton have made in electing the first Green MP to Parliament. It has been a long journey. The Green party traces its origins back to 1973 and the issues highlighted in its first manifesto for a sustainable society, including security of energy supply, tackling pollution, raising standards of welfare and striving for steady state economics, are even more urgent today. I cannot help thinking that if our message had been heeded nearly 40 years ago, we would be much closer to the genuinely sustainable economy that we so urgently need than we currently are today.
We fielded 50 candidates in the 1979 general election as the Ecology party and began to win seats on local councils. Representation in the European Parliament and the London Assembly followed and now, after nearly four decades of the kind of work on doorsteps and in council chambers with which I know hon. Members are all too familiar, we have more candidates, more members and now our first MP. A long journey; too long, I would say.
Politics needs to renew itself and to allow new ideas and visions to emerge. Otherwise, debate is the poorer and more and more people feel that they are not represented. I hope that if and when other new political movements arise, they will not be excluded by the system of voting. Reform here, as in other areas, is long overdue. That chance must not be squandered. Most crucially, the people themselves must be given a choice about the way their representatives are elected and that means more than a referendum on the alternative vote. It means the choice of a genuinely proportional electoral system.
Both before the election and afterwards, I have been asked the question, “What can a single MP achieve?” I may not be alone in facing that question. Since arriving in this place and thinking about the contribution of other MPs and what they have done over the years, I am sure that the answer is very clear. A single MP can achieve a great deal. A single MP can contribute to debates, to legislation and to scrutiny, work that is valuable if not always appreciated outside. A single MP can speak up for their constituents and challenge the Executive. For example, I am pleased that the Government are to introduce legislation to revoke a number of restrictions on people’s freedoms and liberties, such as identity cards. But many restrictions remain; for example, control orders are to stay in force. Who is to speak for those affected, or for the principle that people should not be held without charge even if it is in their own homes? House arrest is something we deplore in other countries and I hope that, through debate, we can conclude that it has no place here either.
A single MP can raise issues that cannot be raised elsewhere. Last year, hon. Members from both sides helped to shine a light on the actions of the international commodities trading group, Trafigura, and the shipping of hazardous waste to the Ivory Coast. There was particular concern that the media in this country were prevented from reporting the issues fully and fairly. That remains the case, for new legal actions concerning Trafigura have been launched in the Dutch courts and are being reported widely in other countries but not here. Those are the kinds of issues I will hope to pursue.
Finally, I wish to touch on the subject of today’s debate. I have worked on the causes and consequences of climate change for most of my working life, first with Oxfam, for the effects of climate change are already affecting millions of people in poorer countries around the world, and more recently for 10 years in the European Parliament. If we are to overcome this threat, we in this Chamber have a vital role to play. We must take the lead. We must act so the United Kingdom can meet its own responsibilities to cut the emissions of carbon dioxide and the other gases that are changing our climate, and we need to encourage and support other countries to do the same.
This House has signed up to the 10:10 campaign— 10% emission reductions in 2010. That is very good news, but the truth is we need 10% emission cuts every year, year on year, until we reach a zero-carbon economy, and time is running very short. If we are to avoid irreversible climate change, the current Parliament must meet this historic task. That gives all of us in this Chamber an extraordinary responsibility, but also an extraordinary opportunity, because the good news is that the action we need to take to tackle climate change is action that can improve the quality of life for all of us: better, more affordable public transport; better insulated homes; the end of fuel poverty; stronger local communities and economies; and many more jobs. I look forward to working with Members of all parties to advance these issues.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be called to make my maiden speech during this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on her speech, and may I also say that it was a pleasure working with her in the European Parliament for 10 years, especially on animal welfare issues? The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) has just left the Chamber, but I thank him for his comments on miners and for reminding us that so many are killed during mining operations. I also want to pay a quick tribute to my wife, who is sitting up in the Gallery; not only do I pay tribute to the fact that she has put up with me for almost 30 years, but I thank her for helping me through my political career, and I hope that that will continue.
It is a great pleasure to have the duty of thanking Angela Browning, the retiring Member for Tiverton and Honiton. Not only was she an Agriculture Minister between 1994 and 1997, but she was shadow Leader of the House for one year, from 2000 to 2001. She was also vice-president of the Alzheimer’s Society and the National Autistic Society, and a patron of Research Autism.
I have looked up her maiden speech, and I want to quote the end of it:
“As this is a maiden speech, I ask for the indulgence of the House in widening the debate and putting on record my interest in and my concern for a group of extremely vulnerable people, both urban and rural. I refer to people suffering from permanent disabilities—physical difficulties, learning difficulties and mental handicap. I hope that while I am Member of Parliament for the Tiverton constituency there will be an improvement in the quality of life enjoyed by that group of people and a clearer understanding of their needs and the difficulties that they face.”—[Official Report, 12 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 608.]
I can state very clearly that Angela Browning stood up for what she said in her maiden speech throughout the whole of her political career. When she was talking about this topic in the early ’90s, it was not so easy to do so. I pay huge tribute to her for that great work, because what she said in her maiden speech 18 years ago she really lived up to. On a personal basis, may I say that it was a great pleasure to work with Angela? I know that many new Members say what a great pleasure it was to work with the retiring Member, but I can say with great genuine affection that she was a great supporter and a great help. If I can be half as good a Member of Parliament as she was over the previous 18 years, I shall do very well in this House. As I say, I pay great tribute to her.
Tiverton and Honiton has new boundaries. The constituency is now 40 miles long, starting up in Bampton, on the borders of Exmoor, and stretching right down to the sea—the first time that it has reached the sea. It passes through the Blackdown hills, an area of outstanding natural beauty. The Romans worked out what a wonderful constituency it is in the 1st century, because they landed at Seaton and proceeded inland; they obviously knew the value of Seaton. It is now a beautiful seaside town, but it suffers from having a proposed Tesco supermarket on its outskirts. We are rather fearful that that may dominate too much of Seaton and destroy some of our local shops. It is also about scale and development; much as we need regeneration in Seaton, particularly in some parts, we are worried about that. The constituency contains the excellent Colyton grammar school, which I look forward to supporting hugely during my period in office in Tiverton and Honiton. It will be a great pleasure to see that school progress, because it has a huge following and delivers a very good education.
As we walk around the corridors of this House, we think of Axminster and its famous carpets, because many carpets in this House were manufactured there—in fact, replacement new carpets for the House are still manufactured in the town, and I have seen them being made, which is a great thing.
Honiton is famous for its lace making. The Speaker used to wear the ceremonial robe—I shall not comment further on that matter—the lace for which was made there. The robes are now in the museum in Honiton, and I recommend that all hon. Members pay a visit, not only because mine is such a beautiful constituency, but because they can see the amazing spectacle of that lace.
When the previous Conservative Government came out of power in 1997, the A30 and A303 were just about to be dualled. Unfortunately, because of what was said by the one great, honest man in the previous Labour Government, the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury—he left the note saying “There is no money left”—I am not expecting that road to be dualled quickly. However, I assure the House that I shall persist with the matter to ensure that we get that road, because it is essential, as not only does the M5 run through the constituency, but so too do the A303 and A30 and they can create a bottleneck through Honiton.
The constituency also contains market towns such as Collumpton, which contains many traditional shops but whose town centre is in much need of some help and regeneration, and junction 28 of the M5, which is in great need of repair. Tiverton is a very interesting town, because in 1815 the industrialist John Heathcoat bought an old woollen mill on the River Exe with a view to setting up a lace manufactory in the town. Following the destruction of his lace-making machinery in Loughborough by former Luddites in the pay of the lace makers of Nottingham, he moved his entire operation to Tiverton. As hon. Members can see, Tiverton has had an illustrious past. I hope that it can have an illustrious future and, as I have said, we look forward to furthering the facilities in the hospitals in Tiverton and Honiton.
The constituency contains a great mixture of market towns and small rural villages; it contains nearly 100 villages and lots of hamlets. I look forward to our rolling out broadband throughout the constituency and throughout rural areas. I also look forward to our building more affordable homes, because one of the problems in the constituency is that house prices are high and wages are not meeting those prices. I welcome the fact that we will put things right for people who invested in Equitable Life, because that was a huge travesty of justice under the previous Government. I look forward to that.
I should probably declare an interest as a farmer, and hon. Members would expect me to talk a bit in the rural affairs debate about agriculture, food production and the need for food production. My view is that the rising world population means that we need food. We need food in areas where we can produce it. In Devon, we have the rolling hills, the beautiful water and the right climate to grow excellent grass and produce good milk, good beef and good lamb. We should make sure that the whole country eats it, not just Devon, because it is among the best and healthiest that can be found. We have to promote our food more. I look forward to the Government introducing a food ombudsman, because farmers have to get a fair price for their food. It is not just about the subsidy that might or might not come from the common agricultural policy and the European Union, but about farmers being able to make a decent living from what they produce and to look after the countryside at the same time. Farmers are not the problem for the countryside and the environment, but the solution. That is something that I am determined to speak up about in this House. In the west country, we have a particularly virulent disease at the moment, which is tuberculosis in cattle. I look forward to this Government ensuring that we not only have healthy cattle but healthy wildlife.
My constituency is very much at the heart of what was Monmouth rebellion country. Ever since the Monmouth rebellion, we have thought that people should stand up and speak up for the area. I hope that the same does not happen to me as happened under Judge Jeffreys to many of those who would have been my constituents, but I look forward to standing up in this House—the one thing that I was taught in Young Farmers was to stand up, speak up and shut up—and to keep speaking up. I shall do so for the simple reason that my constituents in Tiverton and Honiton want a Member of Parliament to represent them, whether they are from the towns, the villages or the rural communities, and to ensure that we get a good deal for the west country and for Devon, whether it is on water rates and South West Water or on fairer funding for schools. All those things have to be put right. I am a great believer in the fact that throughout the constituency—it is a great constituency—we need to have support. I look forward very much to representing the constituency in future years.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the guided tour of Tiverton and Honiton that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I was also grateful to hear the contribution from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the first Green Member of our House.
I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for paying tribute in their Queen’s Speech addresses to Jonathan Burgess of 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh from Townhill in my constituency of Swansea West, who lost his life serving and protecting our country in Afghanistan. His family, including his unborn daughter, will know that the recognition of his service will remain on record throughout history in the tributes paid in this place.
This is my first speech as the new MP for Swansea West and I am privileged and proud to be able to pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Alan Williams, in whose distinguished footsteps I follow. He served in this House for some 46 years, for 22 of which he was on the Front Bench, and served in four Departments in a ministerial capacity. I hope that in recognition of his fine service and of the fact that he was the most senior Privy Counsellor to leave in 2010, we will see him rejoin us in the House of Lords. I hope and expect that we all wish him well in achieving that elevation. In his maiden speech, on 2 February 1965, Alan mentioned that Swansea had a radical tradition that, between 1959 and 1964,
“temporarily flirted with the forces of Conservatism.”—[Official Report, 2 February 1965; Vol. 705, c. 949.]
I should say that I am very grateful that after 46 years Swansea did not feel the urge to do so again.
Those who know Swansea West will know that it has a beautiful bay with golden sands that is best admired from the highest elevations of Townhill. It has a bustling city centre and a famous market, and it stretches west to the Mumbles and north into the countryside into Waunarlwydd. It is a community of communities and a warm and friendly city—a city that has certainly benefited from a Labour Government, with thousands more people employed and paying taxes instead of drawing the dole, compared with what we saw in 1997 when millions were affected across Britain. That change has enabled our country to invest in a better health service, police service and schools.
In Swansea, with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the university, local government, police and defence, nearly 40% of the work force are gainfully employed in public services, and those incomes are feeding into the private sector, small businesses and other businesses in Swansea communities. The choice of whether the deficit reduction should be largely through economic growth, jobs and skills as Labour said during the election or through cuts from the Conservatives and their new-found friends is a big issue for the people of Swansea.
We should remember that the deficit figures in March were £22 billion less than had been projected and predicted just four months earlier in the pre-Budget report. That £22 billion figure shows the massive engine that growth can be in reducing deficits compared with the £6 billion we are about to cut by way of savings. If those cuts and further cuts were to produce a further million unemployed people, that would completely wipe out the £6 billion of savings because of extra costs in dole money and so on. We should also remember that unemployment in February last year was 2.5 million, and that it was predicted at that time that unemployment would rise to 4 million by now. If it were not for the fiscal stimulus co-ordinated by the previous Prime Minister, Barack Obama and other world leaders, we would have been facing probably the worst recession since the 1930s. When we talk about cuts, we need to think very carefully about how quickly and how deeply to make them. The fact that the election was lost by the previous Government does not change the argument and the risks we are playing with.
What we need to do, as we move out of recession, we hope, is to generate a green recovery out of the global downturn. In the past four or five years, I have been leading Wales’s adaptation to climate change in respect of flood-risk management—investing in flood defences for the Welsh Assembly Government through the Environment Agency—so green issues are very close to my heart. I know, as other Members know, that we face a critical time in the world with shrinking land masses caused by rising seas, alongside shifting habitats and with the spiralling global population lifting from something like 6.8 billion to about 9.5 billion by the middle of this century. With less land and more people, there will be food and water shortages and, obviously, there will be issues with migration and possible conflict.
The stakes are very high so we must tackle the emissions issue very quickly. We are fortunate, in a sense, that emissions have fallen due to the downturn. The focus should be on re-engineering markets and behaviour to keep them falling. Part of that is to ensure that the environmental cost of production is properly factored into the price of products that people buy, which currently is not the case. That should also be the case for imports. That might mean that we need to consider emissions tariffs on imports, certainly at the European level, but we must also know that the problem we face in the bigger global picture is that world trade is completely disfigured by agricultural and fossil fuel subsidies of $1 trillion a year.
Those subsidies in essence disable the rural economies of developing countries and worsen the environmental crisis we face. They are part of the resource gluttony of the old world that has led to this twin problem of economic and environmental crises that go hand in hand. Those subsidies need to be challenged and reversed. We need environmental costs factored into prices. We need the environmental benefits from forests and ecosystems that support us to be credited. We need companies and nations in their accounts to measure environmental and social impacts.
People will know—having read, I am sure, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” study—that if we increase the network of global protected areas from about 13% to 15% on land and from 1% to 30% on sea, it would cost us about£45 billion, but it would save us 100 times that value— £4.5 trillion. Meanwhile, the world’s 3,000 biggest companies create damage to the environment worth £2.2 trillion a year, so perhaps they could pay the £45 billion to save the £4.5 trillion. It is up to world leaders and world Governments to get the maths right and to get the subsidies in the right place to help to save the planet. Let us remember that what the words “biodiversity” and “ecosystems” actually mean in the real world is food, fuel, fibre, clean air and fresh water—the stuff of life, and life that needs saving.
We all want clean fuel. We heard earlier about nuclear fuel and clean coal. I also call for international co-operation on green energy, which is crucial. The Desertec project in the Sahara is progressing, and people may know that it connects solar power to a network grid at a place where the sun is probably at its hottest. That could provide 15% of Europe’s future energy needs.
The North sea countries’ offshore grid, which has been established recently, can feed Europe with power matching that previously produced by North sea oil and gas, as estimated by the Offshore Valuation Group. Using information and communications technology to work at home instead of travelling to work around the globe on planes could reduce our emissions by a further 15%. Those opportunities and collective action globally need to be embraced, and alongside that, consumers must be given the choices, prices, information and help to promote sustainability collectively.
In a nutshell, Britain and Europe must take a lead together to secure a sustainable future beyond our shores and to protect and enhance our ecosystem, because it is up to us to shape the future. We share one world, so let us act together for all our tomorrows and put sustainability at the centre of our thinking, not into the bottom drawer until the economy recovers, because then it will be too late.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I will start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for his passionate, detailed and knowledgeable speech on climate change. Indeed, it has been marvellous to listen today to some great speeches. We heard the speech of the new hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), whose brother is a minister in my constituency, Waveney in Suffolk. We then heard the speech of the new hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who listed some films that had been made in the famous Ealing Studios. She actually missed out the most famous, “Kind Hearts and Coronets”, where the star had a particular way of getting into the other place. I think that constitutional reform will put an end to that.
I chose this debate to make my maiden speech because energy and offshore renewable energy is vital to the future of my constituency—Lowestoft and the surrounding area, which have suffered from industrial decline for the best part of 30 years. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Bob Blizzard, for the work that he has done over the past 13 years. He has been a passionate advocate for Waveney and a hard-working and diligent MP. I thank him for all the work that he has done.
Waveney is the most easterly constituency in the country. Perhaps at times, we Suffolk people hide our light under a bushel and do not make the most of the virtues that we have. The constituency’s make-up is diverse. We have the coastal town of Lowestoft, famous for its fish, its maritime history, its decent, honourable people and its clean beaches. There is the fishing village of Kessingland, and the market towns of Bungay and Beccles, and wide open rural expanses in between. The people up there do at times feel that they have been forgotten down here. It is as if we were at the end of a line.
We have been crying out for better roads and railways for what seems like many, many years. I will continue to make that cry, as other Waveney politicians have done. In November 1959, Jim Prior, now in another place, described the road and communications system in East Anglia as the Cinderella of the country. It seems as if we have not got very much further in the past 50-odd years.
We have industries that have declined. The fishing industry is no longer what it was; shipbuilding has gone; and the canning factory has gone. That is what we need to address. I am not going to moan; offshore renewables present us with a great opportunity to bring Waveney into the 21st century. It was an opportunity that Bob Blizzard recognised, and I will be taking the baton from him to make sure that we deliver on that goal.
We need a new and radical energy policy. If we do not have it, the lights will go out. We need to be in control of our own destiny. We need energy security. We owe it to future generations to take a major step towards a low-carbon economy. We need a mixture of energy sources—green energy sources. To me, nuclear has a vital role to play; so, too, does clean coal, and micro-energy is also of great importance, but it is offshore renewables on which I want to focus. We have to get 15% of our energy supply from renewables by 2020. We have a lot of work to do, being at just over 5% now. There are great opportunities for green jobs; I see that it is estimated that there will be 1.2 million by 2015. If we do not do the work, we will fall a long way short.
Lowestoft has a great opportunity, and great advantages in setting about giving us those green jobs and taking us forward. It has a great location, close to where the offshore turbines will be—the East Anglia Array and the Greater Gabbard. We have a skills base, built up over many years, in fishing, in shipbuilding, and in the North sea oil and gas industry. Those skills are transferrable, and we can make best use of them in the renewables sector.
We have to improve our training and education. We have a further education college that is delivering skills, and there is the opportunity for University Campus Suffolk to provide higher education with regard to those skills. We also need to reinvigorate the apprenticeship system, which, in Waveney and Lowestoft, has been so important in our past. There are measures in the Queen’s Speech that will help to deliver that.
I am here to represent Waveney, but I must not be parochial. To deliver green energy, and get the renewables that we need, I have to think outside my constituency, and think about the surrounding constituencies. In East Anglia, we have great opportunities. There is a deep-sea port in Yarmouth; that will help us to bring opportunities there. There is land elsewhere in other constituencies, too. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) is not here at the moment; in the past, Lowestoft and Yarmouth have spent a lot of time fighting each other. We fought on opposite sides in the civil war, and we had the herring wars, but we are united now in seeking to deliver the renewable energy opportunities.
The energy Bill will be a foundation stone; we have to build on that for the benefit of Britain, East Anglia and—to go back to being parochial for a minute—Waveney. Looking at it from Britain’s point of view, we have the opportunity to lead the world in a transition to a low-carbon economy. We owe it to future generations to grasp that opportunity.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who, like me, represents a “periphery” constituency—he on the most easterly point of England, and me on the most north-westerly point of Wales. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall pay tribute to a number of maiden speech makers today. Their speeches bode well, and we can look forward to some excellent contributions. I pay tribute, in particular, to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is not now in her place. She said that she was the first Green Member of Parliament, but I remind her that in 1992 the Plaid Cymru Member for Ceredigion, Cynog Dafis, was elected on a Plaid Cymru/Green agenda. I refer to that because I think it is important. The Ecology party and the Green party have been very influential in shaping the green agendas of the main political parties over many decades, and I pay tribute to those in the Green party who have pursued such policies.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) rightly said that legislation for a grocery market ombudsman was not included in the Queen’s Speech. I took a private Member’s Bill on that issue through the previous Parliament. The Bill received its Second Reading, went through Committee and obtained its money resolution, but ran out of time. That was disappointing, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is seated on the Government Front Bench, will take note, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs lobbied hard for the measure. My Bill united the Front Benchers of all political parties, the grocery market ombudsman proposal was in each and every manifesto, and it could have been introduced very quickly. The code of practice has now come into being; the legislation would have taken up a minimal amount of time in this House and in the other place because the foundations have already been laid, and it would not have cost any money because it was self-financing. So, I am very disappointed, and I urge the Secretary of State to urge forward her colleague the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on that issue.
Mrs Spelman
For clarification, the coalition programme makes the situation perfectly clear, stating:
“We will introduce, as a first step, an Ombudsman in the Office of Fair Trading who can proactively enforce the Grocery Supply Code of Practice and curb abuses of power”
that currently exist. There was no need to introduce legislation on that point, and just because it was not in the Gracious Speech does not mean that it will not be dealt with.
Albert Owen
I am grateful for that, but it is not what the right hon. Lady’s party said in opposition. It pushed to ensure that we put that legislation on to the statute book, and that is important. Indeed, when I took my private Member’s Bill into Committee, the Opposition spokesperson at the time said just that—that we needed to make the proposal statutory. We still need to do so, because there will still be abuses and we need that referee in law. The position would be self-financing. Indeed, I think that the Conservative manifesto stated that the ombudsman would be housed in the Office of Fair Trading, so I still think that we need to do that. I shall not give up fighting for it, because the farming community needs it, producers need it and, I believe, consumers need it.
I want to concentrate on energy during my remarks on the Gracious Speech, because energy and food security are the two most important issues for the next few decades—and, indeed, generations. I, like the hon. Member for Waveney, am proud to be pro-nuclear, pro-renewables and pro-energy efficiency, and I see absolutely no contradiction in holding those views. It is important that we move forward, and I had hoped that in response to interventions on the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change we would have had some clarity about the Conservative-led Government’s stance on the issue. However, we got quite the opposite.
I am passionate about this issue, because in my constituency, with the Wylfa nuclear power station, nuclear power is the biggest employer. We have moved on, however, because we have embraced the low-carbon economy and the jobs that it will bring; and I want to continue working with others to create there an energy island concept, where we develop the low-carbon technologies of the future, with wind power, tidal power, energy efficiency, and research and development. The former Secretary of State was good enough to help me with that and to establish the fact that Wylfa nuclear power station would be one of the first of the new generation of new build in this country. Horizon, which is a joint venture between E.ON and RWE, would have applied for planning permission next year so that we could build and have continuity of skills at Wylfa. However, the new Government’s doing away with the Infrastructure Planning Commission and not putting anything in its place has caused great uncertainty.
Two companies have come together and want to invest billions of pounds, which would create 5,000 construction jobs, sustain 800 jobs in energy generation at Wylfa and help form the foundations of the energy island concept. Like Waveney, Anglesey has natural deep water. Centrica has permission from the Crown Estate to develop wind energy offshore, and the port of Holyhead is perfectly placed to accommodate that. I want to build that skills base on Anglesey, but the Government’s current position jeopardises that. I urge Government Front Benchers to clarify the matter. The companies are French in origin and international by nature, and if they sense uncertainty in this country they will take their business and the potential jobs not only to other parts of Europe, but to other parts of the world. That shows the seriousness of the situation. We have the capability in this country, and for some years we have had the political will. Let us not jeopardise that through the uncertainty caused by scrapping the IPC and not replacing it immediately.
Mrs Spelman
I have already intervened on this subject, but let me repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). The position is clear: IPC staff sit in the existing planning inspectorate and their expertise will not be lost. However, we have said that the decisions on the recommendations of those staff for infrastructure projects must be taken by the Secretary of State so that there is democratic accountability. To avoid long delays, decisions on inquiries and decisions by Secretaries of State will be time-limited.
Albert Owen
That reply is helpful, especially the first part, which explained that the IPC will still do its work and, I presume, make recommendations. However, it worries me greatly that the new Secretary of State will make the decisions, because we all know his views. The Conservatives have got form, because in the 1980s and 1990s Conservative Secretaries of State took 50 to 100 weeks to make decisions. The companies that I mentioned have chosen to invest in this country now, in the knowledge that planning permission would be streamlined. They now face a difficulty, and it is worrying. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has partly dealt with that, but I worry about the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change making a decision on political grounds rather than on the merits of the case.
Yes, I want democratic accountability—I have worked for a decade to get my local community on side, and it is 100% on side, but it could be overridden by an anti-nuclear Secretary of State. That is what we face on Ynys Môn because of the decision in the so-called coalition agreement. Worse, the coalition agreement provides for the Secretary of State to abstain on the issue in the House. I offered him an opportunity to respond to that and he refused, and I offer the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that chance. If we have a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, will he vote for the plan or abstain? He must show leadership, and one cannot do that by abstention.
Mrs Spelman
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is not here, but he answered that question. There is a clear majority in the House in favour of the new nuclear plants, and Labour Members should be careful about creating a myth of uncertainty. There is no need for a new nuclear power Bill in the Queen’s Speech because the legislation already exists. We are considering implementation, and the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that he is actively engaged with the industry to ensure that the plan goes ahead.
Albert Owen
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, but with the greatest respect, we have carefully worked on this matter for a long time to build confidence within the nuclear industry, and that confidence has been shattered by the coalition agreement. I know that that is an absolute fact, because I speak to people not only in the nuclear industry but in the supply chain. Hon. Members—including, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—have spoken in the debate about reviewing contracts. What kind of message does the coalition agreement send to multinational companies that want to invest in this country? That is a serious issue, and I hope it will be dealt with and clarified further. I offered the Energy and Climate Change Secretary the opportunity to intervene to do that, and he refused. He would not give the leadership that is absolutely necessary from a Secretary of State on that.
Renewables are very important, and I welcome some of the energy measures in the Queen’s Speech. How could we be against energy efficiency measures? I pay tribute to the Welsh Assembly Government, who have taken the lead on many of those things and are moving forward. I will work with the Government on those matters, to ensure that housing stock is brought up to the best standard, and that we build new houses with the best possible standards of energy efficiency. We are in agreement on that, and I also agree with the green investment bank proposal, which will be important in setting standards. I am still very worried about the nuclear problem. Nothing that the right hon. Lady told me today will allay those fears, and Opposition Members will continue to scrutinise the Government on it.
The energy island concept for Anglesey is under way. A few months ago, I had the pleasure of cutting the turf for an energy and technology centre with the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government. The centre will develop skills for the future, so we can see that a lot of work and investment has taken place already. That would link with a nuclear industry academy for higher skills. Because of that, young people within my area will know that they have a career path—we are talking about thousands of quality jobs for the future. Those people will have transferable skills, so they can work in other parts of the United Kingdom, which is why I am passionate about obtaining the clarity that we do not yet have.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was honest in giving his party’s appraisal of the matter and his difference of opinion with the Energy and Climate Change Secretary. There are big differences of opinion. In my election—I was one of the few Labour Members to increase my majority—all the candidates except the Liberal Democrat were in favour of nuclear power. The political parties in the area built a consensus with the colleges and universities to make it happen. This is how important it is: I not only want Anglesey to be the energy island for the United Kingdom, but I want the United Kingdom to be the energy island for the whole of Europe. The UK has the potential for, and needs, high-skill, high-value green jobs for the future.
That is why I am pleased to be a member of a party of government that introduced the Climate Change Act 2008, which was hugely significant. I am sure that Opposition Members will work with the Government to help them in the next phase of seeking international agreement on climate change. To use the old green cliché, we should be thinking locally, nationally and internationally on the environment. I make no apology for being pro-nuclear, pro-renewable and pro-energy efficiency. We need to grow up and introduce proper regulations so that we have a low-carbon economy, providing local and new jobs in future.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. On a procedural note, I should perhaps explain to all Members of the House that it is helpful if they rise when seeking to catch the Chair’s eye, which will give an indication of the number of people who are still trying to get into the debate.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak. I must admit that I am surprised to be here, not just today but generally. I cannot pretend that my campaign team and I were brimming with confidence in the run-up to the campaign. In fact the bookmakers shared that view, as I was still 2:1 with Ladbrokes until the last moment. I therefore thank the residents of Richmond Park and north Kingston for giving me the very real honour of representing them in Parliament. After three years of campaigning, I hope that they know that I will do my utmost.
I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Susan Kramer. Our campaigns clashed, sometimes very noisily, but on a personal level we developed a good relationship and I have great respect for her record as a constituency MP. She was diligent, hard-working, well liked and respected. I wish her well wherever she goes from here.
It is customary for MPs to praise their constituency in their maiden speech. While that is a duty, in my case it is also a pleasure; I am sure that everyone will say the same. I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a former Labour Minister, just outside the Chamber, and he told me that had he been given an opportunity to stand in Richmond Park he would have crossed the Floor to do so. That was a hell of a compliment to the constituency, and I absolutely go along with that. It is where I grew up, I live there now, and it is the only constituency that I would ever seek to represent.
Richmond park is the heart of the constituency, and gives it its name. It is one of London’s greatest jewels, being raw, beautiful and not overly managed. I am told that it has more ancient trees than all of Germany and France combined. That may be an exaggeration—I am often told that it is—but I am happy to indulge in it. It is not the only jewel, as we also have Kew gardens. If they are not the world’s greatest botanical gardens they are certainly among them, and are rightly a world heritage site.
Like all constituencies, Richmond Park has its threats and pressures, to which—as its MP—I will have to stand up. We have now dealt with the third runway, thanks to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. That was one of the major threats overhanging the entire community, but we need to maintain the pressure and ensure that we protect runway alternation, which offers residents a much needed respite from the relentless noise of aircraft flying overhead.
Other threats include those from developers, which affect many of the constituencies in the area. In the last few years, huge pressure from developers has led to the rapid erosion of our green spaces. Residents will look to this Government to introduce measures to protect what remains of our playing fields and gardens. Those measures are on the cards: they were in the Conservative manifesto and also, I believe, in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. I look forward to seeing those proposals become reality in the coming years, and that will certainly be appreciated in my constituency.
We have a shortage of school places at every level, and I believe that the plans of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will resolve that problem rapidly.
Richmond also has pockets of real deprivation, and that is something that most people do not associate with the constituency, because it is generally an affluent area. But for that very reason, those pockets of deprivation tend to be overlooked. As an MP, my job is to address the threats to the community and ensure that they do not materialise, as well as to stand up for the entire community—something that I am absolutely committed to doing.
I hope that during my time in this House, however long that may be, I will be able to contribute to some of the wider concerns that have an impact on my constituency and every other constituency. One of the great challenges for this Parliament is rebuilding trust in the institution. Ronald Reagan used to tell the old joke, frequently repeated, that politics is the second oldest profession, but it can often look like the first. I do not believe that I am the only person who encountered people on the campaign trail who would buy into that line. People can regard politicians with something close to contempt, we have to address that. It is tempting to blame it all on the expenses scandal, but the reality is that people were disengaging from politics long before that, and the data on voter turnout and allegiance to political parties back that up. I do not think it has anything to do with the expenses scandal; it has something to do with how we deal with politics in this country.
Politics at every level has become far too remote. On the European Union level, how many people in this country genuinely believe that when they cast their vote in a European election it will have any impact on how Europe is structured, on what decisions will be made within the EU, or even on the quality of those decisions? I do not think that many people believe in voting in those elections, and one of the reasons is that increasingly decisions are being taken by people who are not elected, and are therefore insulated from any kind of democratic pressure.
Nationally, we have a choice—a limited choice—every 1,500 days or so, and in between there are very few authentic mechanisms for ordinary people to influence how decisions are taken. At the local level, I would say things are even worse. Local authorities have been stripped of powers over such a long time and to such an extent that even on genuinely local issues—local planning matters, local supermarkets, incinerators, for example—more often than not local authorities find themselves overruled by national quangos that are also unelected.
This Parliament needs to act decisively to shorten the distance between people and power. That should be one of our priorities. One of the best, cleanest and most effective ways to do that is to introduce much more direct democracy. It should be possible for people to earn the right to trigger a referendum on important local and national issues. It should be possible for people to recall and eventually possibly boot out councillors and MPs, not just for committing crimes but simply because they have lost the trust and respect of their constituents. If we introduce those mechanisms and turn increasingly to direct democracy, the quality of the national and local debates will improve, we will see much more engagement and we will have a much more politically literate country.
There is another challenge—there are endless challenges, but I thought I would focus on two—that has been the subject of the discussions today. The environment is the defining challenge of our era. It goes without saying—I hope—that without a healthy environment, we have no economy or future. It is the defining, underlying issue, and the basic maths tell us that we are heading in a dangerous direction: a growing population combined with an increasing hunger for resources means that the cost of living will at some point go up. If we take that to its logical conclusion, we will reach a point when conflict is almost inevitable.
We need only look at the facts. We can argue about climate change and our exact contribution to it, although I will not do that now, because other people have already done so today. The world’s bread baskets are being eroded. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. There is the destruction of the world’s forests, the loss of species and habitats and the collapse of the world’s great fisheries. These are real issues, and they are not subject to debate; they are matters of fact. They are not niche problems, but fundamental problems. I hope it also goes without saying that as we undermine the natural world and natural systems, we eventually undermine the basis of our own existence.
The cause of many of those problems is also, fortunately, the solution: the market. But if the market is blind to the value of valuable of things, if it is blind to the value of natural systems, and if it fails to put a cost on those things that should have a cost, economic growth can only be an engine of environmental destruction and a process that effectively means cashing in on the natural world until there is nothing left. Nevertheless, the market is the most powerful force for change that we know, other than nature itself. It is a tool, and if we allow the natural world to be plundered, it is simply because we have failed to understand how to use that tool. We need to put a price on pollution, waste and the use of scarce resources, and we need to invest the proceeds in alternatives. I do not think that green taxes should ever be retrospective—we have seen too much of that—and I do not think that the green agenda should ever become an excuse for raising stealth taxes. We have seen too much of that as well. However, whatever we introduce must be real, not synthetic. We need rapid change.
I want to read out something that Margaret Thatcher said 20 years ago—she was well ahead of her time on this issue—so I hope that hon. Members will indulge me:
“Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it's sensible to develop alternative and sustainable energy sources; it's sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it's sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it's sensible to tackle the problem of waste. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them ‘no regrets’ policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect.”
Margaret Thatcher was way ahead of her time, but she was also following a long but occasionally forgotten tradition in the Conservative party of paying tribute to and understanding the importance of the environment. It is a tradition that goes all the way back—as far back as anyone wants to go—to Edmund Burke, who said:
“Never…did Nature say one thing and Wisdom say another.”
Stewardship; looking out for future generations and recognising limits, particularly nature’s limits; providing security—these are core Conservative values. For as long as I am able to stay in this House, they are values that I will stand up for.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on an excellent maiden speech on a subject that is obviously dear to his heart.
I would like to look at the reality and the practicality of putting things into practice, as opposed to the fine words. Saying that we want stricter targets must be followed up with the right finance and help to make that happen. I am worried that the coalition agreement and the Queen’s Speech focus on wanting to do certain things, but do not put in the wherewithal to do so. One thing that manufacturers always bring up with me is certainty. They want to know whether they can have certainty that there will be a market for their goods or that the right forms of incentive will be in place for people to buy their goods, particularly in the case of microgeneration. If people are going to buy solar panels or wind turbines, there needs to be an incentive for them to do so. The manufacturers need to know in advance if we are going to promote electric cars. They do a lot of work to develop prototypes and they need to know that there will be an incentive for people to buy those products.
I am concerned that the cuts announced in the business budget this week could stifle the very types of manufacturing that we wish to encourage. We need to encourage that manufacturing now, otherwise we will miss the boat and other countries will take the opportunity to develop the new techniques that we need to make more sustainable cars and more useful devices that will produce renewable energy or be more energy efficient. There is a real danger. For example, one company in my constituency, Filsol, which makes solar panels, relies heavily on knowing not only what the situation will be for the individual private consumer, but what will be done through the public purse.
Filsol was a supplier in the huge renewable programmes in the heads of the valleys, making buildings in the housing stock more sustainable. However, those programmes were obviously directed and funded largely through the Welsh Assembly Government, who now face enormous cuts. Whether we are talking about public procurement or motivating the private sector to purchase, we have a responsibility to our manufacturing industry to ensure that we get ahead, do not miss the boat and do not lose the manufacturing base for a whole new generation of products to other countries. Indeed, what I have said of the Welsh Assembly could be said of the regional development agencies in England.
One thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—he is now the shadow Secretary of State—did when he was in office was get through the feed-in tariff legislation, so that from April, people have been able to apply for feed-in tariffs for their microgeneration. However, I would like a reassurance from the new Secretary of State not only that the scheme will continue, but that it will be extended to cover the pioneers who installed their microgeneration equipment some time ago, so that the energy that they now produce can be eligible for feed-in tariffs. It is unfair that the people who made the effort when things were difficult and people were perhaps sceptical should now miss out on the opportunity to benefit from feed-in tariffs.
We talk a lot about localism, and, although I would be the first to champion local people’s rights to have their say and influence planning decisions, I am also concerned that there needs to be an overview. The example that I want to use is that of biomass. In many areas, local planners will decide whether a particular site is suitable for a biomass power station and whether to go ahead with it, but no one seems to be looking into the cumulative effect of all the applications. The Department does not hold statistics on the number of applications that have been submitted, which now number a couple of dozen; nor does it look at where the material to fuel the power stations is going to come from. It is no longer a matter of scraping up the material from beneath our forests; we are now talking about enormous volumes of forestry that are going to be destroyed in order to feed our power stations. We do not have that amount of forestry, and the vast majority of the material will have to be imported. Much of it will come from areas with forestry and biodiversity that we want to preserve.
Before the Copenhagen summit, we were excited by the thought that forestry was going to be included in the talks. We were discussing how to incentivise the preservation of the wonderful forests of the world. The situation that we now face, however, is similar to the realisation that we had about biofuels. Land has been taken over for the production of biofuels by ripping up forests or by taking over areas originally designed for food production, and the same could happen for the production of biomass. We have not reached that situation yet, because we have not calculated the volume that we would need to fuel the two dozen or so power stations that are currently going through the planning process. This worries me, and I think that the Department needs to have a strategic overview of where we are going with biomass.
I should also like the incoming Government to consider carefully the need to ensure fair competition, and to review the role of Ofgem. I note that that has been mentioned in the coalition document. I want to highlight the use of liquefied petroleum gas by householders in rural areas. There is an estate in a village called Llannon in my constituency, in which 20 houses are all linked in to one supplier, Flogas. By some extraordinary mechanism, no one is able to get out of their contract with Flogas, because as long as one household is tied in, they are all bound to be supplied by the company. They would like to look elsewhere—like everyone, they want to be able to look around and get the best price—but they are completely subject to the whim of Flogas. Ofgem does not seem to have the power to intervene in such situations. I would like to have a meeting with the Secretary of State, if he would allow that, to look into this issue and to see what can be done to free up the market for householders in rural areas who are dependent on LPG, so that they no longer need to be tied to one supplier.
Another issue that worries me considerably is the lack of any further legislation in the Queen’s Speech on water. We brought in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, in which we were determined to bring together the issues raised in the Walker report, the Cave report and the Pitt report. The legislation was taken through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) just before the end of the last Parliament. There remain, however, some outstanding issues relating to water poverty and to how we should deal with the disparity in water costs between the different regions. For example, Wales and parts of the south-west have huge costs compared with some of the more industrialised and urban areas of the United Kingdom. Coastal erosion was mentioned by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) in her maiden speech today, and that issue also needs to be tackled. It would have been nice to see those issues included in the coalition agreement.
I also want to find out what support the Government will give to anaerobic digestion. A lot of work has been done on this matter to date. I note the use of the words “to promote” in the Government’s proposals, and I hope that that will translate into some proper help to get this excellent technology going. That will not be easy, as it can sometimes provoke local opposition. Community groups are trying to get it off the ground, but they need clear guidelines and help, as well as a guarantee of the prices that they can expect to get for the fuels that they produce. That will help them to raise the investment that they need to set up these technologies.
I very much welcome many of the fine words in the coalition agreement and in the Queen’s Speech, but we need an absolute guarantee that the money will be put in, as well as the words, so that we can make the necessary progress and not fall behind. We are determined to be the world leader, and we must not leave it to all the other countries to get on the new technology bandwagon and leave us behind. That would leave our manufacturing greatly depleted, rather than in the leading position that it ought to be in.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak for the first time in the House. It is a great privilege to follow three excellent speeches by the hon. Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who I am sure will contribute much to Conservative Members’ understanding of issues around the environment and climate change.
I have the considerable honour and privilege to represent the people of Salisbury and south Wiltshire. It is with great pleasure that I also offer heartfelt praise and positive words about my predecessor, Robert Key. Robert was an outstanding Member of Parliament for 27 years. Elected in 1983, he had the great privilege, as have I, of being brought up in Wiltshire and of representing Salisbury.
Robert’s Westminster career developed somewhat auspiciously in 1984—the heyday of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher—when the Chief Whip called him in and sat him down to offer him the position of Parliamentary Private Secretary to Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister. Robert, a dutiful public servant, was delighted with his new role, but his local association members did not immediately grasp the significance of his privileged position. None the less, as with everything Robert has done for Salisbury over the years, he tackled his task with good humour and enthusiasm. Robert went on to find a home in Salisbury for his boss—Arundells in the Close—where Edward Heath lived for 20 years until he passed away in 2005.
It was six years later when Robert’s next big opportunity arose. On one autumnal evening, Robert took a call from the Prime Minister’s office and was summoned to the great lady’s suite at the party conference. He arrived and it is said that he was led through to her bedroom and she asked him whether he would like to join Her Majesty’s Government to be a Minister in the Department of the Environment. As Robert excitedly accepted and bounded out of the room, he realised—this was October 1990—that he would be responsible for taking the poll tax through Parliament. A month later, the Prime Minister resigned and the poll tax was axed, but Robert went on to serve in two further ministerial roles. He was a Front Bencher in opposition and latterly a highly regarded member of the Select Committee on Defence and a member of the Chairmen’s Panel.
Having examined a number of maiden speeches, I have noted how the previous MP is often referred to as having passed on or moved on to another planet, but I am happy to report that Robert Key is alive and well and continues to live in Salisbury with his wife, Sue. I am sure that they will continue to be regarded with great warmth and affection for the many years of dedicated service they have given to Salisbury and south Wiltshire.
Robert’s presence in Salisbury marketplace on Saturday mornings is a tradition that I intend to follow; the people of south Wiltshire expect it of me. I also intend to stand up for the stallholders of the marketplace, many of whom—or, rather, their predecessors—have been there since 1227, and are anxious to know that the mooted changes to the marketplace are going to be modest and not waste public money.
My constituency stretches from Tilshead on the Salisbury plain to Hamptworth on the edge of the New Forest, and from Cholderton in the north-east to Ebbesbourne Wake in the south-west—the finest pocket of English countryside anyone could wish to find. With the constituency reduced in size since the last boundary changes, I hope that the Government’s intention, as set out in the Queen’s Speech, to reduce the number MPs and equalise constituency sizes will allow Salisbury to reclaim the Nadder valley—a beautiful seam of England which, sadly, got cut out of the Salisbury constituency at the last boundary change. I look forward to lively conversations with my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and with the boundary commission in the months ahead.
One cannot mention Salisbury without mentioning the cathedral—an iconic building for Christendom, an institution in itself, certainly making a big impact on the culture, heritage and landscape of the medieval city. As my grandmother used to tell me when I was a child, its spire, 404 feet tall, was the highest in Europe when it was built, and it remains the highest in Britain today. We also have a vibrant Christian community in the city and the surrounding area. As a committed believer myself, I hope to be a parliamentarian who will stand up for Christian values and the importance of marriage and the family in our society.
The housing, shops and businesses in my constituency were laid out in a chequer system of streets in the 13th century, and that system remains today. Although I could focus on the considerable challenge that my constituency faces to deal with the need for more housing— I am pleased to note that the new Government will allow more local discretion in the number of houses that need to be built and where they should be built—I wish today to make the case for greater care for the rural communities that make up such a large portion of my constituency.
As one who grew up in a small horticultural business in Wiltshire, I am keen to see the new Government reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation in the farming and horticultural sector, a move that I am sure will be welcomed throughout south Wiltshire. I also hope that the new Government will be able to trust farmers more. Too often, Governments of all persuasions have considered it necessary to regulate a little more here and a little more there, but to little lasting effect. I hope that in the near future the Secretary of State will provide more detail about proposals in the coalition programme to reduce the regulatory burden on farmers.
I am delighted by some of the moves that have already been announced, including the commitment to investing in broadband, which is desperately needed in parts of my constituency. I am delighted by the new Government’s commitment to providing accurate information on food labelling, so that when something is labelled “Produced in Britain”, that is actually true. It should not mean that the product was cut up, washed, prepared and repackaged in Britain. I also welcome the Government’s promise that food procured by Government Departments, and eventually the whole public sector, will meet British standards of production wherever that can be achieved.
I hope that Whitehall will be able to source more of its food from British suppliers, as that would be a key way in which to help farmers in Britain and, hopefully, those in my constituency. At a time when less than 1% of bacon served to United Kingdom armed forces is British, I thoroughly recommend a good helping of locally produced Wiltshire ham as a reliable alternative. I also hope that the Government will get rid of the Agricultural Wages Board, which has become an unnecessary bureaucracy that achieves little for farmers or their workers. I hope that they will be able to act in the best interests of our farmers, who need less intervention, more trust and greater freedom at every point.
I believe that what is required more than anything else at this challenging economic time for rural Britain is a recognition that rural poverty needs to be addressed directly and urgently. We often forget that many of the lowest-paid members of our society are part of the rural economy and rely on a vibrant food-producing sector to survive.
Whatever else I am asked to tackle or may achieve in the House, I hope that, like Robert Key, I will serve my constituents faithfully, determinedly and selflessly, and fight for the interests of the vulnerable, the suffering and the insecure. I am utterly thrilled to be standing in the House today, and I give my support to a Queen’s Speech which I believe offers many good things to my constituents in Salisbury and south Wiltshire.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this important debate and enabling me to make my maiden speech. Let me begin by commending the maiden speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray)—a wonderful lady who will grace this side of the House very well—and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who is a friend of mine. I am so pleased to see him elected and sitting on these green Benches.
Alas, I must also thank someone who, annoyingly, raised the bar in maiden speech terms just before I spoke: my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). He talked a great deal about tradition and horticulture in his speech. I knew he was going to do that because I know that, on accepting the honour of being elected for Salisbury, he then sang the “Ode to the Turnip”.
As you will know, Mr Speaker, I was a member of the European Parliament between 1999 and 2009, representing the east midlands region of the UK in Brussels and the very expensive and completely superfluous Strasbourg. Many hon. Members here have asked me what the notable differences are between being a Member of the European Parliament and being an MP. There are very many indeed. For example, there is no obvious need for simultaneous interpretation here and it does not take me the best part of a day to commute to my place of work. However, the biggest difference I have seen so far is the amount of constituency work that hon. Members do.
When I was elected to the European Parliament I was, like all new members of any Parliament, as keen as mustard to prove my worth to my constituents. However, I had to wait a very long time for my first constituent to actually contact me––over two months. When it came, it was quite unexpected, as the constituent in question had somehow got hold of my home telephone number and called me quite late on a Friday night. Never mind; this was my first real punter and I was going to help him no matter what. I asked him what his problem was and he said, “It’s about my drains.” This was not necessarily a European matter but I was keen to help. We spent ages going over what he perceived his problem to be and, at the end of our conversation, I told him that I had a plan. My plan was that, on Monday morning, I was going to phone his environmental health officer and get things moving. He said to me, “Oh no, I don’t want to take it that high.” It was then that I realised that perhaps the public do not hold politicians in very great esteem. I very much hope that this new Parliament can rectify that, given time. That story keeps coming back to me each morning when I receive the dozens of phone messages, the bags of mail and the hundred-odd e-mails from my constituents in Daventry.
The seat of Daventry itself has only been around in parliamentary terms for the last 92 years. I am only the sixth MP returned for it. Indeed, when the seat was created in 1918, it returned a man who occupied your chair for a very long time, Mr Speaker. Edward Fitzroy had quite a reputation as Speaker of the House. According to Harold Macmillan, his speakership was “severe but fair” and he had a particular method of dealing with bad, tedious and too-lengthy speeches. Mr Speaker Fitzroy would remark to himself in a voice audible to at least the two Front Benches, “Oh, what a speech!” or “When is this boring fellow going to sit down?” Whatever you might be thinking now, Mr Speaker, I am obliged to you for not saying it.
The hon. Member for Daventry for the past 23 years was the hon. Tim Boswell, a man well regarded and much respected on both sides of the Chamber and very much so in his constituency. If I had a pound for each time someone said during the election campaign that Tim Boswell was “such a nice man” or that I would have very big boots to fill, I could have afforded not to have had any dealings with IPSA at all in my first parliamentary term. It is with some trepidation that I come to this place as the successor of a man called a saint by some in the national media, as everyone is disappointed that he chose to retire at the last general election. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in the hope that we will get to see him working in another place very near here in the not too distant future.
I first met Tim Boswell back in the 1980s. I was working in New Covent Garden market, in my family’s fruit and vegetable import and wholesale business. At about 5 o’clock one morning, a mild panic swept through the market. A number of men in suits were touring around. Obviously there was no need for people to worry because everyone there had, of course, paid all their taxes. Soon the mood relaxed when the junior Minister for Agriculture, who was in charge of wholesale markets, started to introduce himself. Yes, Tim Boswell took seriously every job he was given in government and opposition and did them better than anyone else had ever done. No one in New Covent Garden market could remember seeing a Minister beforehand and I know that no one has since.
It should be noted that the boundary Commission changed the constituency boundaries quite considerably, so the new Daventry takes in areas that were previously represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley). Those Members all have excellent reputations among their former constituents, and they are all distinctive characters in this place, too.
The new constituency of Daventry has a great deal going for it, with almost 100 distinct and beautiful villages and the town of Daventry itself. Daventry, or Danetre for those who are truly local or like their Shakespeare, has its origins as a settlement back in the 9th or 10th century. It has had a market since the 12th century, which still continues to this day. The town once—but no longer, alas—had a railway station on the former London and North Western Railway branch line from Weedon to Leamington Spa, but it was closed back in September 1958. The local weekly newspaper, the Daventry Express, is nicknamed “The Gusher” after the steam engine that used to service the town.
If people know anything about Daventry, they will know that from 1932 the BBC Empire Service, now the World Service, broadcast from it. The radio announcement of “Daventry calling” made the town famous across the globe. They might also know that early in the morning of Tuesday 26 February 1935, the radio station on Borough hill, Daventry, was used for the first ever practical demonstration of radar by its inventors, Robert Watson-Watt and Arnold Frederic Wilkins.
Many beautiful villages are tucked away in the beautiful rolling countryside. Earl’s Barton is the home of Barker shoes—yes, I am wearing a pair now—a stunning Saxon church and a beautiful market square housing the famous Jeyes chemist, who invented and manufactured Jeyes fluid. Brixworth, with another Saxon church, lies just a mile or so away from a factory that builds McLaren’s Formula 1 racing car engines. Naseby is a beautiful village sited beside the battlefield where a decisive parliamentary victory was won in 1645, and at Ashby St Leger the plan was hatched to blow up the House of Lords during the state opening of Parliament on 5 November 1605.
Yelvertoft, Crick, Preston Capes, Hanging Houghton, Maidwell, Draughton, Lilbourne, Watford, Winwick and West Haddon are all stunning villages in my constituency, but they are also linked by the fact that every one of them has, or has had, proposed planning applications for wind farms with turbines of up to 126.5 metres tall, which is almost the height of the London Eye. The total number of turbines suggested for this small swathe of my constituency is 53.
This debate is about energy, and I must mention the folly that is onshore wind energy. Not only does it dramatically change the nature of the landscape for ever—and as we have very little beautiful English countryside left, so we should try to treasure the bit we have—but it does little to help us in our battle to reduce carbon emissions. Leaving aside the damage these turbines do visually, I believe that science is not on the side of this sort of wind power. We still need to have the ability to produce 100% of our energy requirements by other means for those times when the wind is not blowing, and when the wind does stop, there is plenty of research suggesting that firing up gas and coal power stations quickly to take the slack created by the wind stopping burns those fuels so inefficiently that much of the good that has just been done is undone. I also hope Ministers will give better planning guidance to local councils that have to deal with these matters. That guidance should perhaps borrow an idea from our European friends: a 2 km exclusion zone, meaning that no turbine can be constructed within 2 km of any dwelling.
I am a great believer in renewable, sustainable and locally produced solutions to our energy problems of the future. Plenty of miscanthus grass is grown as a true biofuel across my constituency. I also believe we have to face up to the fact that nuclear energy must play a part in the medium and long term.
Across Daventry, there is also huge pressure on housing, and there is also great concern that the previous Government’s top-down housing targets driven by quangos will mean building on greenfield sites and wrecking the countryside we love. I hope and expect to see this coalition Government return local planning to local people and incentivise the reuse of brownfield sites.
I imagine that everyone in this Chamber will have driven through my constituency, because the M1 carves it almost in two. At junction 18 stands Daventry international rail freight terminal, where what many people refer to as “big sheds” employs thousands of my constituents in skilled and unskilled work. My constituency is a key national hub for many large businesses, and I will always try to make the case for them in this place because I have noticed that wealth creators are often ignored, dismissed and perhaps even viewed with disdain by some in this Chamber. My constituents are excited about the proposals in parts of the Gracious Speech, especially those relating to the roll-out of high-speed broadband, because villages such as Spratton and Sibbertoft struggle to receive any connection.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye and participate in this debate. Daventry is very much a part of middle England, and I consider myself fortunate and privileged to represent it in the House of Commons.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches, but my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) raised the bar even higher with his speech. Not only was it entertaining, but it had depth and content, and I warmly congratulate him on that. I also congratulate the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on leading today’s debate on the Gracious Speech, which represents a triumph of localism over centralisation and prescriptive government. That will be particularly welcome in my constituency, as I shall explain a little later.
First, I wish to say a word about my predecessor, the right hon. Joan Ryan, who served the constituency from 1997 with such distinction and with such a commitment to campaigning on behalf of her constituents. I am sure that she would wish to hear no better message of thanks than that she was a fine and welcome constituency MP. Hon. Members may recall that her predecessor prior to 1997 was the right hon. Tim Eggar, who served Enfield, North from 1979 and served for 12 continuous years as a Minister. Tim was kind enough to support me during all my campaigns—those of 2001 and 2005, as well as the more recent one in 2010. People who remember Tim will recall him as the eternal optimist, with an outgoing and friendly nature; I did not know a day when he appeared a little down. Unfortunately, his optimistic outlook was put to the test in 2001 and 2005. With that same optimism, commitment, determination and self-belief he had assured me that we would win those elections with vast majorities, so it was extremely notable that in the most recent campaign he stayed silent.
As tradition requires, I shall spend a few moments telling the House about my Enfield North constituency, which I am so proud to represent. It is a constituency of contrasts. It is London’s most northerly constituency and it boasts some of the largest areas of green-belt land in its west. Many people say that it has the finest landscapes in the Greater London area. I agree with that view and I intend to work hard with local groups such as the Enfield Society, the Federation of Enfield Residents and Allied Associations—FERAA—the Crews Hill Residents Association and Friends of Hilly Fields, which, along with others, have worked so hard to preserve the character and nature of our constituency. Enfield Chase and areas such as Forty Hill have been blessed with many royal visitors during the past 400 years, the most regular of whom was Henry VIII, followed by Elizabeth I. The visits continue to the present day, but I can confidently say that nowadays most of our visitors come from the region; the area is very accessible, as it neighbours the M25.
Enfield town is, at heart, a traditional English market town, but I hasten to add that it has one unique distinction: it boasts the world’s first automated teller machine—it was known as “the cashpoint” in those days. I must say that it has been far more reliable in dispensing money than some of the banks that we got used to in the last couple of years, and it is still there to this day.
Eastern Enfield, by contrast, is a much more urban scene. My constituency has a diverse population. Diversity is evident in culture, ethnicity, language and religion. More than 40 languages are spoken by children attending schools in Enfield North, including my own school, Chesterfield, of which I have been fortunate enough to be an active governor for the last four years. The same local communities bring a vibrant economic and social mix to the area, with a wonderful sense of entrepreneurial spirit. The spirit of our Cypriot, Turkish, Greek, Asian, Kurdish and Somali communities is evident if one goes down the Hertford road. As someone mentioned earlier, hon. Members are most welcome to do so, so long as they are willing to part with some money to support our local business.
Above all else, Enfield is shaped by industry. Indeed, its motto is “By industry ever stronger”. This part of Enfield gave the world such things as Belling cookers, Scrabble and the first manufactured colour television, and it is of course famous for the Lee Enfield rifle, which, I believe, served the British Army until 1957. The subsequent disappearance of much of eastern Enfield’s old manufacturing industry has brought its challenges and its problems. Much of that industry has been succeeded by other entrepreneurial efforts but at the heart of my ambition for Enfield is the wish to ensure that we capitalise on the strategic advantages of the constituency to attract new businesses and a new economy, to support new local jobs and, above all, to deal with the plague of youth unemployment, which is far too high in my constituency. We have particular strengths, including an advantageous location next to the motorway network, direct connections into London on the trains and, of course, Stansted airport nearby. We have excellent communications, a reliable and skilled work force and a resilient enterprise culture with a burgeoning small business sector.
We have to create and attract new industries from the high-skilled sectors. We have to attract the creative industries that will be tempted to move from London and, of course, industries from the green economy that can and should come to Enfield. If, during my term—however long it might be—I can demonstrate that I can be the No. 1 salesman for our constituency, I will be a very happy MP as I would have improved the quality of life of many of my constituents.
On taking full advantage of the strategic location of Enfield, I noticed earlier that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, was in the Chamber. Perhaps she would have anticipated what I am about to say, because she is familiar with the need for us to compete, when the finances are right, for a northern gateway access road that that will link from the M25, and take mainly industrial traffic down through our eastern corridor. I join my colleagues who spoke earlier in knowing that this will be on our agenda. It will be a win-win situation, as it will help to develop our eastern corridor for business and take away one of the harshest environmental blights in the north of the constituency where the traffic goes along Bullsmoor lane—at its peak, 150 heavy goods vehicles a minute pass residential housing. Such a measure would be a win-win for the economy and for the local environment. I am sure that that is a subject that my constituents will ask me to revisit in due course.
One of the many qualities that Enfieldians have is that they are proud—proud of their area and of their neighbourhood. Many residents have grown up and spent all their lives in Enfield. They have strong views on their home town, and yearn for strong independent minded representation that will genuinely put their interests first and protect the environment and public services.
The localism that is evident from the Gracious Speech is one that I know the people of Enfield will welcome, so that they, and not remote politicians, can shape and influence the neighbourhood as they see fit. We were honoured when that localism was made acutely evident when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health visited our hospital, Chase Farm, within 14 days of the general election. He immediately stopped the top-down, London-led, unwelcome and unpopular reconfiguration plans for our hospital and returned the control and direction of our health care needs to residents and GPs, removing the threat of forced closures. That was a welcome demonstration of localism and of the new Government in action. That same localism is proposed across other key areas that dominate people’s day-to-day lives, including planning, which can literally have an impact on the street they live on. The Queen’s Speech marks the first real opportunity for an MP to work with his constituents, local authorities and public bodies to shape their neighbourhoods, services and environment and thus deliver real improvement to quality of life for all. I welcome that challenge and opportunity, as will my constituents. Mr Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to speak today.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
May I be the first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on his entertaining and interesting speech? May I also thank everyone else who has made a maiden speech today? I have learned a lot and I hope that hon. Members will learn a bit from me too.
In the few weeks that I have been here, I have been absolutely amazed that almost every Member I have spoken to, on hearing that I represent the City of Chester, has delighted in telling me of their happy trips to my city. Whether they have been to Chester races, studied at the law college or been there for a romantic weekend away, they have all, without exception, left with a wonderful memory of their visit.
I am proud to say that Chester has always welcomed visitors. Our first recorded visitors were the Romans, who established the legionary fortress on the lower reaches of the River Dee, built the city walls, laid out the road network and enjoyed themselves at the amphitheatre so much that they stayed for almost 400 years. In AD 973, King Edgar came to Chester and established himself as the King of all England when he got the kings of the other northern kingdoms to row him up the river and he started to lay the foundations of what is now the United Kingdom. That marked the start of the long relationship between the city and the Crown that Chester has enjoyed for more than 1,000 years.
The Normans came to our city, built a castle and our magnificent cathedral and then used the city as the base for their conquest of north Wales. The English did not get it all their own way, however: several times the Welsh raided the city, destroyed the bridges across the river and burned down many buildings outside the walls. It is from that period that our famous statute came into force, which forbids Welshmen from entering the city walls after dark and allows those who are in the city at night to be legally shot with a crossbow. Apparently, that statute was never repealed. Fortunately, we live in happier times and, except for the one day of the year when Chester play Wrexham at football, we live in friendship with our Welsh neighbours.
Speaking of football, I must congratulate my predecessor, Christine Russell. When Chester City football club went into administration earlier this year, she was at the forefront of the campaign to bring football back to Chester. I am proud to say that at the start of this month the supporters group City Fans United established a new Chester football club, and we can now look forward to football returning to the Deva stadium in the autumn. Much of that is due to the hard work that was put in behind the scenes by the previous Member for the City of Chester.
Christine also championed international development and improved child care, but she will be most remembered in Chester for her conscientious casework in the city and the help that she gave to so many local people. I have known her for more than 10 years, and although we had many disagreements over politics, I salute the good work that she did locally and I know it is not going to be easy to follow in her footsteps. I have also been delighted by the good will that still exists on both sides of the Chamber towards Christine’s predecessor Gyles Brandreth and his predecessor Sir Peter Morrison, and I hope to be a worthy successor to them all.
Chester is the jewel in the crown of the north-west of England, but there is still much that we need to do. Our Gateway theatre closed down in 2007 and we need help to ensure that our dream of having a new theatre and performing arts centre in the city is delivered. I was particularly pleased to hear that the new Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport had promised that lottery funding would be restored to the arts, thus providing many opportunities for towns and cities such as Chester to improve their arts facilities.
We are also lucky to have in the City of Chester Chester zoo, which is one of the leading visitor attractions in the country and a world leader in animal conservation. It has big plans to expand to help to conserve more endangered species, and I look forward to championing it and its good work within Parliament.
Our ancient city walls, our amphitheatre and the mediaeval rows have all been neglected in the past and now need us to protect and champion our heritage. That is why I will be supporting a bid, put in by the local Conservative council, to obtain world heritage site status for the city centre.
In Chester, we have huge ambitions to bring investment into the city, and I will be playing my part, from Parliament, to help my constituents to achieve their dreams.
Chester is also a garrison town. We are the spiritual home to the 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment—the Cheshires—and I am proud to have a former commanding officer sitting before me. We are also the current home to the 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh Regiment, and all of us in Chester are proud to welcome the battalion back from its recent tour in Afghanistan and looking forward to its homecoming parade in front of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in a fortnight’s time.
Chester has thrived as a tourist destination and as a shopping centre. Anyone can stand at the cross in the centre of the city and see visitors from almost every corner of the earth, and I urge all Members to come to Chester and to see for themselves why they, and I, love the city so much.
Chester is an ancient city, but it is also a modern city. Financial giants, such as Bank of America, Lloyds Banking Group and M&S Money, have major bases and employ thousands of people in the City of Chester. It is, quite rightly, a priority of the coalition Government to curb the excesses of the past few years and to re-regulate the banks, but I would implore the Government to remember that financial services create huge wealth for our country and for many places like Chester and that not all people who work in financial services are the greedy bankers of lore. We need to make sure that good financial institutions are able to expand and prosper and that new companies and products are able to enter the marketplace and by doing so improve the service and reduce the cost of the financial services offered to their consumers. We need stronger and better regulation, but we also need to make sure that it is simpler.
Within the City of Chester constituency, we are also proud to host Urenco’s uranium-enrichment plant at Capenhurst. We are all aware of the problems to our energy supply that we face over the next few years. Many of our older coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations are due for closure. Since 2004, Britain has gone from being a net exporter to a net importer of natural gas, making us dependent on foreign sources and raising concerns over the security of our energy supply. We also, of course, have a duty to ensure that we reduce our nation’s carbon footprint. We want to ensure that all members of our society have access to affordable energy and to see a reduction in fuel poverty.
The 2006 energy review estimated that up to 25 GW of new generating capacity would be needed over the next two decades to fill the gap. That is 25 GW out of a current 76 GW generating capacity—a huge gap by any estimate. The UK is, quite rightly, committed to a renewable energy target of 15% by 2020, and renewables have an important role to play in the sustainability and security of Britain’s future energy supply. But, as the Secretary of State told us earlier, Britain currently generates only 6.6% of its energy requirements from renewable resources. The 15% target by 2020 is extremely challenging and will require a massive step change in the development of renewable supplies if it is to be achieved. Even if we do achieve that target, we will still have a gap of more than 10 GW of generating capacity to fill. As a Member of Parliament with a key part of the UK’s nuclear infrastructure in his constituency, I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), to look favourably on the use of new nuclear power generation to help fill the gap.
Nuclear power is clean. It is a low-carbon source of electricity generation. We have secure long-term supplies of fuel. Modern reactors are incredibly safe, and it is a future technology in which Britain can still lead the world. Operators and owners of nuclear power stations have been jumping at the opportunities offered by the previous Government’s draft nuclear policy statement, and there are now 10 sites judged as potentially suitable on, or near to, existing stations. Those sites obviously have to be subject to the normal planning process for major projects, but the Government need to bring forward a national planning statement for ratification by Parliament as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make my maiden speech during such an important debate for our country, and for Chester.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and by warmly welcoming her to her position. She brings a great deal of expertise to a Department that is at the heart of the great challenge of our age, which is taking from the earth only that which it can give. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon), and for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice); the latter, of course, is returning to the Ministry where he once served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary.
We wish the Secretary of State and her team well in their new responsibilities. I know that they will be ably supported by the dedicated civil servants alongside whom I had the privilege of working for nearly three years. I want to thank them and my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and Dan Norris, for everything that they did. It is a pleasure still to share a Front Bench with two of them.
The House will have noted that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is one of the few Departments without—in the new language that we are having to use—a Lib Dem ministerial ally, so I just want to say that I am sorry that I will not also face the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) across the Dispatch Box, but, I suspect, not half as sorry as he is. I want to pay tribute to him and to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for their courtesy and their eloquent contributions during their time in the DEFRA shadows, so to speak.
We have had a good debate, opened on our side with a spirited contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). We saw today the outstanding leadership that he has shown in creating the Department of Energy and Climate Change and in fashioning it into a formidable and practical advocate in the fight against dangerous climate change, and it is the kind of politics that has a great deal to offer us in future.
In a forensic speech, my right hon. Friend laid bare the inconsistency that is the Government’s policy on nuclear power. If I may say so to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, his replies on the subject were anything but convincing; one could indeed say that no greater love hath a man for his new friends than to lay down his lifelong views on nuclear power.
In contrast, our debate has been illuminated by many notable maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) clearly benefited from your training, Mr Speaker, and will be a fine advocate for her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke movingly of the strong sense of community in an area that has suffered greatly in the past, and from which clearly springs his passion for fairness. The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) was generous in his praise for his predecessor, and showed great confidence, which I am sure will stand him in good stead in the House. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who spoke with understandable filial pride and warmth about the “giant”, his predecessor, has clearly learned much that is good from him.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) certainly has something of the fight about him, and great eloquence to boot, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who will be a fine voice for his constituency. As for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray)—who, to use her phrase, is the new leaseholder of that constituency—I must say that her descriptions brought back memories of my time spent serving as a councillor representing a ward in her constituency that included the famous Ealing Studios.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a fine maiden speech, in which she reminded us of the history of the pioneers in this place—fittingly, as one herself. She may be a lone voice for her party, but it is one that we look forward to hearing again. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) will clearly stand up for his constituents, including the many farmers whom he is fortunate enough to represent. From the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), whose constituency has so much to offer in generating offshore electricity, we heard that such projects will have his very strong support.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made a powerful plea for accountability and for the protection of the environment, and we will all join the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) in opposing the idea of Wiltshire cured ham that does not actually come from Wiltshire. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has a ready wit and a constituency with a great deal of history and character, as we learned. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) spoke with insight about the character of his constituency and, movingly, about its potential. I can confirm from personal experience what the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) had to say about the enjoyment of those who visit his constituency, involving in my case a trip along the canal to Llangollen many years ago. All of them showed the promise of new Members from all parts of the House, and we look forward to hearing further from those who have taken the plunge today.
We also heard important contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) spoke about smart grids and meters, and the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) gave us a history lesson on energy policy and the link with development. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) spoke with passion about Sheffield Forgemasters and the need for a high-speed rail link both to Sheffield and to Leeds—to which I say, “Hear, hear”—and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) asked for the momentum in energy policy for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North was responsible to be maintained.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has made a great contribution to these matters over the years, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) spoke movingly about mine safety, and the hon. Members for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) made wide-ranging speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) reminded us why ecosystems matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke about the ombudsman and the need for a speedy planning system, and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) asked, “Where is further legislation on water?”
As the Leader of the Opposition said on Tuesday, where we agree with the measures outlined in the Government’s programme and in the Gracious Speech we will support them, and where we do not we will be an effective Opposition. It says much about the achievements of the previous Labour Government that the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wisely intends to continue with many of them, and I welcome that.
For example, on tackling illegal logging, I hope that the right hon. Lady will be as vigorous as we sought to be in seeking as part of the new EU timber regulation the prohibition that will stop illegal timber being placed on the European market. If Europe can ban, as it has, illegally caught fish from outside Europe being placed on the market, it can certainly do the same with timber.
On reducing waste, I am glad to see that the Secretary of State, having spent far too long trying to blame Whitehall for every decision on waste collection, has finally acknowledged what I have gently tried to tell her for some time: it is, and it should be, for local authorities to decide how to collect waste and organise recycling. In other words, they should decide on the means. However, it is the Government’s responsibility to set the vision, and we should stop putting into landfill a range of materials for which there is demand and other uses. I hope that she will do that, and we should turn food waste into clean energy, rather than leaving it to rot and create greenhouse gas emissions.
On the natural environment, we were very proud to put the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 on the statute book, and to have established two new national parks in the past five years, in the New Forest and on the South Downs—the latter during the year in which we marked the 60th anniversary of Attlee’s National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. I look forward to the creation of new places for wildlife—green corridors, bringing together the work of wildlife trusts, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the national parks, sites of special scientific interest and the marine conservation zones that the Marine and Coastal Access Act will create. The Lawton commission, which I established last year, will make its recommendations this summer, and we all look forward to them.
Farming, which, as we have heard, shapes our landscape, has so much to contribute to the future, as long as it develops the new skills that it needs—for example, in low-carbon farming—and has the support of the supermarket ombudsman that is to be created.
For all the fine words, there is nothing in the Gracious Speech about environment, food and rural affairs—apart from broadband, which we all support because it is the 21st-century artery of economic development, including in our countryside, just as the roads were in the previous century, the railways in the 19th century and the canals in the 18th century.
Of the omissions from the speech I warmly welcome one: the deathly silence about the Conservatives’ wish to overturn the hunting ban. Long may that remain absent. Given that so many Conservatives seemed so committed to the policy, it is strange that nobody wanted to talk about it during the election campaign and nobody has been keen to discuss it today. Perhaps it is because the Conservatives know that the public do not support them on that matter, or because among those who said that they backed the ban during the election campaign were those who are now the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Deputy Prime Minister. Labour Members will oppose a return to animal cruelty in our countryside, and we look forward to the support of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members if the Government are foolish enough to introduce such a proposal. To those who might argue, “Let the House decide,” I say that the House has decided. It did that when it passed the Hunting Act 2004. Reversing the ban is not about some notion of libertarian freedom, but about whether we think that setting one creature on another to kill it in the name of so-called sport is animal cruelty. I believe that it is.
Let me now turn to the way in which we deal with animal diseases. The Government say that they want to share responsibility for that with farmers, but they have not yet been clear about sharing the cost. Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain the exact position. Apart from being right in principle that farmers should contribute to the cost because they share in the benefit, judging by the cuts that the Department has already had to make, she will need to find ways of offsetting costs. When will we see further details of the 5.5% cut —the £162 million that DEFRA must bear? Yesterday, I looked at the DEFRA website and found a total of 80 words about those cuts—that is approximately £2 million a word. May we have some information about the jobs that will not be filled? What about scientific research and investment in flood defence?
I hope that the cuts will not affect the fight against bovine TB, which was mentioned in the debate. It is a truly terrible disease, but the new ministerial team has hardly made an auspicious start on the matter. Last week the Secretary of State gave an interview to Farmers Weekly, in which she sensibly said that she favours
“a science-based approach…there isn’t an easy answer.”
When asked specifically whether a badger cull would be part of her policy, she replied:
“I am not going to rule options in and out. What we need to do is look at the science…Over and above that, I have really nothing more to add.”
She may not have had anything more to say, but the Minister of State certainly did. A couple of days or so later, he went to the Devon county show and said, as was also reported in Farmers Weekly,
“we will carry out a scientifically-led targeted cull of badgers in hot spot areas.”
As the House knows, there is a debate on what is effective in controlling the terrible disease of bovine TB, and I am clear that vaccination rather than culling is the way forward, but utter confusion helps nobody. It seems that the Minister of State is running a policy that contradicts the view of the Secretary of State. I have a very simple question: have the Government already decided that there will definitely be a cull? If so—and the right hon. Lady is supposed to be in charge—what happened to looking at the science?
Listening to what science has to tell us is extremely important in everything we do, and never more so than in fighting climate change and ensuring that we live within our environmental means. Anybody who read the recent Joint Nature Conservation Committee report on biodiversity, or who has seen the work of the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project, which is so ably led by Pavan Sukhdev—I have long believed that that has the potential to do for our understanding of the economic benefits of biodiversity what Sir Nick Stern’s groundbreaking report did for our understanding of the economics of climate change—will know that what humankind has taken for granted for so long with barely a thought of the consequences can no longer be taken for granted. Why? Because the natural environment, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), gives the soil, clean air, food, fuel and medicines from plants on which we human beings rely for our very existence.
At times of economic difficulty, we cannot and must not forget that the environmental crisis presses upon us too. Whether on the emissions of CO2 that we must reduce, the way in which we use the natural resources and the natural gifts of the earth, or on the task of growing enough food for a growing population in a world where tonight, 1 billion human beings will go to bed hungry for want of enough to eat, choosing sustainability has to be our future. It has to be the future for farming as it seeks to grow more while impacting less, and for the common agricultural policy and the much-needed reform of the common fisheries policy. It must be the future for water supply, which we must learn to use much more wisely, for adapting to climate change and improving our flood defences, and for changing the way in which we use and dispose of resources. Every one of those things is essential to our future well-being.
When the Government do those things, we will support the action they take; when they do not, we will hold them to account. No one knows, least of all the partners in this alliance, how long it will last—it could be a few months or a few years—but the test against which all of us will be judged is the one I have set out this afternoon. We owe it to the planet to ensure that we succeed.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
First, I thank the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for his kind congratulations, and I also thank him on behalf of other members of my team. Everyone in the House knows of his commitment to DEFRA, and I extend my appreciation of the dedication that he has clearly inspired in all those in the Department whom we have been fortunate enough to meet so far.
The right hon. Gentleman’s achievements are many. From the passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to the creation of the South Downs as our ninth national park and Lundy Island as our first marine conservation zone, his drive and tenacity have left a lasting legacy for the future. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that there will be continuity on important matters such as illegal logging, fishing and whaling. We should not be surprised at that, for I share with him the view that the issues this Department faces are the great challenges of our age.
I wonder in passing, however, whether we should read anything into his warm praise for the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and in particular his specific mention of leadership skills. We will watch that space.
I also join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the many new Members to the House and congratulating them on their excellent maiden speeches. I had to make my own maiden speech entirely alone on my side of the House as it happened to coincide with the moment when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was proclaimed leader of my party after a ballot in Committee Room 14. I can tell those who have made their maiden speeches today that there is something to be said for safety in numbers.
I also extend my thanks to the established Members who have contributed to the lively debate today and congratulate them on their return to the House. I did intervene on several occasions to provide clarification as I thought that I might not have much time to do so now, especially as I wish to pick up some of the points made in the excellent maiden speeches.
I wish to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that coastal erosion is an issue that I will certainly treat as a priority in my Department, and I hope that that will also reassure some of her constituents. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly—commended the work of credit unions and I concur entirely that they provide a safe way to access credit, especially for people in straitened circumstances who find credit hard to secure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) was a distinguished leader of his county council and I am sure that he will take an active interest in my Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government. It was a great pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who described his father as a history maker. Well, the hon. Gentleman is making the history now and I wish him success.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) evoked childhood memories for me, as I spent many a summer holiday in Folkestone on the beaches of Dungeness bay. I am sure that his quest to regenerate those areas of Kent will be much appreciated. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) spoke warmly of his predecessor, Tommy McAvoy, whom all returning Members will remember as an effective Whip.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) sought some reassurance on the question of dangerous dogs, and I give the commitment to her that we will tackle the conduct of their owners and require greater responsibility from them. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) also made her maiden speech, and I pay tribute to her for her work, which has meant that the environment and green issues have become mainstream in British politics. No one can take that achievement away from her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is another new Member who comes here from the European Parliament, where he was chairman of the agriculture committee, so he brings a particular expertise to the House and we welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the ports of Lowestoft and Yarmouth, and their potential as a centre for the development of new offshore renewable energy capacity. I have seen that with my own eyes, and his zeal on environmental issues will be very welcome to my team.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke about the importance of the new politics and the need for people to re-engage with politics. His passion for the environment will certainly make a difference to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) paid warm tribute to his predecessor, sought from me an undertaking to reduce red tape, and also engendered great hunger in me as he spoke about Wiltshire ham and bacon. He has certainly done his bit for the vernacular foodstuffs from his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), yet another former Member of the European Parliament, also brings expertise to the House and stressed the importance of planning guidance becoming more local. I am sure that his constituents will benefit as the new Government deliver a more local planning system. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) said that he wanted to be the No. 1 salesman for a group of people whom I now know should correctly be called Enfieldians—I have been enlightened by him. I concur with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) about his constituency. I have walked its ramparts, and he is fortunate indeed to represent such a beautiful place.
We heard speeches from Members whom I dare to call the old guard, and I hope they will forgive me for dealing with them briefly. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) that localism will help to relieve the pressure on education in west Kent, but I fully understand his point. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) sought reassurance about the new Government’s approach to biodiversity targets. We are absolutely committed to reversing the trend in the reduction in biodiversity. I give him that undertaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) sought reassurance that the new Government will take seriously the pressures on his constituency, particularly from Travellers on authorised sites. I repeat to all hon. Members that the new Government are committed to increasing the number of authorised sites and to providing incentives to councils to do that, so that the burden can be shared across local authorities.
Perhaps I should have welcomed the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) among my responses to the other maiden speeches, but he has been in the House before—he is in a special category. I would like to reassure him that we will take very seriously the latest report from TEEB, and I hope that my commitment to sustainability will become clear as I fulfil my role in the House.
I hope that hon. Members who have been in the House before will forgive me if I move on to make just a few remarks. When I slipped out briefly, I had the opportunity to clarify points with some Members outwith the Chamber, and I am always available to any Member who wants clarification on any of the subject areas we discuss. It is clear that Members on both sides of the House feel strongly—and rightly so—about protecting our environment, growing our food and fisheries industries, ensuring our energy security and mitigating and adapting to climate change. The coalition agreement is clear on the issue of fox hunting and tuberculosis. The former will be subject to a motion on a free vote, but it is not an immediate priority for the Government. Our immediate priority is to tackle the deficit—that is the No. 1 priority set out in the coalition agreement.
The coalition agreed a package of measures for science-led badger control, but the right hon. Member for Leeds Central will know that an incoming Secretary of State must examine the science carefully, otherwise there is the risk of being subject to judicial review.
Mrs Spelman
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind—I have spent quite some time on the maiden speeches and talked with him outwith the Chamber—I would like to make some progress.
My Department deals with many national and global issues on which our future depends, and it is only by putting them at the heart of the Government’s strategy for economic growth that we can deliver the green jobs, green technologies and greener economy that we must have to achieve and ensure a secure and sustainable future. The Queen’s Speech provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to work across Government to make that future happen, and there are a number of pieces of legislation into which DEFRA will have an important input.
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Gentleman was in the House when we spent 700 hours of legislative time dealing with the Fox Hunting Act, and I am sure that he will appreciate that those of us who bear the scars of that have no desire to devote huge amounts of parliamentary time to that when we have inherited a legacy containing a huge hole in the nation’s finances.
I want to talk about practical measures that the Department will proceed with in legislation contained in the Queen’s Speech. They include measures to roll out fast broadband, which will create the opportunity for us at DEFRA to ensure that it is provided in rural areas, enabling better communication with the rest of the country and the world, and breaking the isolation that many individuals and businesses in rural areas often feel. The measure will also provide an opportunity for many to reduce their need to travel, reducing carbon footprints and helping to create jobs in rural areas. We are particularly keen to support community-led broadband in rural areas, as another real example of the big society in action.
At the Department for Communities and Local Government, too, the communities Bill will create a platform for DEFRA to demonstrate the priority that we attach to both market rate and social rural housing. With planning being returned to the local level, we hope that many rural communities, through their parish councils and other forums, will seize the chance to shape local plans for the homes that they need. All Departments are going to have to think about how they can drive down their carbon footprints and contribute to the new green economy. We will be challenging them from DEFRA, as well as challenging all the arm’s length bodies under our umbrella.
At DEFRA, for example, we know that the food and farming sectors account for 14% of the UK manufacturing sector and provide the same percentage of jobs. Our urban and rural communities depend on the services and opportunities that those sectors provide, so my Department will be seeking to build on the strong foundations that we have already laid in our early meetings with EU member states for genuine reform of the common agricultural policy, to ensure that it reflects this Government’s fourfold approach to good value for farmers, taxpayers, consumers and the environment alike. We will also await the outcome of Rosemary Radcliffe’s report, which my predecessor commissioned, before proceeding to recommendations.
We know, too, that climate change and the global race to industrialise are reducing the biodiversity and ecosystems of our planet at an unsustainable pace. We must act now to reverse that trend, so the Government will be offering and seeking firm commitments to address the global loss of biodiversity at the UN General Assembly meeting on biodiversity in New York in September, at the Nagoya biodiversity summit the following month in Japan, and at the meeting of Environment Ministers in Cancun at the end of the year. There is no “either/or” when it comes to climate change and biodiversity; they are interdependent and interlinked. We must act together at those conferences, because to do otherwise would be to rob future generations not only of the infinite variety of landscapes and species that we have been lucky enough to enjoy, but of the natural resources on which we depend for the quality of our lives and, indeed, our very livelihoods. We will act as a Government, with the publication of a White Paper on the natural environment to promote just that.
This debate was elegantly opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. His Department proposes an energy Bill explicitly linking the threat of climate change to both the need to ensure that our energy supplies are secure and the opportunities that a green economy can provide. I believe that the Bill will be welcomed by all, particularly after a winter that brought home the realities of the current cost of energy to the economically vulnerable. All too real, too, has become the threat of floods, which destroy homes, businesses and tragically, as we saw last November, even lives. We will therefore maintain an increase in the money that taxpayers spend on flood defences this year, with no impact on the number of households that we protect.
For too long, families have been exhorted to do their bit to drive down greenhouse gas emissions without being offered any support to do so. “Pay as you save”, a central part of this Government’s green deal, will directly help householders to benefit from greater energy efficiency, saving money and cutting emissions. In its current form, the Bill is unprecedented in its domestic impact, and we are also exploring how businesses can benefit from it. The Bill proposes the most significant energy framework yet, to bring about our green recovery and build our low-carbon future. That is something to which we surely all aspire.
The energy Bill will be presented by my right hon. Friend, clearly demonstrating this coalition’s commitment to be the greenest Government in the country’s history. For the first time, we are developing an integrated strategy across Government, and across the public, private and third sectors, to tackle the loss of biodiversity, address the way that we use resources, adapt to climate change and grow a greener economy that provides the clean, green jobs and industries of the future. The Gracious Speech looks to that dynamic future, and I commend it to the House.
Southend Borough Council
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for giving me this opportunity to raise certain matters of great concern to my constituents in Southend West. I am also grateful to have the opportunity to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on his appointment to the Government. I must deny completely that I said to his private office that, if he were kept well watered, he would continue to grow. As far as I am concerned, he does not need to grow in stature. Given his wide experience on the Greater London authority, I can think of no one more able than he to deal with matters of local government. I am also delighted that he has been given this particular Government job, because he is married to a former councillor and mayor of Southend, and he therefore has a particular insight into matters affecting my constituency.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) on his appointment to the Government. It is not widely understood that, when someone is appointed as a Whip, they have to sign up to the life of a Trappist monk, but the job is an extremely important one. On 5 January this year, my hon. Friend and I took part in an Adjournment debate in which we raised a number of issues. I am delighted to be able to quote some of the things that he said. They include:
“We have extremely good directly elected councillors, and they should be allowed to get on with the job of spending the money as local residents desire”.
He also said that he and I were united in our desire to get fair funding for the town we represent, saying that
“counting correctly is the most fundamental single thing the Minister could review when considering the future prosperity and regeneration of Southend.”—[Official Report, 5 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 147.]
He is looking forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, as he did in opposition, and together we hope to ensure that Southend gets an accurate census in 2001, as well as the central Government funding that it deserves and needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East was not a Member of this place when we had the previous census. It was an unsatisfactory enterprise in every sense, and I raised many questions about the way in which it was conducted. About 20,000 people were left off, and that has had a devastating effect on our constituents. The next national census will take place on Sunday 27 March 2011. The error that happened in the previous one had a devastating effect on Southend Together, the local strategic partnership which includes the council, NHS South East Essex, Essex police and the Southend Association of Voluntary Services. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, Government funding is calculated by using the population figures from an area’s census, so those mistakes have led to a serious lack of funding. We believe that £8.5 million was lost to local residents.
I have had an awful lot of Adjournment debates since I was first elected to this House. In them, I have exchanged words with whomever the Minister was, and they have tried to help with whatever concerns I have raised on behalf of my constituency. This evening, I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister to listen very carefully to the points that I want to raise, because I genuinely believe that this new coalition Government could make things far better for my constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East, at no extra cost.
As we heard in the discussion of the Gracious Speech on Tuesday, there is a genuine and robust debate to be had about unitary status. Part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East comes under Essex county council, but mine does not. We have an entirely unitary authority, and I have to tell the Minister that I feel that, as a unitary authority, we face some disadvantages. It is a very small authority, and I hope that in the fullness of time over this Parliament, we will be able to join forces with surrounding local authorities so that we can pool expertise and, frankly, carry more clout than seems possible as a unitary authority at the moment.
I deal next with the whole issue of quangos, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East is on the record as having strong views. I share them and I am delighted that this Government are committed not only to looking at the budgets of quangos, but to abolishing them. It is absolute madness that, according to a recent Local Government Association report, while the state spends an average of £7,000 a person on health, education and care for the elderly, just £350 is controlled by locally elected politicians. I believe that my hon. Friend referred to this in the debate of 5 January.
I would have thought that we wanted to make it worthwhile for people to vote for local councillors by giving them real power, which I certainly had in the late ’70s and early ’80s when I was involved with Redbridge borough council. Many of those powers have been taken away, as has much of the funding. Much of the money going to these quangos, however worthy, should now be given directly to local authorities. I put it to the Minister that that could surely be done at no extra cost to the public purse; indeed, there would surely be some savings from adopting that approach.
Let me touch on a few transport issues. There is no question but that Southend’s transport infrastructure needs to be improved. Early works have been completed, marking the start of the enhancements to the junction at Progress road in my constituency. A key section of the main arterial route into Southend will complete this suite of improvements, securing a major element of the comprehensive travel and regeneration solution. Such works are a vital investment for Southend and are already having a substantial regeneration impact on the town, as well as achieving significant reductions in congestion and much improved travel and journey times. This is vital for visitor destinations such as Southend, where tourism still accounts for a major part of the town’s economy. Southend is, of course, delighted with the help it has been given thus far, but I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the arrangements already being undertaken.
I am not going to detain the House by talking about what is happening at Cuckoo corner. It used to be shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East, but is now mainly in my constituency. There has been some concern from local residents about what is happening with that particular development.
The proposed expansion of Southend airport is welcomed in some parts of the town, but not in others, where there is some concern. Most of that concern is felt in the area that I represent. I think that the matter needs to be handled extremely carefully.
We are blessed with an excellent council leader, Councillor Nigel Holdcroft, an excellent deputy, Councillor John Lamb, and a first-class chief executive, Rob Tinlin. I think, however, that had my hon. Friend the Minister been canvassing with me in my part of Southend before the recent local elections—we were, of course, delighted to increase our majority on the council—he would have observed real concern on the doorstep about the expansion of the airport, which people expect to cause extra noise and congestion and to have an additional impact on the environment in Southend West. During the general election campaign, I told my constituents that I was discussing pollution and the environment with one of the European Commissioners. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to pass my message of concern to our hon. Friends in the Department for Transport.
A particular cause for concern, about which I hope my hon. Friend will have something to say, is the shedding of civil service jobs over the past two years, mainly from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We in Southend are not in a receiving zone; neither are we London, but we are seen as being essentially London. Jobs are at risk, because thus far they have been moving to the midlands and the north. Our town’s economy is very fragile, and we really do need those jobs. I cannot emphasise that enough to my hon. Friend.
I understand that the Homes and Communities Agency has frozen most of its housing assistance packages today. Southend has significant amounts of land with housing consents lying vacant under private ownership, which is blighting the town and undermining investment confidence. Examples are the old laundry building in Leigh Broadway at the east end of the town—which I represent—and the old laundry building south of our excellent grammar schools. Will my hon. Friend see what he can do to assist the freeing up of some of those sites for housing development?
The Dartford crossing will always be a disincentive to access and investment in south Essex and Southend, especially if the present Government proceed with the last Government’s proposals to sell the crossing. We need to keep it in public ownership and to seek better tolling solutions.
I suppose that the showpiece of the Gracious Speech was the proposal to create new academies. I ask my hon. Friend to convey to the Secretary of State for Education and, in particular the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb)—who visited Southend a few weeks before the general election to meet heads—that it would be useful for us to have some sort of steer on what the new quangos are intended to do.
I have already touched on local and regional quangos. I understand, although my hon. Friend the Minister may correct me, that it is proposed that the regional development agencies in the south should form sub-regional economic partnerships. I believe he has suggested something the size of Essex as a likely partnership size. That would be difficult for Southend, as the county council would inevitably dominate the agenda, and the pressure would be for it to reflect rural Essex rather than our rather—dare I say—brasher parts of the county. I hope that a partnership could be devised for the south of the county and perhaps he could suggest to the Secretary of State that we could pilot such a partnership scheme in the south of Essex. The council would be keen to be involved in any number of pilot schemes.
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)—the Fisheries Minister—is keen to visit Southend and although my hon. Friend here today does not need to visit Southend to see it for the first time, I ask that, in his new ministerial capacity, he visit Southend so that we can show him what we are talking about.
I end with some issues of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East and myself. We were disappointed—I am not being churlish—about the funding regarding the pier, which is an icon. I had the privilege to chair the Committee that considered the Olympic Games Bill and I am keen that Southend should be involved. At Hadleigh, we will have the biking event and there is a training opportunity for divers and swimmers at Garons. Eastwood secondary school in my constituency has a wonderful training facility for one of the smaller national squads. But I am excited by the prospect of Southend pier being involved in the opening and closing ceremonies. I understand that we are not going to compete with the drummers in Beijing and that we will have a number of opportunities for celebration. I hope that Southend will be involved in that. Any help my hon. Friend can give to the pier would be gratefully received as would any help that could be given with regard to the cliff slippage. If there is any money in Europe for the dredging of the Thames estuary for cocklers and fishermen, that would be also greatly welcome. In addition, I was privileged to attend a session at Blenheim school at which volunteering was being piloted.
All of us in the House recognise that these are tough times and that there will be little money available. However, I ask my hon. Friend to do all he can to assist Southend council in getting a fair deal in terms of the moneys that are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) on securing the debate. It is well known in the House that he is a doughty and persistent advocate for Southend, for his constituency and for his community. I know that that also applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Mr Duddridge), who I am delighted to see is present in the Chamber.
I thought there was a particular irony that the dramatis personae of the debate should be who they are, because my hon. Friend is correct; I am not without a personal connection to Southend. My wife served as a councillor and, indeed, as mayor. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying that she observed that my election to represent Bromley and Chislehurst had enabled her to live every Essex girl’s dream: to wake up in Kent. It is an area that I have known for many years and I have much sympathy with the points that have been made. I have had the opportunity to see at first hand the transformation in Southend.
I am well aware that the council has been at the forefront of that transformation, working with its partners to ensure the town becomes a thriving regional centre with cultural and commercial activities at its heart. I am also aware of the user improvements made within the council itself. The fact that it recently almost won an award for the most improved council is testament to the progress made under the leadership of Councillor Nigel Holdcroft and chief executive Rob Tinlin and the excellent team of council members and officers who support them.
The education hub of South East Essex college and the university of Essex located in the town centre has been at the heart of this transformation. These developments have not only changed the look and feel of the town centre, but have attracted multi-million pound investment, such as the completion of the Palace hotel refurbishment, new investment in the Royals, new premises for Barclays bank in the high street—which is shortly to be opened by distinguished persons—and a new occupier for Woolworths, which was one of the stores that, sadly, was lost from the town centre.
As part of this transformation, considerable additional funding has been provided to Southend, not least £25 million made available to carry out a number of transformational projects to improve the town and seafront. These include the city beach project, transforming the beachfront for residents and visitors, and improvements to the sea wall and the installation of architectural lighting. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West says about the cliffs and I will, of course, ensure those concerned take those points on board. I am not sure I am the person best equipped to deal single-handedly with the cliff slippage, but I will do my best to make sure that the issue is kept on the agenda.
There have also been improvements to Priory crescent and the bottleneck at Cuckoo corner, which is well known to many who visit or live in the town, and at Progress road. There have been improvements to the link between Victoria railway station and the town centre, with a major public transport interchange created. All these improvements should, I hope, help realise the ambition of the council and its partners to make Southend an exciting place to live, work and visit. It is important that partners continue this transformation and exploit the significant opportunities, not least, as my hon. Friend said, those offered by Southend’s location close to London and the 2012 Olympics, its physical assets at the seaside, such as the pier in particular, and the education hub, which can become a nationally and internationally recognised centre of educational and cultural achievement.
As my hon. Friend said, Southend and its immediate neighbours are already playing a part in the 2012 Olympics, with nearby Hadleigh Farm as the venue for the mountain bike events, and there has been good news with the letter of intent from the British Olympic diving team to use the state-of-the-art Garons Park facility as a pre-games training camp. The recent merger of South East Essex college and Thurrock and Basildon college will also help to provide a wider range of curriculum and progression opportunities, further strengthening the education on offer.
However, my hon. Friend is right to observe that, like many other seaside towns, Southend still faces a number of real challenges. It has of course felt the effects of the global economic downturn. It has some of the highest unemployment rates in the east of England and it has significant pockets of social and economic deprivation, particularly in the Milton, Victoria and Kursaal wards in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East. All of them rank among the most disadvantaged wards in the country, although I know they are very ably represented by their councillors, not least by the newly elected Councillors Maria Caunce for Milton ward and Louise Burdett for Kursaal ward. Indeed, I will be in Southend tomorrow to attend the wedding of Councillor Maria Caunce to my old friend Peter Fitzgerald—and perhaps I can be cheeky and take this opportunity to wish them well.
Southend has also suffered from having relatively low economic productivity, and that point has links to the skills profile, which needs addressing. Issues relating to the structure of the economy also need to be dealt with, and there are only a limited number of routes in and out of the town because of its geographical location. I accept that all that has an impact on the town’s performance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West raises the matter of the rail franchise, and I acknowledge the concerns about that. A consultation, which ended on 19 April, was held with interested parties and the general public in order to develop the prospectus and invitation to tender, and the matter is now with my colleagues at the Department for Transport. If he thinks it would help, I shall ask its Minister of State to provide him and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East with an update on progress. We are committed to having a modern transport infrastructure for the economy and, thus, to granting longer rail franchises. That will give operators the incentive to invest in the improvements that passengers want.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West raised, in particular, the issue of the census and the shortfall in funding. I appreciate the matter, because he has raised it before, as I have done on behalf of many London residents and so I understand where he comes from on this. The Office for National Statistics carried out a comprehensive piece of work in a number of areas in relation to the last census and did not make changes in Southend. I hope that he will be reassured that we intend the 2011 census to build on recommendations and the learning gained on the basis of representations made by a number of organisations. Next time, the ONS will seek to maximise the overall response rate and will ask local authorities to provide data from alternative sources to assist them with the quality assurance process. I hope that that will provide the chance for us to have a sounder statistical basis.
I wish also to touch briefly on the Government’s commitment to decentralisation and localism. We made it clear in the Queen’s Speech that cutting the budget deficit and restoring growth remains the Government’s first priority, which inevitably means that difficult decisions will have to be taken both nationally and locally. Naturally, those will have an impact on the amount of money available to support local authorities in future. However, we are committed to strengthening the capacity for self-help for local authorities through our proposals for building a strong and fair society through the reform of the public services and encouraging social responsibility. To that end, we will promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups through a decentralisation and localism Bill. It will give councils more power over housing and planning decisions—my hon. Friend referred to that—and will include a comprehensive review of local government finance. Fairness, accuracy and transparency must clearly be key factors in that review.
We have already announced that we will remove the ring-fencing around £1.7 billion of funding to local government, and we have made a commitment that we will not reduce the £29 billion of non-ring-fenced formula grant for local authorities in 2010-11. Both those decisions will allow councils greater control of spending decisions and maximum flexibility to deliver efficiencies and focus their budgets on their residents’ needs and priorities. We will also give councils a general power of competence, which will give them an explicit freedom to act in the best interests of their residents and voters, and we will provide incentives to deliver sustainable development, including of homes and businesses. All that will give local authorities and their partners greater flexibility to tackle the important factors identified by residents in making their area a good place in which to live.
Southend is a place with a bright future. Changes are being made, and I shall take on board and act as messenger as best I can on the points raised in relation to the airport, the civil service, regional development agencies and other matters. Part of our prospectus for taking decentralisation forward involves constructive joint working between local authorities and their neighbours. Southend, with its bright future, is well placed to deliver on that, and it is fortunate to have the doughty advocates that it does in my hon. Friend and its local councillors. My Department will, of course, work constructively with them and their community, as we will do with other communities, to offer a better future for his residents and all in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Olympic Executive
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)
I am publishing today the Government Olympic Executive’s quarterly economic report—“London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly Economic Report May 2010”. This report explains the latest budget position as at 31 March 2010, and outlines some of the many wider economic benefits to the UK.
The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games remain on time and within budget. The Olympic Delivery Authority’s (ODA) anticipated final cost (AFC) has again not significantly increased which, as of 31 March, was £7.267 billion compared to £7.262 billion at the end of the previous quarter, 31 December 2009. Savings have also been made in the quarter in areas including transport, logistics and landscaping.
The majority of contingency remains unreleased and the ODA continues to make strong progress in preparing the venues and infrastructure in the Olympic park, with over 65 per cent. of the venues and infrastructure programme to the 2012 games now completed. The main stadium has reached its full height with the recent addition of 14 floodlight gantries. The roof structures of the aquatics centre and velodrome are constructed, as are the pools in the aquatics centre.
The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games are continuing to help businesses and people through the recession. More than 1,000 companies have won direct contracts from the ODA worth more than £5 billion and, as of March 2010, a total of almost 10,000 people were working on the Olympic park and village. Twelve per cent. of these workers were previously unemployed before starting work on the Olympic park.
I would like to commend this report to the Members of both Houses and thank them for their continued interest in and support for the London 2012 games.
Copies of the “Quarterly Economic Report May 2010” are available at: www.culture.gov.uk and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Energy Council
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
In advance of the forthcoming Energy Council in Brussels on 31 May, I am writing to hon. Members to outline the agenda items to be discussed. I will represent the UK.
The first item on the agenda is a progress report from the presidency about negotiations with the European Parliament on the proposal for a regulation on security of gas supply. We understand that the presidency aims to reach a first reading deal with the European Parliament by the end of June. The UK has worked very closely with the presidency, Commission and other like-minded member states and is pleased with the progress made so far.
There will then be an exchange of views on the energy aspects of the Europe 2020 growth strategy where member states are expected to seek clarity on the process for monitoring performance towards energy efficiency targets, in preparation for a wider discussion of the strategy at the June European Council.
This will be followed by a debate on the EU’s future energy policy as a contribution to the development of the energy strategy for Europe 2011-2020. Discussion will focus on the Commission’s “stock-taking” document. Ministers will also be asked to adopt conclusions on the document. The UK is content with the text of the conclusions, which set out high-level principles for the new energy strategy.
The Commission and presidency will update the Council on a number of international items: the EU-US Energy Council, EU-OPEC, the 12th International Energy Forum, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, the Energy Community Treaty and Russia/Ukraine. Finally, the Commission will present reports on the implementation of the European energy programme for recovery; the trans-European energy networks in the period 2007-09; and the Baltic energy market interconnection plan.
Review of Prescription Charges
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
In 2008 Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, was asked to lead a review on how a prescription charge exemption for people with long-term conditions should be implemented, including how it would be phased in. He reported in November 2009.
I wish to thank Professor Ian Gilmore for his work on the report, which we are publishing today. He has undertaken a thorough analysis of the issues and has considered carefully the views of patient representative groups, charities and other interested parties.
Any decisions on future changes to the system of prescription charges and exemptions would need to be taken in the context of the next spending review, which is due to report in the autumn.
Professor Gilmore’s report has been placed in the Library and copies are available for hon. Members in the Vote Office.
Police Authorities (Funding Allocations)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)
As part of the Government’s plan to cut the budget deficit and get the economy moving again, I am today confirming my intention to require the police to make a fair share of the savings needed. I welcome the responsible and constructive way in which policing partners have already responded to the Chancellor’s announcement of his plans to reduce the national budget deficit.
Total Home Office cuts will be £367 million and in order to minimise the impact on the police service the Home Office will cut a greater than proportionate share of its central budget by bearing down on overheads and reducing waste, including significant cuts to consultancy services, marketing costs and travel. However, the police need to contribute towards the overall reduction and I will therefore ask every police authority to make a fair share of savings.
As a result, I intend to reduce this year’s core Government funding to the police by a total of £125 million. I intend to implement this by reducing the Home Office core police settlement and the capital grant. I will, in due course, formally lay before Parliament an amended police grant report for 2010-11 which will be subject to the usual debate and approval process.
Even after this reduction, Government funding to the police will still increase by £124 million this year to around £9.61 billion. Set out below are updated force allocations for the individual grants which I intend to revise. These have been calculated so that each force will face a cut equivalent to the same percentage of their core Government funding.
I am confident that savings of less than 1% of expected spending in 2010-11 by Police Authorities can be made while maintaining a frontline policing service. It is for chief constables to use their expertise and decide what makes most sense for their force, but I am quite clear that this saving can be achieved by driving out wasteful spending on support functions, reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency in key functions—leaving the frontline of policing strong and secure. I expect forces to be held to this by both police authorities and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.
For my part, I am clear that the police should be focused on police work, not paperwork. This is why I am committed to cutting the centrally imposed red tape and bureaucracy that slows police officers down and keeps them off the streets and away from protecting the public.
The Government have shown their commitment to the police service by undertaking to honour the third year of the current pay settlement for police officers. Our programme for Government has set out measures to ensure a sustainable frontline police service, including a full review of the remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff. We also commit in our programme for Government to establishing an independent commission to review the long-term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights. The Government are determined to ensure that we can provide affordable pensions to public servants into the future.
The spending review reporting in the autumn of this year will set funding levels beyond 2010-11.
Police Authority | 2010-11 | 2010-11 | 2010-11 | 2010-11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
HO Police Grant as Agreed February 2010 | Proposed Amended HO Police Grant | Capital Grant as Notified January 2010 | Amended Capital Grant | |
£m | £m | £m | £m | |
English ShireAuthorities | ||||
Avon & Somerset | 116.1 | 113.5 | 3.3 | 3.0 |
Bedfordshire | 44.6 | 43.6 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
Cambridgeshire | 52.9 | 51.7 | 1.6 | 1.5 |
Cheshire | 69.9 | 68.2 | 2.2 | 2.0 |
Cleveland | 51.6 | 50.3 | 1.6 | 1.5 |
Cumbria | 35.1 | 34.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 |
Derbyshire | 69.6 | 68.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
Devon & Cornwall | 117.0 | 114.4 | 3.4 | 3.2 |
Dorset | 43.5 | 42.6 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
Durham | 47.8 | 46.5 | 1.6 | 1.4 |
Essex | 117.5 | 114.9 | 3.2 | 3.0 |
Gloucestershire | 37.8 | 36.9 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
Hampshire | 130.7 | 127.8 | 3.9 | 3.6 |
Hertfordshire | 81.3 | 79.5 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
Humberside | 72.7 | 70.9 | 2.2 | 2.0 |
Kent | 123.4 | 120.7 | 3.5 | 3.3 |
Lancashire | 116.8 | 113.9 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
Leicestershire | 70.5 | 68.8 | 2.1 | 2.0 |
Lincolnshire | 44.0 | 43.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
Norfolk | 55.6 | 54.3 | 1.7 | 1.6 |
North Yorkshire | 49.1 | 48.0 | 1.5 | 1.4 |
Northamptonshire | 47.0 | 45.9 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
Nottinghamshire | 82.7 | 80.7 | 2.4 | 2.2 |
Staffordshire | 73.2 | 71.5 | 2.1 | 2.0 |
Suffolk | 45.5 | 44.5 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
Surrey | 71.5 | 70.1 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
Sussex | 107.6 | 105.2 | 3.1 | 2.9 |
Thames Valley | 157.0 | 153.6 | 4.6 | 4.3 |
Warwickshire | 35.1 | 34.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
West Mercia | 74.7 | 73.0 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
Wiltshire | 42.1 | 41.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
Shires Total | 2,283.8 | 2,231.7 | 67.6 | 63.1 |
English Metropolitan Authorities | ||||
Greater Manchester | 253.2 | 246.8 | 7.4 | 6.9 |
Merseyside | 142.2 | 138.4 | 4.2 | 3.9 |
Northumbria | 117.4 | 113.9 | 4.1 | 3.8 |
South Yorkshire | 110.2 | 107.4 | 3.3 | 3.1 |
West Midlands | 277.4 | 270.5 | 7.9 | 7.3 |
West Yorkshire | 194.0 | 189.2 | 5.6 | 5.2 |
Mets Total | 1,094.4 | 1,066.1 | 32.6 | 30.1 |
London Authorities | ||||
GLA – Police | 1,169.5 | 1,141.5 | 38.4 | 36.0 |
City of London | 23.3 | 22.3 | 1.1 | 1.0 |
English Total | 4,571.0 | 4,461.6 | 139.8 | 130.3 |
Welsh Authorities | ||||
Dyfed-Powys | 35.2 | 34.4 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
Gwent | 48.6 | 47.5 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
North Wales | 48.5 | 47.4 | 1.5 | 1.4 |
South Wales | 105.5 | 102.9 | 3.0 | 2.8 |
Welsh total | 237.8 | 232.2 | 6.9 | 6.4 |
Total | 4,808.8 | 4,693.8 | 146.7 | 136.7 |
Note: All allocations rounded to the nearest £0.1million. |
Counter-terrorism Policing
In addition to the reduction in core Government funding to the police set out, I intend to reduce resource funding for counter-terrorism policing by £10 million in 2010-11. The Government will nonetheless still be providing £569 million to forces through police counter-terrorism specific grants this year, maintaining 2009-10 funding levels.
Counter-terrorism policing has benefited from 10 consecutive years of significant growth in funding. I will be taking advice from the police on the most appropriate way to find these savings to ensure that the police service retains the necessary capabilities to counter-terrorist activity and support our national security.
High-speed Rail
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government believe that high-speed rail has the potential to bring significant and long-lasting benefits for Britain’s economy and society. But we also recognise that there can be unavoidable consequences for those who live closest to any route put forward for such a network, particularly when they urgently need to sell their property. It is for this reason that the Government are of the view that an exceptional hardship scheme is absolutely necessary to help those who are most directly and immediately affected.
Details of how such an exceptional hardship scheme might operate were published for consultation on 11 March. In order to limit the delay for those in most urgent need of financial assistance, this consultation was due to run for 10 weeks, ending on 20 May. However, having received representations which argued that 10 weeks is not sufficient to allow all those with an interest to have the fullest possible opportunity to comment on these proposals, I announced last week that the deadline for that consultation would be extended by four weeks to 17 June.
In taking this decision, I have been aware of its implications for those in the most urgent need. Therefore, without prejudice to the outcome of the consultation, I have asked my officials to put shadow arrangements in place so that, should a decision be taken to proceed with the scheme, applications can begin to be considered immediately. By bringing forward the time scale for applications in this way, I hope to minimise uncertainty for those affected and ensure that payments can be made as quickly as possible wherever appropriate.
Of course, anyone whose application is considered under such shadow arrangements will also have a right of appeal once the formal scheme is up and running.
Furthermore, once a route is chosen and safeguarded by the Government, eligible property owners will have access to statutory blight compensation.
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Guildford
Introduction: Lord Hill of Oareford
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it may be of interest to the House if I set out the plans for recess dates up to and including the Summer Recess. First, the House will rise for a short Whitsun Recess at the close of business today, returning on Wednesday 2 June. The intention is then to rise for the Summer Recess at the close of business on Wednesday 28 July. The House will then return in October. As ever, recess dates are subject to the progress of business and I will announce in due course the expected date for the return of the House in October. A note of these dates is now available in the Printed Paper Office.
Turning to today’s business, there are 49 speakers signed up for today’s debate. If Back-Bench contributions are kept to 8 minutes the House should be able to rise this evening at around the target rising time of 7 pm.
Queen's Speech
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Let me get one piece of protocol out of the way straight away. I intend to address members of both coalition parties as my noble friends. I have not checked how Viscount Samuel handled the matter in 1945 or the Marquis of Crewe in 1922, my most recent predecessors, but that is how I intend to do it. Of course, I am conscious of the advice that the new Member of the House of Commons received when he said what a pleasure it was to look across the Chamber and look into the eyes of his enemies. The old sweat next to him said, “No laddie, they are your opponents; your enemies are behind you”.
Whatever the truth behind that advice, we are all coming to terms with the new politics—some of us faster than others. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and others in the Opposition made some observations about the role of the Liberal Democrats now that we are in government and in coalition. I remind noble Lords and Ladies on the Labour Benches that I have a very good example of how to behave in coalition. My personal political hero, Clement Attlee, and his colleagues served in a coalition for five years without losing their identity as individuals or as a party. The Labour Back Benchers retained their identity—so much so that Winston Churchill called Aneurin Bevan a squalid nuisance. So good were they at coalition that after five years the country rewarded them with a landslide victory in the 1945 election.
On another matter, I have searched the Ministry of Justice high and low to see whether the former Ministers in the department, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Bach, left me a helpful note. I have searched in vain. I felt that it might just have said: “Sorry, old cock, all the prisons are full”. What I have received from both, with characteristic generosity, are their personal good wishes, along with a rather chilling warning that they intend to keep a close eye on my stewardship. I pay tribute to them and to the noble Lord, Lord West. I will not pay tribute to former Lord Chancellors—that is above my pay grade—but I pay tribute to the Ministers who have served in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. Perhaps this is the moment for me to say how much I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, a distinguished public servant in a number of fields, not least in the Ministry of Justice.
All Ministers and civil servants grapple with getting the balance right between the role of the state in ensuring the safety of its citizens and protecting those civil liberties and human rights which make us a liberal democracy. There is a difference in outlook and approach, which was best encapsulated in an article I read some months ago in the Guardian, writing about the role of this House. It read:
“It is one of the paradoxes of our age that whereas in the 20th century the great reforming governments—Liberal in 1906, Labour in 1945—faced a recalcitrant House of Lords, in these early years of the 21st century it has been the House of Lords that has been the bulwark of civil liberties against an increasingly authoritarian government”.
The concern about encroaching state power and the willingness to respond to every problem with a new law and a new offence was a criticism of the previous Government made not only by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, but in this House from the Cross Benches and the Labour Benches as well. In carrying out our new responsibilities, I and other Ministers will continue to rely heavily on the collective wisdom of this House as we seek to balance the responsibility of the Government for the defence of the realm and the need to promote civil liberties in a free society.
The coalition agreement is clear on this issue. We will be strong in the defence of freedom. The British state has become too authoritarian, and over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. It is the Government’s contention that the state has intruded too far. We will therefore bring forward proposals to make sure that we strike the right balance. For this reason, the gracious Speech brings forward proposals to scrap the ID cards scheme. Moreover, it is clear that our constitution, the way in which government makes decisions on behalf of the people whom it serves, the relationship between it and Parliament and the public, and how it is held to account are in need of some fairly radical surgery.
My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out our challenge in his recent speech. He said that we must transform politics so that the state has less control over the citizen but the citizen has far more control over the state. We must break up concentrations of power and make sure that power resides with the people, and we must persuade the public to have faith in politics and politicians.
Noble Lords may feel that they have heard such high-minded aspirations before and have seen them flounder on the rocks of parliamentary time or the sheer difficulty of achieving agreement. I suggest that there is a fundamental difference this time around. The strength of the government coalition is that there is a critical mass outside Parliament in support of our proposals for fair votes, parliamentary reform and greater local decision-making. In the gracious Speech, we show how we intend to capture this public mood.
I have already spoken of the delicate balance that we need to strike between the state and the individual. That is why the Government will establish a commission to investigate the case for the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In doing so, the commission will consider the proper balance that must be struck between the rights of the individual and the wider interests of the community, so that the liberties that we enjoy and the obligations that we owe are better understood. For the doubters, let me repeat the key words of what I have just said: a Bill that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Next, we will bring forward legislation to roll back the state, thereby reducing the weight of its involvement in people’s lives. Your Lordships have spent a good deal of energy over the past few years pointing out the volume of criminal offences in government Bills, so I am confident that the Bill will be welcomed in this House. We will also bring forward legislation on parliamentary reform, providing for a referendum on a fairer voting system and for fewer and more equal constituency sizes, and legislation to enable constituents to petition for the recall of an MP who has engaged in serious wrongdoing. We will legislate for a five-year, fixed-term Parliament, and in advance of that the Government will table a Motion before the other place stating that the next election will be held on the first Thursday in May 2015. Noble Lords may want to put that in their diaries along with the recess dates.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I will intervene if my noble friend will allow me. Actually, I will retract that and let him continue with his interesting speech.
Lord Grocott
If noble Lords are disappointed at not having that intervention, may I suggest this one? Will the noble Lord explain how announcing in May 2010 that the next election will be in May 2015 strengthens Parliament?
Lord McNally
We have had many debates about fixed-term Parliaments, and this is the first example. The noble Lord may recall the dithering and doubts caused by the recent Prime Minister and the harm that that did to good governance, and that many colleagues, including those on his Benches, have for a long time argued the benefits of fixed-term Parliaments. I would have thought that as he is a reformer he would welcome it, but I must move on. The legislation will provide for the possibility that a dissolution of Parliament may be needed outside the five-year timetable. Our proposal is that it should happen if more than 55 per cent of the other place votes for it. Parliament would still be able to dismiss a Government, but the Government would not be able to dismiss Parliament.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have a question of which I have given the noble Lord notice. Confusion surrounds the words in the coalition document which state:
“This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour”.
Is that 55 per cent of the total membership of the House of Commons or is it 55 per cent of those voting on a dissolution Motion?
Lord McNally
With customary courtesy, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, gave me notice of that question. I wish he had not told noble Lords that because it would have then looked like I was incredibly on top of this job. Even better, I am now able to respond to him by quoting official government policy as expounded by my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, David Heath. He said:
“That will be a matter for further discussion”.
[Laughter.] I do not think that I will read the rest out. Noble Lords should look at Hansard where they will see again the smack of firm government.
Seriously, the proposal has excited a good deal of comment and I anticipate a very full debate when legislation comes before the House. I know that the proposal has frightened the horses in various parts of the House. But the truth is that many respectable and longstanding democracies have different mechanisms for triggering a dissolution when a Government cannot command a majority, but prevent a Government manipulating the rules for their own advantage.
Lord Adonis
On an extremely important point, will the noble Lord say why the coalition is proposing a fixed term of five years, which is longer than applies in virtually every democracy in the world with a fixed term and is longer than Parliament has introduced in respect of the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales?
Lord McNally
I suspect that the truth is that we had to start somewhere. We have five-year Parliaments in this country at the moment. I have said to my colleagues down the Corridor—some of whom are younger and more enthusiastic not than the noble Lord but younger than me—that when these proposals come forward we will benefit from the collective wisdom of the House of Lords on these matters, and so we shall.
Furthermore, we will publish a draft parliamentary Bill making sure that the law enabling parliamentarians to do their job is fair and adapted to modern circumstances. A Bill of this type was recommended by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which pointed out that there are a number of areas in which the extent of privilege is not clear. We will also bring forward legislation to implement the Calman commission’s final report on Scottish devolution. We remain committed to a referendum on the powers of the National Assembly for Wales. The Government believe strong devolution settlements mean a strong United Kingdom.
This debate would not be complete unless I said a few words about reform of your Lordships’ House. The Government’s position is set out clearly in the coalition agreement published last week. Perhaps the House might find it helpful if I remind it of the relevant section. Here, some noble Lords might like to adjust their pacemakers. We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper Chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft Motion by December 2010. It is likely that this Bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, the appointment of Lords will be made with the objective of creating a second Chamber which is reflective of the share of votes secured by the political parties in the last general election.
This is the position: we are committed to reform; we are committed to a wholly or mainly elected Upper House. I am well aware that some sitting in this Chamber hearing my words—articulating as they do the collective wisdom of government policy—will think, “Well, that is okay, that is back in the long grass”.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I am sure the noble Lord will have many hours of overtime in your Lordships’ House. Can he be more explicit? Speaking as a grandmother, I know a little about grandfather roles, but the House would benefit from knowing exactly what the noble Lord means by a grandfather role for those of us who are Members now.
Lord Richard
I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may ask him a question. Assurances have been given from both sides of the House that existing life Peers should be entitled to remain until they expire, even if there is to be a gradual introduction of voting for an elected House. Is that the position the Government now hold—in other words, that we should be entitled to die while still Members of the House—or will there be some arrangements whereby we will have to retire or be induced to retire?
Lord McNally
I reply to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as a once enthusiastic reformer—he will just have to wait and see. If he would like to send me the watertight commitments from both sides of the House to which he referred, I would be very interested to see them—they do not exist.
The Earl of Onslow
I speak as a long-time reformer—and as an elected Peer, I hasten to add. Would not my noble friend regard it as perfectly reasonable, if we are going to reform the House, to have a cull of life Peers in exactly the same way as there was a cull of hereditary Peers?
Lord McNally
I note what my noble friend said—or, as he told me yesterday he would prefer me to call him, “my noble acquaintance”. He is still coming to terms with the oiks that this coalition is bringing with it.
Let me say a few personal words. I know the esteem in which this House is currently held; I see every day the value and diligence of its work and the expertise noble Lords bring to scrutiny—that is now—but I am clear that this House as presently constituted is not sustainable. We could soon be a House of more than 800 Peers—
Lord McNally
Don’t go “oh”; you had better to wait to find out who has nominated some of the new Peers.
I do not believe that we will retain public confidence in such circumstances. I love this House and I do not want to see it decline from a House of respect into a House of absurdity. I know that for the majority of your Lordships a nominated House suits you very well. However, the clear and settled view of the other place, and the official view of all three major political parties, expressed in manifesto commitments at the election, is for Lords reform to produce a House based on election. That proposition also has the consistent support of public opinion. I do not doubt the parliamentary skills of those who oppose elections. I say to them only this: I hope the judgment of history for this Parliament will not be—as it must be about the Conservatives from 1983 to 1997 and Labour from 1997 to 2010—that it did not carry through reasonable reforms at a reasonable pace when it had the chance.
Let me deal with one objection immediately. Some say that, given the severity of the economic crisis, to put energies into Lords reform would be frivolous. I remind the House that the Conservative-Labour coalition to which I referred earlier, that of 1940 to 1945, not only won a war but also brought forward the Beveridge report and the Butler Education Act. Good Governments do not have to be one-trick ponies. Nor should the House lose the opportunity to look at measures for reform which can be undertaken here and now. Before the election, I commended the Lord Speaker for her initiative in asking the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Butler of Brockwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, to chair working groups to see whether we could do some work that was parallel to that which the Wright Committee was doing in the House of Commons. I hope that those ideas can now be taken forward with a sense of urgency.
Today’s debate will also cover Home Office and Communities and Local Government business, to which I now turn briefly. First, the police reform and social responsibility Bill will bring in strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives. My noble friend Lady Neville-Jones will deal with this and other Home Office matters in the winding-up speech. Our legislation on local government will be of a piece with our wider constitutional goals of fundamentally shifting power from Westminster to the people. The Department for Communities and Local Government will introduce two Bills in this parliamentary Session, which will be in the steady and capable hands of my noble friend Lady Hanham.
Moreover, the localism Bill will enable individuals and community groups to have much greater influence over local government and how public money is spent in their area. The Bill will streamline the planning system and encourage local communities to become actively involved in planning, housing and other local services. The Government will also introduce a Bill to halt restructuring of local government in Norwich and Exeter. The Bill will be introduced as soon as possible to avoid delays in the local government financial settlement.
The gracious Speech reflects a genuine radicalism in the areas that we cover in this debate today. In the words of the old Metropolitan Police recruitment poster, dull, it isn’t. This is likely to be a long Session, and there will be many times when we debate our politics and public trust, our communities and their security and liberty. The contribution of this House in resolving these matters starts with this debate, and I look forward to the contributions from all sides.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for opening our debate and congratulate him on his appointment. He is highly regarded in this House and I look forward to our future debates. It is true that I have not yet sent him a letter, principally because I no longer have the well oiled machinery of the Civil Service to write it, but he has my very warm wishes. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, on joining the Government. What a fetching sight the noble Lord and the noble Baroness make, sitting on the Front Bench together. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, will make his maiden speech today. I pay tribute to him as an outstanding Permanent Secretary and chair of the Legal Services Commission. He has much to offer your Lordships’ House.
I shall focus most of my remarks on constitutional issues and local government, while my noble friend Lord Bach will concentrate on justice and home affairs. However, I first want to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, suggested about the previous Government. He mentioned authoritarian indifference to civil rights. I remind him that it was a Labour Government who brought in the Human Rights Act, which the Conservative Party opposite continues to snipe at whenever it is given the chance and whatever the coalition agreement. I am proud that we were responsible for the Race Relations Act 2000 and the Civil Partnership Act and that one of the final pieces of legislation that we took through your Lordships’ House was the Equality Act. All those actions were about expanding the rights of the British people. At the same time, a central concern for us was always the security and safety of the UK, which faced the worst terrorist threat that this nation has ever seen. Our aim was always to get the balance right between public protection and the need to maintain the rights of individuals.
The noble Lord has outlined the Government’s proposals on CCTV, ID cards and DNA. We will study those carefully, but we need to be wary of taking actions that might undermine our ability to fight crime. We should not, for instance, underestimate the impact of CCTV in reducing the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour. Talking to people who live in the communities most affected will leave you in little doubt as to the value of CCTV. With DNA, advances in technology have played a critical part in solving serious crimes. Last year alone, 832 positive matches were made in cases of rape, murder and manslaughter.
We will also look carefully at the Government’s policing policies. The programme that the coalition has agreed to has much to say about structural changes but is ominously silent on police resources, front-line policing numbers and crime reduction targets. We shall scrutinise these policing measures carefully to ensure that the safety of our citizens is the paramount consideration.
I turn to constitutional issues. We are promised a new politics, but I have to say that the signs so far are not entirely encouraging. Indeed, many of the Government’s proposals seem more suited to the need to shore up the coalition rather than to enhance our democracy. The Government hardly made a good start with the leaking of the Queen’s Speech over the weekend and then, on Monday, with the announcement of major cuts in government expenditure not to Parliament but to the media.
On local government, the coalition agreement proclaims radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to councils. The rhetoric is impressive, but let us look at the reality. The 12 largest authorities in England are to be forced to have a referendum on an elected mayor, whether they want to or not. In education, local authorities will lose powers, influence and budgetary flexibility. The first step towards giving financial autonomy to local authorities is to instruct them to freeze council tax. With the introduction of a democratic element to the NHS and to the police, local government is being bypassed in favour of direct elections. I suspect that the only real freedom given to local government is to decide where the cuts are going to be made.
Nowhere are the needs of the coalition put first more than in its proposals on fixed-term Parliaments. As my noble friend Lord Adonis asked, why is the interval between elections to be five years? Why not four? Of the 14 general elections that have been held in the past 50 years, nine have been in or before the fourth year. Why are the public being given fewer opportunities rather than more to choose their Government?
Then there is the 55 per cent proposal. Votes of confidence have had a critical role in our Parliament; a confidence defeat for a Government leads either to a request for Dissolution or to the resignation of the Government. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, put it so brilliantly on Tuesday, everyone understands that, so why mess around with the principle? The reasons are evolving and changing. Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander said in the Observer on 16 May that the aim was to guard against the suspicion that one or other of the parties could,
“pull the plug”,
on the coalition,
“and force an early election”.
So this is a quick fix on the constitution, essentially because neither party in the coalition trusts the other. However, the argument has moved on. We had a rather different explanation from David Heath, the Deputy Leader in the other place, who said on Tuesday night:
“If the Government lost a vote of confidence, they would no longer be the Government … Then another party or coalition of parties might be able to form a Government from within the existing House of Commons … If no one can form a Government that has the confidence of the House, Parliament will be dissolved”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/10; cols. 148-49.]
That still raises a number of questions about how it might happen and the logic of 55 per cent. I remain concerned that what looks like major constitutional change is being written on the back of an envelope with apparently no intention for pre-legislative scrutiny. I can assure the noble Lord—
Lord Lucas
Does the noble Lord remember the abolition of the Lord Chancellor? Was that not rather similar?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that the House will learn lessons from that experience. It all looks different from this side of the House. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall certainly scrutinise the legislation carefully.
I now turn to the alternative vote. Will the noble Baroness tell us in her winding-up speech when we can expect legislation on the proposed referendum and when the referendum is intended to be held? Will a threshold be set in terms of the turnout and the size of the majority that is required for a yes vote in the referendum to succeed? Fifty-five per cent, perhaps?
Why is the coalition bent on reducing the number of Members of Parliament? I have yet to see any persuasive arguments for that. Are 70,000 electors really too small a number for an MP to represent? The intention for more equal constituency sizes will create some unnatural constituencies, as the Electoral Commission pointed out in February. Constituencies will change more frequently, destabilising the link between MPs and constituents. Again, I suggest that the answer is bound up with a narrow, partisan interest and the proposed speeding up of individual voter registration.
We passed legislation to provide for a carefully staged transition from household registration to individual voter registration in a way that would reduce the risk of people falling off the electoral register, as happened in Northern Ireland. If that careful process is ripped up and the rollout made prematurely, millions of people could fall off the register. I remind the House that that is extremely important because constituency boundaries are drawn on the basis of registered electors. We know from the Electoral Commission that 3.5 million eligible voters are missing from the register today. They are predominantly missing in areas of poorer, younger, mobile populations. It would be wholly unacceptable for seats to be cut and boundaries redrawn on the basis of an electoral register from which millions of our fellow citizens are missing.
I am pleased that the Government are supporting the implementations of the Wright committee’s proposals to make the House of Commons more effective, but what of your Lordships’ House? I noted with interest the remarks made on Tuesday by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who said:
“I also believe that we should look afresh at our working practices. I do not think we should lose sight of the remarkable privileges that Peers already enjoy, such as the right, not given to Back-Bench Members in another place, to table amendments at three stages of a Bill, and to have each one heard and replied to. We should always keep our working practices up to date”.—[Official Report, 25/5/10; col. 22.]
The noble Lord’s rather late conversion to procedural reform is, on the face of it, most welcome, but I say to him that any attempt to restrict the right of Back-Benchers to scrutinise legislation will be firmly resisted. I am happy to discuss the report of the Labour Peers’ working group, which was in the context of a wider debate about the conventions and the pressing against the boundaries of those conventions by the party opposite at the time.
Finally, I come to reform of your Lordships’ House. The coalition parties have agreed to establish a committee. That is progress indeed. The noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, and I have already spent many happy hours in such a committee. I must put a question to the Minister, as I am not sure what the committee is going to be asked to do. It seems that the outcome of its work is already known. He has already said it today: a mainly or wholly elected upper Chamber under PR and a system of grandfathering for the current Peers. So what is left for the committee to do? What will the composition of the committee be? Will its outcome be a White Paper and will a draft Bill be published for pre-legislative scrutiny?
Grandfathering is not really about the transition; it is a term used in the regulation of professions and essentially it means that existing practitioners go forward into the new qualified regulated profession. It is clear that grandfathering means that existing Members become Members of a reformed House. I ask the noble Baroness to confirm my interpretation.
In the mean time, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, confirmed, we are faced with the apparent intention of the coalition to appoint dozens, if not hundreds, of new Peers. Why is this being done, given that the Government already heavily outnumber the Opposition, with 258 Members compared to our 211? There has long been an understanding that there should be rough parity between the Government and the main Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has eloquently put the case for a strong second Chamber. In his Politeia article, he argued:
“The executive may not want a second opinion, but every country needs a Parliamentary system that provides one. Part of that must lie in a strong, independent House of Lords”.
Are those the words of a leading Member of a coalition that advocates swamping the Lords to give the Government an inbuilt and overwhelming majority?
Then there is the question of the conventions. I ask the noble Baroness to confirm that the committee will look at how the current conventions will be underpinned and the primacy of the Commons assured in an elected House. I remind her of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, on the conventions, which made it clear that firm proposals for changing the composition of the House would require a re-examination of those conventions.
The coalition professes that it wants to strengthen Parliament to create a new politics. I would have thought that this should have been grounded in promises that the parties made to the public in the recent election. However, when we look at the proposals to be brought before us, how many do we see that were in the manifestos of the two parties? The Conservatives were certainly silent on a referendum on the alternative vote. They were also silent on fixed-term Parliaments. The Conservatives were silent on the intervals between elections to be fixed at five years, as were, incidentally, the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives were silent on the 55 per cent super-majority required for the Dissolution of Parliament, as were the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives were silent on their intention to give the Executive a massive majority in the Lords, as were the Liberal Democrats. We see proposals for major constitutional change that were not put to the British people at the recent election. They were cobbled together behind closed doors. They amount to a lack of trust between the two parties and they will do little—
Lord Tyler
Does the noble Lord now resile from all the promises made by Mr Gordon Brown before, during and since the general election on AV, on fixed-term Parliaments and on implementing the White Paper produced by Mr Jack Straw? Is the Labour Party’s position now that it does not stand on any of its manifesto commitments?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Of course not, my Lords. Indeed, the White Paper on Lords reform, for example, could form the basis of the committee that is going to meet to discuss this further, although in that White Paper we did not embrace the concept of grandfathering. I have to say to the noble Lord that his intervention was irrelevant. The fact is that these proposals on their own will do little to restore public confidence in our democracy. They are clearly being brought together as a package to suit the convenience of a coalition agreement. Essentially, this is not so much a new politics as an old-fashioned stitch-up between the two oldest parties.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, I am happy to say that I do not feel any embarrassment at speaking in support of the partnership which now exists to support this Government. I am also happy to say that not all that long ago, in 1945, when I was moving from school uniform to military uniform, I had the pleasure of canvassing vigorously for the general election of that year in the constituency of Exeter for a Liberal Party candidate. I cheered enthusiastically at the eve-of-poll meeting addressed by Sir Archibald Sinclair. Beyond that, to maintain respectability in my native Wales, I included in my memoirs a striking photograph taken, I think, in Biarritz, which establishes beyond doubt that Lloyd George knew my father, and even my mother. So I start with some contentment.
I can see that the way in which our two parties have come together may lead to some misunderstanding. Both parties fought on the simple premise that it was time for change. That is a phrase which has different meanings in different respects. My anxiety has been that both parties, including my own, may have misunderstood the kind of change for which the electorate were looking. I believe, as I have said frequently, that a mood has spread among the population which one detects if one goes into a school staff room, a hospital staff room or even a police canteen. If you ask that gathering, “What would you like me, as a politician, to do next?” you will always evoke the response, “For heaven’s sake, leave us alone”. Many people in this country are looking forward to a change from a period of intense, excessive and reckless activity to a more measured and considered one. I need some assurance in that respect as the weeks, months and years go by.
That is why I am glad to welcome some of the measures already foreshadowed by the Government, which undo some of the hasty measures carried through by the previous Government. I must regret, as I did so frequently, and as so many of us did, the impossibility of recreating the office of Lord Chancellor, so recklessly destroyed by the measures taken by the previous Government. I am glad, on a more modest scale, about the decisions to remove the imposition of identity cards and, not much less important, to secure the death of home information packs—the least popular innovation by the previous Government. To that I say: hip, hip, hurrah!
I listened with care to the speech made by my noble friend Lord McNally and welcomed the extent to which he set out the way that the Government intend to proceed with caution in respect of many matters. He purported to set out a similarly cautious approach to the future of your Lordships’ House. I have to say, with regret, that that does not fit alongside the explicit commitment to a wholly or mainly elected Chamber and nothing short of that. I am mainly concerned about that in what I have to say to the House today. We all understand the enormous, distinguished, special value of this House as a legislative Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, clearly understands this and I pay tribute to him. All of us who have lived here have felt that very deeply. The effectiveness of that depends upon the essential difference between the two Chambers as they now exist.
As we know, this Chamber has a composition of diversity, independence and expertise and cannot, and never has been able to, oust the Government. The Government cannot dissolve the House of Lords. The House of Lords cannot dissolve the Government. The Commons—although the circumstances there are being changed as we wait—has a quite different quality and one that is above all dominated by party politics. We owe special gratitude to the leaders of all parties in this House for the way in which they have conducted the opening of the debate on the gracious Speech because they have all displayed the way in which we work together. That was the position in this House in the previous Parliament as well. Our leaders have been able to secure the smooth working of this House. They have also been able, in partnership with leaders in the other place, to secure the smooth handling of the much larger number of amendments being carried in this House for consideration by the other place. Therefore, we owe a great debt to the skill—in the previous Parliament and in this—of the leaders of our parties here.
The problem one now wants to consider is what is to happen from now on as a result of the commitment so fully pledged in advance to a wholly or mainly elected House. I refer noble Lords to some observations made by the Public Administration Committee of the other place under the chairmanship of Mr Tony Wright in a report that it produced—I think in 2002—on this House and its future. It said that,
“the principal cause of today’s ‘widespread public disillusionment with our political system’ is the ‘virtually untrammelled control … by the Executive’ of the elected House. Hence the Committee’s two conclusions”.
The first was:
“The need ‘to ensure that the dominance of Parliament by the Executive, including the political Party machines, is reduced and not increased’”.
That will not be the consequence of the kind of changes we have already had foreshadowed that the Executive have in mind for the structure and management of this House. The second conclusion of the committee under Mr Wright’s chairmanship was as follows:
“The Second Chamber must be ‘neither rival nor replica, but genuinely complementary to the Commons’ and, therefore, ‘as different as possible’”.
That is a very shrewd judgment from the other place of what may lie ahead and needs to be taken very seriously; that is, to find both Houses being managed with a ruthlessness of which Governments of any kind are sometimes capable. It is a shrewd judgment from the other place—a warning which I commend to this House and which deserves to be treated as fundamental, in both Houses, to securing the continued safety and effectiveness of a twin-House Parliament, with a distinct role for this House. In my judgment, this House ought not to be transformed so fundamentally, as it would be by the introduction of a large number—even a total number—of elected Members. That would be to surrender our past, our capability for the present and would be the greatest mistake likely to be made in my lifetime.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I first make a disclosure of interest in view of the nature of what I have to say. I have the privilege of being a patron or trustee of a number of bodies involved in penal affairs—in particular, I am life president of the Butler Trust.
It is a pleasure to address the House, having heard the noble Lord, Lord McNally, speak in his new role. In the period that I have been in this House, I have enjoyed his contributions, which are always so sensible and so relevant to the matters being considered. I can assure him that my former colleagues in the Strand and those now on the other side of Parliament Square will have taken great pleasure from the team that primarily represents the Ministry of Justice. Having said that, perhaps I may, again in relation to judicial affairs, say a word of praise for its predecessors, whom I am so pleased to see sitting opposite the noble Lord, Lord McNally. They fulfilled their offices responsibly. Members of the judiciary felt that they were properly being listened to and that their interests were properly considered.
Almost exactly 20 years ago the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who was then Home Secretary, asked me to conduct an inquiry into, and then make a report on, the prison riots at Strangeways and elsewhere. The Government accepted the recommendations in that report, with the exception of a recommendation designed to prevent future overcrowding. Yet overcrowding had been accepted as being a cancer which was destroying our criminal justice system. At the time of the report, the average prison population in England and Wales was 44,000. The figure today is over 85,000. In the intervening years, the prison population has grown exponentially year by year, and thereby the problem of overcrowding has persisted. There is now a building programme priced at £3.8 billion.
In addition, the cost of looking after each prisoner averages about £45,000 per annum. The total annual bill is therefore about £3.825 billion. This is an enormous expense. I am told that it represents about 2.5 per cent of GDP—a higher per capita cost than in the US or any EU country. I ask myself: is this cost justified? The answer is clearly no. If proof of that is needed it is necessary to look only at reoffending rates. It is estimated that about 49 per cent of adults reoffend within one year of release, and the National Audit Office states that reoffending by recent ex-prisoners costs the taxpayer about £9.5 billion per year.
Expenditure on that scale cannot begin to make sense, yet successive Governments have refused to heed that message, and instead of improving the situation, by their intervention they have made it immensely worse. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said this morning, the probation service is in a sorry state. The fact is that the agencies responsible for dealing with reoffending are starved of resources because of the cost of housing this massive prison population.
What can we do to extract ourselves from such a disastrous situation? First, we have to accept that it is a myth that the judges, because they send prisoners to prison, are responsible for this situation. That myth has to be exploded. Ministers are responsible for the length of sentences, given that their role is to make provision for keeping in custody those whom the judges send to prison, according to the law—and it is Ministers who make the laws.
The Bromley Briefing, published by the Prison Reform Trust, makes the point that 70 per cent of the increase can be attributed to harsher sentences by judges. However, this ignores the fact that laws control the policy adopted by the judges with regard to sentencing. Unfortunately, decisions have been made repeatedly to change the law when their effect has not been properly considered.
I will give a bad example—perhaps the worst example—of this sort of behaviour, because I know intimately of the effect of that law, which I argued against at the time. I refer to Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which deals with the period that those convicted of murder and given life sentences must serve in custody before they can be released on licence. Before the law was introduced, and under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, a meeting was held at the Middle Temple, where nearly all those who were playing a leading role were present to discuss the proposals. They were unanimous in their opposition. I am pleased to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his seat. He will probably remember that at the end of the meeting, he said that he had listened to what had been said. He made it clear by the way in which he spoke that he had sympathy for what had been said—but he accepted that there was little, if any, chance of the then Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, changing his views.
Mr Blunkett was losing sight of the fact that, by increasing dramatically the term of imprisonment to be served by those who have committed the most serious crime, he would affect sentencing right down the system. The system strives for consistency not only between people who are convicted of the same offence, but between those convicted of offences in the system as a whole. If you interfere to the extent that he did with the level of sentencing at the top, it is the inevitable consequence that the level of sentencing throughout the system will be increased. That is what happened, as Mr Blunkett was warned—and it continues to happen now.
I could give another example, but I fear that I do not have the time. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that the approach to sentencing now needs dramatic and urgent consideration. In the present financial crisis, we cannot afford to spend the sort of money that is proposed, and that was spent by the previous Government, because it yields no dividends.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend will comment on a narrow but important matter of topical interest. I refer to the criminal responsibility of children between 10 and 14. As the House will know, the irrebuttable presumption in their favour was abolished as recently as 1998. Many people think that it was a mistake to abolish that presumption—much better to reverse it, with the burden on the defence, and thereby retain some flexibility. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will agree that this matter should now be considered urgently.
Lord Woolf
The noble and learned Lord asks a very pertinent question at the present time but I am sure he will forgive me if I say that it requires very careful consideration.
Lord McNally
My Lords, in my capacity as Deputy Leader of the House, perhaps I may say that there are an awful lot of noble and learned Lords down to speak on the list. I appeal to them in particular: if we are to finish much before midnight, we shall have to show a little bit of discipline.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, as has already been observed, much has changed since we last debated the gracious Speech in this House, and not least the elbow room on these Benches from time to time.
In the midst of the economic, security and social challenges, which properly frame all that is in the gracious Speech, the Government have emphasised reform of our constitution and particularly of the functioning of our Parliament and democracy. On these Benches, we have good reason to believe that we are in touch with significant public opinion in relation to these proposals. In my diocese during the election, more than 20 public hustings were held in churches in Leicester and Leicestershire, and the pattern was repeated across the country. Parliamentary candidates commented that their primary engagement with significant live audiences of non-aligned citizens took place in the churches of England.
The evidence is that the public want a measure of parliamentary reform. This may include support for the provision of a referendum on the electoral system, reform of the number and size of constituencies, and power of recall for any Member engaged in serious wrongdoing. A strong, elected lower House, accountable to the public and transparent in its operation, is welcomed and supported on these Benches. However, as has already been mentioned, the proposal to increase the numbers in this House to reflect the proportion of the vote gained on 6 May is surely profoundly questionable. Does this not seem like creating a large number of new Peers with the sole object of voting themselves out of existence? That is surely strange for a coalition Government who are determined to reduce the scale and cost of government in general.
However, the Deputy Prime Minister has spoken of a “wholesale, big-bang approach” to political reform. That suggests something with destructive, sudden and irreversible consequences, having little regard to what has gone before and taking less account of unintended consequences for the future. This surely raises serious questions about how our constitution is to be changed and about whether it is the property of the Government of the day or of the nation as a whole.
Further, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to a committee—mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—which he described as not yet another government talking shop but,
“a dedicated group devoted to kick-starting real reform”.
Can the Minister tell us how such a committee will be composed, whether it will have any commitment to achieving consensus, and whether the Government would welcome the contribution of these Benches in formulating their proposals for change?
The former Bishop of Chelmsford gave much of his time with others to conversations leading to the 2008 White Paper—conversations certainly not regarded at the time as simply a talking shop. In his response to the White Paper, he set out the Church of England’s position, which remains broadly the same today:
“The Church of England does not find the argument for a wholly elected 2nd Chamber convincing and supports the proposal for a fixed appointed element. This would help ensure the continuation of a breadth and diversity of talent amongst the membership, more often than not, currently evidenced within the members of the Cross Bench peers. It would ensure that all those with undoubted expertise, but who would not naturally submit themselves for election, would continue to have a role in parliamentary scrutiny and debate: a quality of the current House of Lords that has been invaluable, particularly when matters of great ethical importance are before it”.
A similar point was made in a recent address by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham when he said:
“We have some excellent Members of Parliament but many observers think that to fill another Chamber with more of the same, whipped to the will of government, would be worse than pointless. I am, in other words, much more concerned with the ability of the Lords to scrutinise legislation than I am with the official place of Bishops in that House. But that is not the point. The point is that our fine-tuned constitution, like a complex ecosystem, cannot simply be tampered with and played about with without considerable risk”.
That broadly represents our position, and especially now when two further considerations come to the forefront of the nation’s concerns. First, there is now a major priority facing Parliament and the country, as the gracious Speech and the coalition agreement make absolutely clear. The people will not forgive Parliament if it gets caught up in self-regarding questions of its own organisation, at the expense of giving clear and focused attention to the consequences of dramatic fiscal cuts on the wider population. Secondly, the people clearly do not want the public discourse about reform to be conducted in polarising and unproductive language about privilege and entitlement. I am sure that most if not all Members of this House would hold the ideal of service above privilege, and that is certainly what will animate the contribution of these Benches to the debate, since we see our service to this House as an intrinsic element of the Church of England’s broader service to the nation. It is on the basis of service and not privilege, and on that basis above all, that we shall judge the merits of the reform proposals that are brought before your Lordships’ House in due course.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I consider it a great privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and I agree with many of the things that he said, particularly about the idea of having a large number of additional Members of your Lordships’ House. I do not know to what extent that is more than speculation, but I certainly hope that what he and others have said will be taken into careful consideration.
I begin by thanking the Labour Ministers for their kindness to me during their term of office. Unfortunately they did not always agree with me, but I hope that the voice of individual conscience will continue to be respected in our country, as it was in the past.
I particularly congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on his appointment as Advocate-General for Scotland. I am glad that the Government have recognised the importance of having Law Officers who have a deep understanding of the political considerations and yet who at the same time are able to give independent and reliable legal advice.
My noble and learned friend is unique in a number of ways. I think that he is the only person to have served in a Scottish Administration and now serve in the Government of the United Kingdom. He is unique in another respect. As a Member of the Scottish Parliament, he formed with his colleagues a coalition with the Labour Party in Scotland. Now, of course, he has taken part in a coalition with the Conservatives here. That shows that a person of fundamentally Liberal Democratic principle can work well and in coalition with those who are willing to work with him. His career also underlines the danger of the advice that was given by one Cabinet Minister in the election campaign, that people should vote tactically. Another Cabinet Minister, more patronisingly, referred to the same idea as “intelligent” voting. I am glad to say that that principled Scot, the then Prime Minister, said that he wanted people to vote for what they believed in.
The principal thing I want to speak about is the proposal for fixed-term Parliaments. A fixed term for Parliament undoubtedly has the advantage of removing a great deal of opportunity for speculation. It also has the advantage of removing from a Prime Minister the temptation to go for an election when the party that he leads happens to be high in the opinion polls—or, occasionally, when he feels that there is a disaster around the corner and is anxious that the election take place before it comes. A fixed-term Parliament has an advantage in that respect. It also has the advantage of eliminating the situation already referred to when the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, appeared to stimulate speculation that an election would be held shortly after he took office but it then did not happen. I gather from the newspapers—although I have no other way of knowing—that one result of that was abortive expenditure of fairly high sums by the Labour Party, which I am sure that it would like to have avoided.
Five years has been selected. I can see arguments for different lengths, but I can see a great deal of argument in favour of having fixed-term Parliaments. A matter that has attracted a lot of attention is the proposal for 55 per cent. As I understand it, because there is only a shorthand statement of it in the coalition agreement, the proposal is in no way to interfere with the rule that a Government lose their mandate to govern if they lose a no-confidence Motion in the House of Commons by 50 per cent plus one—of those voting, to go back to the point raised this morning. Fifty per cent of those voting plus one brings down the Government.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
It is not 50 per cent plus one; it is a majority of one.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
That seems to me to be much the same thing. I am perfectly happy to accept that formulation: a majority plus one—a majority of one. A majority is a majority of one; in other words, 50 per cent of the votes cast plus one. That is the way that I have understood it; I may be corrected if I have got it wrong.
If the Government in office lose the confidence of the House of Commons, it does not necessarily follow that Parliament should be dissolved, even under our present system where there is no fixed-Parliament rule. But if you have a fixed-Parliament rule, you must have some protection against easy and arbitrary dissolution. As I understand it, the proposal for a requirement of 55 per cent has been formulated for that.
In Scotland, when the Labour Government introduced the Scotland Act, they produced a requirement for a two-thirds majority for a vote for dissolution. Fifty-five per cent seems rather reasonable in comparison with that. It has been suggested in some quarters that that is because of proportional representation in Scotland, but the only effect of proportional representation is to make a minority government more likely than it is under a first-past-the-post system. The voting in the Parliament is one Member, one vote, so, in my judgment, the analogy with Scotland is important.
That is a separate question altogether from the collapse of or loss of confidence in the Government. If the Government lose a vote of no-confidence on the basis that we have discussed—I will not repeat it again—the result is that the Government are out of office, and the question is whether someone else could form a Government. Your Lordships will remember that at one point in the transition Mr Gordon Brown mentioned the possibility of an alternative coalition in the present House of Commons, so the idea of there being more than one person capable of forming a Government in that situation is perfectly reasonable.
We look forward to the legislation in detail, and I hope that, in framing it, those responsible will look closely at the detail of the Scotland Act, which I do not want to go into at present but which includes a safeguard in relation to the time: if no view can be taken by a time limit, dissolution arises.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I shall use my time to talk about matters relating to constitutional change. I must begin by acknowledging a different experience from that of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who talked about clear public support for constitutional change. I spent four weeks knocking on doors in Telford during the general election period and must have had a different experience to the noble Lord knocking on doors in Blackpool, or wherever it was, because I did not find the slightest public interest in any aspect of constitutional change, whether Lords reform, fixed-term Parliaments, the alternative vote or any other of the often academic discussions that we have. Neither, I might say, did I notice anyone saying that what they were really looking forward to after the general election was a Lib Dem-Conservative Government. The people of Telford are pretty shrewd on these matters—as they were, I might say, in again returning a Labour MP.
I shall concentrate my arguments on three points but, as a brief preamble, I should say that I have been in politics a long time, and I understand that when two parties try to form an agreement, there will be all sorts of concessions and compromises. That is inevitable, but when the concessions, compromises—or, if you want to be more robust about it, horse-trading—take place in respect of constitutional change, that is far more serious. One party is saying to the other, “I absolutely hate that constitutional change you are proposing but I will go along with it as long as you support the constitutional change that I propose, which I know that you hate”. That may be a way to try to fix short-term policies, but it is not a way to rewrite fundamental parts of the constitution of our country. The constitutional changes proposed in the coalition agreement between the two parties have been described already by the leader of the Liberals as the greatest reform Bill since 1832—so no pressure there then. I would have thought that that is quite a high hurdle to leap over, even for someone more popular than Winston Churchill.
These constitutional changes, should they be carried out, mean a significant weakening of Parliament. That is how I would describe them, not least because for the past 13 years I have heard nothing other than, “Governments are too strong and Parliaments are too weak”. That was the received wisdom. Overnight on 6 May, the received wisdom became, “Parliaments are too strong and Governments are too weak, and we are going to have a strong Government”. That underpins a lot of these constitutional proposals. In particular, I shall mention three. One is the fixed term, which is supposed greatly to strengthen Parliament. Clearly, it does not. I could not have imagined a situation in which a Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who, I might say, had fewer MPs than any Prime Minister since the war, if my maths is correct—was able in effect to announce, the day after the general election, “I am going to be your Prime Minister for the next five years, almost irrespective of what happens in Parliament”. That does not strike me as strengthening Parliament; it makes Parliament less important and its votes of less significance.
I will not go in detail into the 55 per cent rule, which will surely have to be dropped. I was present, as were a number of other people here, when the Labour Government were quite properly voted down on a Motion of no confidence and quite properly immediately and without any fancy laws to refer to went to the country. From a purely personal point of view I wish they had not because I lost my seat. It would have been quite nice to say, “Oh, it doesn’t matter. There are a few more months yet before the five years are up”. I would have been amused to see my friend—I call him my friend—the noble Lord, Lord NcNally, a far more important man than the rest of us, going to see Jim Callaghan and saying, “We just lost a vote of no confidence, Jim, but don’t worry, it doesn’t really matter. Votes come and go, and we’ll stick around for a bit longer”. That is just silly. You can have all sorts of arguments about what is a good number, but 55 per cent is a silly proposal, so let us get rid of it.
I want to mention one other thing very briefly. If the proposal to increase the membership of the House of Lords in line with the number of votes in the last election is carried through, although I am not convinced that it will be, the fundamental convention that has operated certainly all the time I was the Chief Whip and throughout the time of my predecessors—that there is rough parity between the Government and the Opposition and that the Government must not be able to have a majority in the House of Lords—will be destroyed. It has been destroyed already, actually, because the Government have 250 seats and the Opposition have 210.
Please let us not confuse the argument by talking about the Bishops or the Cross-Benchers, who have never been included in any argument that I have heard or that has ever been advanced. The Government have a clear majority in the Lords, as they have a clear majority in the Commons. If that majority were enhanced even more, that would be quite outrageous. If I as Chief Whip had known that the Liberal Democrats would have voted with the Government on every single vote, I could not have justified a full-time job. I could have come in at midday and watched the cricket in the afternoon, and I would have loved it, because the Government would have known perfectly well that they would win every vote. Check the maths, check the history. This really cannot be allowed to sustain, and I hope that it will be addressed.
There is another way in which Parliament is being diminished by the constitutional changes. I do not call it reducing the number of MPs; I call it increasing the size of constituencies. I have some expertise in this in that I have represented two seats in Parliament, both of which were very large with 90,000 electors. Let me say that it is extraordinarily difficult to represent that number of people in anything like the way in which we have been accustomed to doing. I may upset some of my friends when I say that I do not object at all in principle to moving towards anything that makes constituencies of roughly equal size. That is not the problem; the problem is reducing the number of MPs. How on earth can that be described as making MPs more accountable? That really is torturing the language. MPs will be less accountable if the number of MPs is reduced.
In conclusion, I was particularly alarmed to see that the Government were proposing—I hope that this can be denied—that the whole process of drawing parliamentary constituencies is to be accelerated and local involvement in it diminished to get this through quickly. Let me remind the House that the previous redrawing of constituency boundaries in England has taken around six years, because local people have to be consulted and there have to be proper procedures for dealing with this. Both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have in their manifestos the importance of local democracy, local control and local involvement. If they are going to run roughshod over the established procedures for redrawing parliamentary constituencies, that yet again diminishes Parliament.
In three crucial respects these constitutional changes diminish Parliament, rather than enhancing it; and, my word, we will not do our job here unless we scrutinise them very carefully indeed. I hope that some of them are thrown out.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, may I say what considerable pleasure it is for me and those around me to see the noble Lord, Lord McNally, put his hands on the Dispatch Box and to discover that in becoming a Minister he has not lost his wit and good humour? We congratulate him most sincerely.
I start with a quotation:
“Liberals will switch the emphasis in combating crime to prevention and rehabilitation. We will expand the police force and the probation service, improve pay and conditions to attract high quality recruits. To reduce the prison population, we will make greater use of alternatives to imprisonment; extend experiments in prison reform and remand procedure; improve after-care service, and appoint independent inspectors to visit prisons and investigate complaints”.
Wait a minute, we already have independent inspectors: the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and his successor Dame Anne Owers. I am quoting from the 1964 Liberal manifesto for the very first election that I contested as a Liberal in West Flint against Mr Nigel Birch, and the principles that we enunciated in those days are just as relevant today.
In 2009, 65 per cent of Britain’s prison population were serving sentences of less than 12 months’ duration. Many of them were illiterate, a quarter were addicted to drugs or alcohol, and half were suffering from some form of mental illness. The system today is designed in such a way as to make it easier to commit another offence rather than to break the habit of a lifetime. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to the tariff on mandatory sentences for murder. An immediate task for the new Justice Ministers in this Government is, in the name of fairness, to tackle the shame and disgrace of indeterminate sentences. I quote one of the conclusions of the thematic review by the inspectorates of prisons and probation in March this year:
“The current situation is not sustainable. IPP prisoners now constitute around one in fifteen of the total prison population. As of December 2009, only 75 IPP prisoners had been released and stayed out, while there were around 70 newly sentenced IPP prisoners every month entering prison. Of the 5,788 IPP prisoners in custody, 2,393 had passed their tariff date, i.e. the period announced by the judge as the due punishment for the offence”.
The report called for a policy review at ministerial level and said that,
“these numbers far exceed the capacity of the probation service and the prison system … and the Parole Board”.
I recently defended a man of 58 years of age who was sentenced to an IPP for manslaughter with a tariff of nine years. “It is”, he said, “a life sentence. I will never come out”. He will never come out because of the way in which the system is organised today. These sentences have done immeasurable damage both to those imprisoned and to their relatives. It is Kafkaesque; despite trying to do everything that is asked of them, there is no way out.
The second task that I put to Justice Ministers is to review the effectiveness of the system of civil orders—ASBOs—that were adopted by the previous Government in an attempt to control behaviour. A report by the Metropolitan Police that was published on 13 May—a fortnight ago—shows that in London there are currently 1,261 ASBOs, and, in 2009, 1,127 arrests were recorded for their breach. These ASBOs do not work. Although trumpeted by the previous Government, there are no violent offender orders, although the Metropolitan Police have applied for one this year: the first in the United Kingdom. There is one risk of sexual harm order and one foreign travel order in the London area. The court charges £200 fees for sitting, and legal costs are considerable, but no overall cost has been calculated.
The feature of these orders is that they may be obtained under civil procedures, which include proof on a balance of probabilities that is based on hearsay evidence, which is usually no more than the report of an investigating police officer. Breach of the order is a criminal offence. Two youths may go into a pub. One is doing nothing wrong. The other is committing a criminal offence because he is in breach of a condition on his ASBO. These orders are a fundamental breach of the principles of fairness on which criminal law is based. Will the Ministers please consider whether they work and are effective? If not, let us get rid of the whole apparatus.
Similar considerations apply to dispersal orders under the 2001 Act. In 2007, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported:
“Dispersal orders convey stark messages about the status of young people in society and the way they are regarded by adults. They can reinforce a view of young people as a risk to others, obscuring the extent to which they are understood as at risk”.
That is another feature at which I would like the noble Lord to look.
The third task—here I come to a matter raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, naturally enough as he was my tutor—is to reconsider the age of criminal responsibility, which was highlighted this week at the Old Bailey. The proposal to reduce that age to 10 years was put forward by the party opposite in the Crime and Disorder Bill. On 9 March 1998, an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally—the Minister today—was moved in his absence by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. All the usual suspects, including me, spoke in support of the amendment. But the most compelling contribution was this:
“What worries me is not what the intention was in the drafting of the Bill, but that the effect of this part of it plays to a social attitude which wants to pile all the blame onto the shoulders of the young child who is in court; that it fails to accept the collective social responsibility for the situation in which the child finds itself. The child may come from an environment of appalling schools, appalling housing; media which plays to sensationalism and violence and parents who had no chance to develop their sense of responsible parenthood in their education, upbringing and environment”.—[Official Report, 19/3/98; col. 833.]
Everyone will recognise the tone and the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I am privileged to be speaking from the place where he normally, in the past 13 years, has addressed this House. I have also warned my noble friend Lord McNally that this is where the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, used to speak.
This is an opportunity for the Minister to put forward the amendment that was put then:
“Where a child aged 10 or over is accused of an offence, it shall be a defence for him to show on the balance of probabilities that he did not know his action was seriously wrong”.
I invite him to return to his own amendment and to put it forward.
I should like to say a brief word on Wales, since the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, cannot be here today. The Queen’s Speech promises to implement the recommendations of the Calman commission in Scotland, which gives them £200 million. Wales is seeking fairness—the implementation of the Holtham commission report on funding by the reform of the Barnett formula. We in Wales are being short-changed to the extent of £300 million per year on the basis of actual needs. The previous Government talked about it and did nothing. I look forward to an assurance from the Minister today that this Government are committed to equality as between the devolved nations.
In my adoption speech in that 1964 campaign, as reported in the Rhyl Journal, I called for a Parliament for Wales, proportional representation and the abolition of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords. We are nearly there.
Lord Bichard
My Lords, it is, I know, the custom of this House for maiden speeches to be short and uncontroversial. I should like to take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords that I hope that all my contributions will be succinct. I have not always, however, managed to avoid controversy quite as easily even when I have been trying to do so, but today I will make a particular effort.
Perhaps I may say at the outset what a privilege it is to be a Member of this House and how grateful I have been for the warmth of the welcome that I have received from other Members and from the quite excellent staff supporting us. In this respect, my thanks go beyond the routine. I have been genuinely overwhelmed and delighted to meet so many old friends—or should I be more delicate and say long-standing friends? I like to think that the warmth and civility that I have encountered derives at least in part from the fact that all Members of this House share a common purpose; that is, to add value and to make a positive difference to the society in which we live. We may do that in different ways and from different perspectives, but we all entered public life because we felt that we had some small contribution to make and I think that we recognise that commitment in all our colleagues.
In my case I have for more than 40 years served as a public official, but unusually perhaps in very many different roles; namely, the chief executive of two local authorities, Brent, and Gloucestershire where I now live; the chief executive of a government agency, the Benefits Agency; a Permanent Secretary at the former Department for Education and Employment; a vice-chancellor; the chairman of two non-departmental public bodies, including at the moment, the Design Council, from which I take such pleasure; and, most recently, director of the relatively new Institute for Government.
In all those roles, I have always enjoyed, not endured, the company of politicians of all parties—well, almost always enjoyed. But I have remained determinedly apolitical, so I feel that I could not have ended in a more appropriate place than these Cross-Benches and I very much look forward to playing an active part in the life of this House. But—and this is where I hope I can avoid the controversy—I sit here as someone who believes passionately that our public services need significant reform. In spite of the collective best efforts and dedication demonstrated every day of the week by countless public servants and, let us not forget, elected representatives, too many vulnerable people, too many households and too many communities still receive services which fail to meet their needs. That is not always because of a lack of resource: I believe that very often those services are more expensive than they need to be. This is not the result of some malign intent or conspiracy, nor has it been desired by any political party in this House. But it is too often the current reality.
As we enter a new Parliament, facing unprecedented fiscal and social challenges, we can do one of two things. We can set our sights primarily, solely perhaps, on saving money by reducing the cost of existing services. But if that is the sum of our ambition, many of the current flaws will remain and perhaps be accentuated. Alternatively, we can take this opportunity to look more fundamentally at the way our public services operate, their purpose, their shape and the way in which they work, or do not work, together. What might that kind of fundamental review seek to address? It might address perhaps some issues which have sometimes been overlooked. It might, for example, seek to address seriously the way in which Whitehall departments too often continue to work and develop policy in silos at a time when our most pressing problems do not fit neatly into bureaucratic boxes. Meeting the needs of an ageing society, reducing levels of chronic health conditions and reducing the unacceptable levels of reoffending are not the responsibility of a single department and will not be resolved unless we ensure that departments, Ministers and officials work much more effectively together.
This is also perhaps the time to ask ourselves why vulnerable individuals and families still too often receive unco-ordinated services from what seems to them to be countless public local bodies—statutory and non-statutory. Those clients are often confused. The services are often ineffective and those who want to do more to help themselves find it very difficult to find a way of doing so. It sometimes seemed to me that the best we could do for some families was to provide them with a diary secretary to arrange the huge numbers of meetings that they need with public agencies. We can surely simplify these arrangements and reduce the number of narrowly defined targets, performance indicators, inspection arrangements and ring-fenced budget allocations, all of which take away the incentive and the space for enterprising public servants to use their initiatives—and sometimes just to use their common sense—to the benefit of citizens and taxpayers.
Might we not also expect greater co-operation between all of our public agencies and the way in which they purchase and use basic resources? When we spend, as we do, £220 billion a year on purchasing goods and materials, why is it that we still have no convincing public sector purchasing strategy? Why do we need now so many separate public sector offices around the country when more and more business can be done online? If we are honest—and I have played a part in this—the answer often has more to do with territory and sovereignty than it does with logic or service to our clients.
In the past, of course, our response to many of these questions has too often been to restructure our public organisations—and, again if we are honest, more often than not that has failed. At the Institute for Government we calculated recently that every time a government department is reorganised it costs £15 million to start with, and very rarely do those reorganisations deliver results. Surely the time has come to jettison our obsession with redesigning the structures of government and to concentrate instead on redesigning the services themselves so that they are shaped around clients, not around providers; so that they are seamless, not fragmented; so that they are functional, not unreliable; and so that they are accessible, not impenetrable. We spend billions of pounds on services but the public sector still rarely uses the skills of our world-class service design industry to ensure quality and cost effectiveness. Now is the time for people in the public sector to realise the potential power of service design to create better services at less cost.
Finally, our work at the institute has shown that we now have probably the most centralised governance system in the world, with power concentrated in Whitehall and Westminster. It has shown, too, that this has accentuated many of the problems I have touched upon. There are few here or in the other place who do not now agree the need for this change and for power with accountability to rest closer to local communities, and for our civil society to take its place as a genuine partner in our activities.
Improving our public services is a priority but success will not be achieved by yet more targets, reorganisations and pilots. Success is more difficult: it is about changing the way people behave and the way they work together. The very good news—and the reason why what I have said is not controversial—is that there are ever larger numbers of staff, elected representatives, trustees and governing bodies out there who want to bring about this kind of change because they want to focus more and more on their clients and outcomes. This is a moment of opportunity as well as a moment of crisis. Equally, it is a moment for leadership rather than control. I thank your Lordships for your attention.
Lord Filkin
My Lords, it is a delight to welcome an old colleague and friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, to our deliberations. I am sure that I speak for the whole Chamber when I say that we have already seen in the quality of his maiden speech what we had expected and what we have to look forward to in terms of clarity, forthrightness and content. In addition, I am sure that the House will increasingly see that he has been, and will be, a brave public servant, wise in his actions, tough and able to carry through difficult change when necessary. He will be an asset indeed.
The noble Lord has hinted already at the richness of his public service life, which is why he will give such value. He has been a chief executive of local authorities, some of which were extremely difficult at times; he has been a Permanent Secretary with—how shall I put it?—ambitious politicians; and he has been called in to sort out difficult issues such as the Soham inquiry and the Legal Services Commission’s problems, thankless tasks where so much could have gone wrong.
The noble Lord also understands policy. You would expect a Permanent Secretary to do so, but he has demonstrated it by the remarkable way in which the Institute for Government has filled an aching void in our public debate over the past few years. We cannot imagine what we would have done without it. It has been brilliantly led by him and his able staff.
Most important, the noble Lord understands delivery and he understands real life. Many people can make policy or give speeches, but the ability to turn policy and ideas into action on the ground is fundamental. I suspect that this is partly because he has been rooted in the reality of running public services and is still rooted in civil society in rich ways. As well as being a director of the University of the Arts and chairman of the Design Council in past functions, he is currently either a board member or a trustee of bodies concerned with management, education and the arts and of a wide range of charitable bodies. I have demonstrated the richness of his experience, but it causes me a slight worry: I do not want him to spend so much time on those bodies that he does not bring the benefit of his wisdom to our deliberations. I urge him to spend time in this Chamber.
I turn to more difficult issues. It has been a dreadful 18 months for this House. We collectively know that we have been vilified, belittled and damaged. This matters to us personally—many of us feel that we have been belittled as a consequence—but, more than that, it matters because we are not a club but a part of the constitution. Therefore, the public regard for whether we do our constitutional job well, with integrity and effectiveness, matters not only to us in a self-regarding way but to society more widely. Rebuilding the trust and confidence of the public and civil society and convincing them that this Chamber is capable of fulfilling its constitutional role matter enormously.
In that spirit, the Lord Speaker invited a number of eminent external people to talk informally to Peers and to give their perspective on where we sat last October. To correct the record, she did not initiate the three working groups; she was aware that that happened on the back of the seminar, with the chairmanships emerging, in the dreadful way that the House knows they do, through a mixture of persuasion, cajoling and bullying.
The Deputy Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the three working groups in his speech. They essentially looked at three issues: how the House scrutinises legislation; how it governs itself; and how its procedures support those two other functions. Each working group had three fundamental principles. First, it had to be utterly cross-party and non-aligned, with a membership drawn from people who were known and, I hope, respected in all parts of the House. Secondly, it had to respect and not seek to change the constitutional settlement; in no way should there be any hint of trying to use this as a wedge to upset or tilt the balance. Thirdly, we recognised—although we stand by our recommendations—that its contribution was to promote debate rather than to pretend that this was the alpha and omega of these issues; we would not be so hubristic.
Let me, in my limited time, give your Lordships a quick taster of some of those points. First, the role of scrutinising legislation is fundamental. It is what the public think we exist for, so how we do it matters greatly. Five points were made by the group that I had the privilege of chairing. The first was the need to scrutinise if legislation is fit and ready to come into the House—there have been times, I regret, when I have been guilty of not always carrying that standard as a Minister or as a member of the Government. The second point was to spend more skill and time scrutinising the policy behind the legislation. Too often we dive like eager lawyers for detail and lose sight of what the legislation is meant to achieve, what success would look like and whether the legislation looks likely to achieve it.
Next, we recognised the need to involve the public in our processes. Your Lordships should not faint; it already happens in the Commons. For all Bills that start there, there is a public Bill process whereby the views of the public are listened to and representations made. We should have a similar system for those few Bills that start in the Lords. It is normal, good practice. To cheer the Leader of the House, we say that we should make greater use of Grand Committee—we shall explain why in the report. It is beneficial now. We should not always use it, but it should be the default rather than the exception. Lastly, we should stop talking about post-legislative scrutiny and start doing it.
I shall not talk about the procedures of the House, because there is not time. I shall say a few words instead about governance of the House. It is clear that the failures of the past 18 months are failures of individuals, but they are also failures of governance. We have to face up to that fact. It was we who made the system that allowed things to go wrong and the public hold us collectively to account for that. It is a particular duty of bodies that are still self-governing—there are not many of them left—to have proper processes for periodically reviewing their governance. Otherwise, who is to do it to us? I am not aware—I stand to be corrected—that this House has ever had a formal, let alone an independent, review of the quality of its governance and of whether it meets current good practice standards. Such standards are known and most public bodies would now expect to have to meet them. This House has not reviewed its governance, let alone asked anybody to give a view of it. That is needed; we are not a club.
Our governance is a mystery to many of us. It is not clear who is responsible for what or who is responsible for putting things right or taking a systematic view of whether the governance arrangements are appropriate to each task. I ask your Lordships to read the one quotation about how the usual channels dominate internal governance. However, their role is nowhere made explicit and it is more focused on the interests of the Government and of the political parties than those of the House or of the public.
The failures of governance are failures not of individuals but of us collectively to review our processes. I was therefore delighted that both the Leader of the House yesterday—I take his words at face value—and the Deputy Leader of the House signalled their willingness to open discussion on these issues with me, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, my co-chairs of these three contributions to the debate.
Lord St John of Fawsley
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, on a speech of great modesty and depth. If that is the level of contribution that we can expect from him, the more we hear from him, the better. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. I regret to say that I agreed with almost everything that he said, but the tone of politics has now changed—thank heaven—and congratulations are now in vogue until we get bored with them.
There is one sentence in the gracious Speech to which I should like to draw attention:
“Proposals will be brought forward for a reformed second House that is wholly or mainly elected on the basis of proportional representation”.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on his speech, which, rather like overripe gruyère, was full of holes and held together only by some very good jokes. I warn him about jokes: they can be dangerous and can lead to a sudden change of career. Let him wait until people say, “Where are the jokes? Where is the Lord McNally of yore? We want him back”. That is the moment to start up again, because it is safer in today’s world of politics to be a co-respondent than a wit.
I am pleased that the noble Lord made the case so well for there being no hurry about this part of the Queen’s Speech. Let us learn from the experience of the previous Government: you cannot evade the natural consequences of your actions. Let that be constantly in the minds of Ministers; it is essential. Why not leave the House of Lords alone? It is a modern miracle. One should not drop names, as his Holiness the Pope said to me only the other day, but I tried to explain to him the concept of a Cross-Bencher. Well, he is the infallible one, so I gave up.
We do not want a clone of the House of Commons here. We are a revising Chamber; we are a Chamber with independent views; we are a Chamber where we want more distinguished people. Above all, we want more Cross-Benchers. That case was brilliantly made by example, which is always more convincing than precept, by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, today. We do not want a lot of people elected by proportional representation; we want some distinguished people. This is a House where there are people of great eminence and people of some common sense. They all have experience. Let us move on in that direction.
We have exemplified what the Italians have a word for: aggiornamento. That means building on the past but innovating as you need to. This we have continually done, otherwise we would have become a museum piece; we would have vanished years ago. Let us look at life Peers. I do not know whether it was Bagehot or me who first proposed them—it could not have been me, because he made the suggestion in 1861, but having read 13 volumes of Bagehot I find it difficult to tell which of us is speaking. It was Harold Macmillan who implemented the proposal, which has been a very great reform. I was delighted to hear that we are to have more Select Committees in this House. I shall not go on about that, because I had some small part to play in them in the olden days.
We need self-restraint. We want to observe the conventions. You learn that with wisdom and experience in this House. This House knows where to draw the line. Noble Lords know when to push things and when to stop. That is an art that you can learn only from experience and by being here. It is vital to know.
I have nothing against the alternative vote, but let us keep the link with the constituencies. That is the most vital thing, which is lost through proportional representation. If we are to have a system, let that link be intrinsic to it.
Now let us concentrate on the economy. That is what concerns people. There is no virtue in being rich and there is no virtue in being poor. What one wants is enough. Greed is not an attractive quality and we have had quite enough of it. I once had a conversation with a judge who said that the difficulties of the people with whom he had come into contact were mainly that they had followed the advice of people whom they did not know about documents that they had not read to buy goods that they did not need with money that they did not have. That is exactly the sort of position that we are in today.
Louis MacNeice, one of the great poets of the 20th century, said:
“It’s no go the Yogi-Man, it’s no go Blavatsky,
All we want is a bank balance and a bit of skirt in a taxi”.
That grossly underestimates the British people, but there is such a tendency, which has risen and grown and, like a horrible monster, is threatening this country. That is why we want to provide something to meet the spiritual starvation as well as economic prosperity. You cannot have spirituality if you are struggling all the time to survive. My advice to the Government would be to leave the constitution for the commissions to get to work on—it is very complicated—and to concentrate, concentrate, concentrate. That is even more important than educate, educate, educate. They should concentrate on the economy and get that right and, after that, go on with their constitutional reforms. I speak as a retired constitutional expert.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, on his maiden speech. I was a Minister in the Department for Education and Employment when he was permanent secretary. I know his wisdom and passionate commitment to the public services. Your Lordships’ House will value his contributions very much indeed. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, himself a highly effective parliamentary reformer. We should heed his wise caution as Bagehot’s alter ego.
The British constitution is not a trophy to be grabbed by any Government, let alone a plaything to be handed to the junior party in a coalition—a party that won 23 per cent of the vote. It is a trust to be held with care and respect by those who for the time being serve in government. Most people would have preferred less triumphalism and more humility from the coalition as it addresses its responsibilities in relation to the constitution.
Constitutional change is continuous in our country. One of the virtues of our unwritten constitution is that it enables an appropriate adaptation to happen. The Conservative Party at least, if it remains heir to the thinking of Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott, will understand that constitutional change should be approached with caution and tact, empirically and incrementally. Every proposition for constitutional reform needs to be examined thoroughly, open-mindedly and without partisanship. It is perfectly appropriate to examine topics such as the number of MPs, the voting system, lobbying, the second Chamber and the devolution of power. Fixed-term parliaments and the recall of MPs might more wisely have been left alone—but we could add to the list the issues for our country arising from Germany’s determination to rewrite the treaty of Lisbon to enable Europe to integrate national budgetary and fiscal policies—that will be an interesting test for the coalition. The Prime Minister’s crude threat to use the veto was perhaps not the best opening gambit.
It is a good idea to set up commissions on such issues, but it is not a good idea to prejudge them or to take them in a rush. One should allow the commissions, rather, to educate the nation on these important matters one by one. “Wholesale, big-bang” legislation, and “our very own Great Reform Act”, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister’s somewhat bombastic language, would be both imprudent and improper. Liberal Democrats and Conservatives rightly complained about wholesale legislation in the previous Parliament, with the Coroners and Justice Bill, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which the House of Commons hardly pretended to scrutinise and the House of Lords had enormous difficulty in considering adequately.
The time may indeed have come to examine options for changing the electoral system. Turnout at elections has fallen over decades, with only a disappointingly small upturn at this last closely contested general election. In 1951, only 3 per cent of votes were cast for parties other than the two main parties; in 2010 it was 35 per cent. In first-past-the-post elections, a tiny minority of voters in marginal seats determine the electoral outcome for the UK, and large numbers of people now feel that their votes are of no account. But the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have been wrong to rush to conclusions and wrong to horse-trade electoral options. It is doubtful whether the alternative vote would be the right remedy, liable as it is to result in the election of candidates that no one really wanted. Let us have a thorough review of the arguments for and against a range of possible reforms, including proportional representation through the single transferable vote.
No doubt, the proponents of an elected second Chamber will reflect on whether a second Chamber elected by PR might not claim more legitimacy than a House of Commons elected on AV or FPTP. For my part, I want the primacy of the House of Commons to be preserved. Let us look and see whether the democratic credentials and capacity of the House of Commons can sensibly be enhanced by electoral reform and procedural reform. The question then will be whether what is needed is yet more elected politicians in the second Chamber or to maintain and improve the second Chamber's capacity for searching and expert scrutiny. It is not anti-democratic to note that the British constitution has been admired historically for its checks and balances, but that under the modern party system the House of Commons has become ineffective as a check on executive wilfulness. I favour reform of the House of Lords, but so as to improve its legitimacy and effectiveness as an appointed House. A House of Lords, appointed through the good offices of a statutory appointments commission, containing a wealth of experience and expertise systematically recruited from across the national life, relatively independent of party and media pressure, deferring ultimately to the authority of the elected House of Commons, will be able to do a better job than a second elected House in advising how to get legislation right and from time to time challenging elective dictatorship. The question that the enthusiasts for an elected second Chamber ought to answer is how the change they favour would improve the performance of Parliament.
I would welcome the coalition's new localism if it meant the renewal of elective local self-government—if it meant, in fact, the rediscovery of old localism. I cannot welcome it if the new localism and the big society are to mean a further marginalisation of elective local government through the encouragement and funding of unaccountable populist groups—the incubation of a British Poujadism or Tea Party—pursuing idiosyncratic and self-interested projects through local referendums, vetoes, rights to take over services and self-granted planning permissions. It is right to diminish central and local bureaucratic interference in schools and strengthen partnerships with the private sector. It is wrong that the Government should strip local education authorities, whose role is to provide good education for all the children in their communities now and for the future, of their best performing schools and divert taxpayers' money to new so-called free schools in state-subsidised social division. Nor should policing be made vulnerable to individuals and political groups with aggressive agendas of their own.
Unfortunately, the new localism has fallen at the first fence with the coalition's lamentable commitment to abort the restoration of unitary local government to Norwich, the city in which I live, and Exeter. This is a significant symbolic issue as well as a very important practical one for the people of the cities whose lives will be affected. It is a petty and mean-spirited denial of the opportunity for two proud and historic cities to resume the municipal self-government which they enjoyed for centuries. It was taken away from them in 1974 by a Conservative Government who believed that big was beautiful in government. The coalition's proposal is an affront to Parliament, which earlier this year debated the issue thoroughly in both Houses before voting to approve unitary status for the two cities. In demonstrates contempt for the judiciary, since the Government have refused to await the outcome of the judicial review proceedings. It demonstrates contempt by Liberal Democrat Ministers for Liberal Democrats in Norwich and Exeter who might have hoped they could take their party leader at his word, when he said in his great speech on 19 May:
“I’m a liberal … you know better than I do about how to run your life, your community, the services you use”.
On the part of the Conservatives, it is the old bullying politics at its worst—winner takes all—exploiting a parliamentary majority for no other reason than to serve a party interest. Their assertion that this will save money is bogus. They cannot claim their manifesto commitment as justification since the people did not endorse their manifesto. The Select Committee on the Constitution of your Lordships' House may wish to consider the constitutional impropriety of this legislation, plainly devised to impact on two particular communities rather than to be of general application.
In any case, there is far too much in this Queen's Speech. In this time of severe national difficulty, the Government would do better to set aside self-indulgence and ideology and seek to unite the country in addressing—and addressing well—a limited number of issues that we can all agree should be the national priorities.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton
My Lords, with this speech, I hope to join a distinguished club—that of people who thought that they had a solution to the problems of the House of Lords. It is now an old club with traditions stretching back at least 100 years. In 1930, Somerset Maugham, brother of a Lord Chancellor, wrote, in a brilliant novel, Cakes and Ale, that:
“now that the House of Lords must inevitably be in a short while abolished”—
those were his words—
“it might be a good plan if the profession of literature were confined by law to the peerage”.
Barons would be responsible for drama and journalism. Fiction would be the domain of Earls, a field where they are already expert. Dukes, thought Maugham, would write poetry. A little later, the poet Auden suggested that all Members of Parliament should be chosen by lot.
My solution is not as imaginative as those schemes. I would ask the Lords reformers to examine the present House and see why, in the last 10 or 20 years, it has essentially done so well. For it has been a success despite the qualifications mentioned very appropriately by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and some remarkable speeches have been made, and some great debates held as rare and worthy of account as any in the past. Surely that is because primarily we have an astonishing diversity of talent, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, put it. We have many Cabinet Ministers. We have ex-chiefs of staff. We have a few historians and biographers. We have doctors and we have had a vet. We have men as brave as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who was tough enough to question the whole idea that the planet is warming up, and we had some policemen. We have the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller.
We have, therefore, heard some astonishing speeches, which probably could not have been made in another place or by a House made up of elected Members in a simple way. Many of us remember that great speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in favour of hunting, not to speak of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on the same subject. Many of us vividly recall—even if we did not necessarily agree with—the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, when he questioned the need to renew Trident and the insistence of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, that the covenant between the Armed Forces and the nation needed repair.
I also remember the late Lord Kennett questioning whether it was wise to retain NATO in its old Cold War form in the new world order. The late Lord Jenkins of Putney made a compelling speech about Kosovo. I remember, too, how the late eloquent Lord Annan, in his last speech, compared the then Lord Cranborne to Comus as he led his admirers, the surviving hereditary Peers, deep into a pathless forest. I recall the brilliant speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, questioning the need to go to war in Iraq. If I may be forgiven another reminiscence, I also recall the late Lord Sherfield's speech in the Maastricht debate explaining how when he was in the Foreign Office he had been critical of the idea of the European Common market and how he had changed his view afterwards.
Since I have a long memory, I can remember wonderful speeches by the late Lord George Brown and the supreme competence of the late Lord Callaghan. We have had great cricketers in this House, such as Lord Cowdrey, Lord Constantine, and the late Lord Bishop of Liverpool, and I dare say that we should have had footballers. We could do worse than having some singers. Those debates that kept us so long into the early morning about whether it was right to extend the number of days when a suspect could be held without charge were fine parliamentary occasions even if, characteristically, the media seemed more interested in the Peers’ cornflakes at 8 am than their views.
Those are great memories and might not be repeated in a simply elected House. I believe, therefore, that we need a benign, corporate approach to elections to this House. We may have to accept that there has to be an elected House, but who will be elected? It should be stipulated that there would be a certain number of trade union leaders, a few vice-chancellors, some ex-chiefs of staff, ambassadors, two or three poets, certainly, some ex-Cabinet Ministers of course, as well as some historians, please, some bankers, industrialists and publishers, such as the apparently immortal noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld. Each would serve a special time, varying perhaps from profession to profession.
We should continue to have friends of Israel and Arabists. We should have friends of Europe and critics. We could specify a few hereditary Peers who, we have all learnt, are still a far-from-negligible element in our society. All could be elected from wider groupings. Take the vice-chancellors. There may be 100 of them in this country. We might choose five of their number on a regular basis. Let us retain Bishops, although perhaps not so many as now. The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster should be with this and so should the Chief Rabbi as a matter of course, as well as some appropriate Muslim leader. In a sense, I am advocating that all of us learn from how Bishops have come here in the past. We could try and arrange to have the same kind of House as we now have, or better, to ensure, by design, what we now have by chance.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. Three weeks ago today, I was elected councillor for the London Borough of Sutton for the 10th time. More importantly, on the same day, the Liberal Democrats were elected for a seventh term to run the London Borough of Sutton with a greatly increased majority. Contrary to what some have said, Liberal Democrats are used to being in Government. Liberal Democrats are used to making difficult decisions and they are used to doing so under much greater public scrutiny and with much greater public accountability to those most directly affected by those decisions than can ever be possible at national level.
Indeed, it can be said that Liberal Democrats probably have more experience than any other party in making coalitions work. At local level, successful coalitions have two things in common. All of them are based on policy agreement and policy compromise, and all of them are for a fixed term with no get-out clause or option to go to the electorate early. So we have much to learn, but also some experience to share.
I very much welcome the appointment of my noble friend Lady Hanham as the CLG Minister in your Lordships’ House. We were London council leaders together throughout the 1990s. Perhaps more important for this Parliament, we were for many years together UK representatives on the Committee of the Regions, which represents local and regional government in the EU’s decision-making process. I say “for this Parliament” because the Lisbon treaty gives greater power and recognition to what I will abbreviate as “sub-state government” in monitoring subsidiarity, as well as to national parliaments and devolved assemblies. I therefore hope that, together, we will be able to bring to your Lordships’ attention both the relevance of the European Union to local government and the relevance of local government to the European Union.
On the gracious Speech and the coalition agreement, I of course welcome very much the commitment in the agreement to,
“the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups”.
Cynics say, with some truth, that devolution of decision-making is always much easier when the decisions are likely to be difficult and unpopular. That is true. However, I strongly believe that it is all the more important that these difficult and unpopular decisions on how to reduce budgets—or, properly, how to work smarter and do more with less—are made at a local level. That is not just because the direct effect of decisions can be seen and felt at local level, but because, if we are to have any hope of restoring faith and confidence in government in its widest sense and in politicians at all levels, it will be essential for local decision-makers to engage effectively with their local communities in the difficult decision-making process that lies ahead. If these decisions are simply imposed by local authorities, the responsibility for them denied and blame put elsewhere, there is no hope of restoring public confidence. I listened with great interest to the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. He points the way. In fairness, local government is already well ahead of central government in working in that new, smarter way. That must be how we tackle difficult times ahead.
Of course, there cannot be the fundamental shift of power sought by the coalition agreement unless and until local authorities have the greater financial autonomy that it promises. It promises a review of local government finance. I understand why it had to be worded that way but, in reality, we do not need yet another review that takes years and ends up being parked for ever on the “too difficult” shelf. There has been no shortage of reviews, from Layfield to Lyons. There is no shortage of academic and political material available on the various policies. There is ample experience of different local government financial systems all over the democratic world.
We now need a commitment to implementation from the coalition Government. This is not the time for me to suggest what that system should be, if indeed I had the temerity to suggest that there was a simple system. There manifestly is not: it is full of complex and difficult decisions. There are many alternatives, including some interesting proposals from the Local Government Association, in the wider context of Total Place, that I hope the Government will look at seriously.
I hope, after nearly a lifetime in local government, that, by the next general election in five years’ time, we will have a system of local government finance that enables local authorities to raise a greater proportion of their funding locally and be less dependent on central government grants; a system that is far more transparent and understandable; and a system with a much fairer relationship between levels of expenditure and taxation. Without that, we will not truly have a radical devolution of power.
Turning to particulars, in common with almost everyone else in local government, I welcome the abolition of the Government Office for London. Indeed, it is remarkable that it is still there 10 years after the creation of the Greater London Authority. I particularly look forward to hearing the new arrangements for liaison and communication between central government and London government in all its forms. Are we to have a Minister for London? What will the communications channels between central government and the various levels of London government be?
In many ways, what happens with the Government Office for London will be the first practical test of the Government’s commitment to radical devolution of power. What new powers will go to the GLA and—perhaps even more important as a test—what powers will go to London boroughs, individually and collectively? How much real power will actually be shifted back into central government? That will be a real test, the outcome of which many of us will watch with great interest.
Finally, I turn to an issue that is not in the gracious Speech or in the coalition agreement, much to my surprise and regret: electoral reform for local government. I always used to believe that local government would be the first sphere of government to be elected by proportional representation. In many ways, it is ideally suited to proportional representation. We already have multi-member constituencies; we call them “wards”. We have a system under which we would get a much fairer representation of voter choice than at present. Now, however, local government in England and Wales may well be the only sphere of government left with the first-past-the-post system. That makes no sense at all, and I hope that this is an accidental omission from the coalition agreement. I feel sure that it must be an omission and that, in the localism Bill later in this Parliament, we will perhaps be able to show that it is and that electoral reform will indeed extend to local government in England and Wales, as it already does in Scotland.
The coalition agreement promises much for the rejuvenation of local democracy. I look forward hugely to contributing to the fulfilment of that great objective.
Lord McNally
I knew we should have paid a big transfer fee for the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. She would have handled this much better than me. The guidance of the Chief Whip was seven minutes—
Lord McNally
It was eight minutes. Everyone is grabbing one or two minutes, so I remind noble Lords of that.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I will focus on the sentence in the gracious Speech that announces the Bill to,
“devolve greater powers to councils and neighbourhoods and give local communities control over housing and planning decisions”.
There are good reasons for giving local people more power over their neighbourhood. Indeed, one could say that it is an essential feature of democracy. I wish the Government well in this objective, provided that, in the end, democracy is well served by the way in which it is done.
There are other essential features of democracy as we understand it, of course. One is to enable the citizen to enjoy a secure place to live, with the amenities we consider necessary to health, education and leisure accessible and of a decent standard. Another is to safeguard the rights of minorities to those things, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has recognised. It is particularly in these respects that we must look carefully at how control by local communities will be exercised. For instance, how will the Government ensure that good standards of design for housing will be adhered to, no matter what the enticements of developers; or, for that matter, that enough housing will be built at all? Will it be firmly inculcated, with guidance available, that good design in housing saves money in the long term, especially since people tend to live in communities in the long term, unlike some developers, who build, sell and move on? How will the admirable statements of the new Minister for Culture, Mr Ed Vaizey, on the value of good architecture, be brought to bear on planning authorities? Now, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said in his profound maiden speech, there is a great opportunity for joined-up government. Can we be assured that it will be used to raise local standards?
Where will local communities find their expertise in design? I mean the design not just of houses, but of whole neighbourhoods, so that schools and clinics are within easy reach, that there are pleasant places to walk, that the motor car does not take pride of place where families live, and that crime is designed out and community solidarity fostered. Good design can help powerfully with all those things and there is plenty of research to show it. Research also shows how well designed communities are energy-efficient and attract investment. Design contributes substantially to eroding that poverty of aspiration which characterised the poorer housing estates of the 1980s. What will happen to the design principles that are emerging now from our enlightened neighbourhoods, where crime has fallen and people have rediscovered community action to improve their surroundings? What plans do the Government have to raise the standard of the worst to that of the best? Will they develop the role of CABE, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, and will they endorse the approval of the Liberal Democrat LGA Group for the “Total Place” concept?
The other area I mentioned—that of the interests of minorities—applies most poignantly to the fate of Gypsies and Travellers. Sadly, the previous Government did not have time to implement the provision in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, which would give Gypsies and Travellers equal security of tenure with other occupants of mobile home sites. Can the Minister tell us when the statutory instrument which would bring this legislative obligation about will be made? How will the Government ensure that local authorities make comprehensive assessments of homelessness, so as to include Gypsies and Travellers and provide the sites which they should? What provision are they making for the education of Gypsy and Traveller children, who are among the lowest achievers in our maintained system? One reason for this is bullying and intimidation at school. I have heard many examples of drop-out at secondary school for this reason. What will the Government do to provide safety and security for the children of this most marginalised of communities? Will their mothers continue to have the highest rate of maternal mortality in the British Isles?
I look forward to hearing more about how the fairness which both sides of our new coalition Government have proclaimed will be made available to the people who have had least of it; and how local communities can be empowered so that fairness, as well as good design and new homes, are brought about.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I wish to address constitutional issues. For reasons of time, I will reserve my detailed comments on specific measures for when they are introduced. Given that this is the debate on the Address at the start of a new Parliament, I thought I would focus on three overarching points that should inform the Government in how they proceed in dealing with constitutional affairs.
First, do not expect too much. There is the danger of offering constitutional change as a simple solution to complex issues. I fear our economic and social problems are not going to be alleviated by changes to our political structures. Indeed, our political problems are not necessarily going to be solved by changes to our political institutions. We face a crisis of confidence, but it is not a crisis of confidence in our established institutions, but rather a crisis of confidence in our political class. If people do not trust politicians, changing our electoral system is not going to solve the problem if it simply results in the same people being elected. There is the danger of constitutional change being used as a way of politicians absolving responsibility—of not accepting that the problem is the way they behave, rather than the institutional framework in which they operate. What is crucial is behaviour rather than structures. What we need primarily is leadership—politicians being seen to act in the public interest—and not necessarily institutional change.
Secondly, if we are to have change to our constitutional arrangements, it is essential that that change derives from a clear conceptual framework—a clear understanding of what type of constitution is appropriate for the United Kingdom. The previous Government introduced a number of major constitutional changes. They affected fundamentally our constitutional arrangements. The problem was that they constituted essentially disparate and discrete measures. They were never couched in any intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change.
When addressing constitutional change, we need to start from a clear understanding of the type of constitution we consider appropriate for the United Kingdom. We must be clear as to the principles that determine structure and composition. Take reform of your Lordships’ House. The Times has been carrying letters from people who advance their pet schemes for reform, indicating what proportion should be elected and which Members should be selected by this or that body. Anybody can come up with a scheme to change the composition of the House; what is crucial is to start from first principles. That is, to determine what we expect of Parliament in our political system and, therefore, the role and relationship of the two Houses and their relationship to the other elements of our political system. Once we know what we expect of the second Chamber as an integral part of our constitutional arrangements, then and only then can we start to determine the composition best suited to the fulfilment of that role.
Thirdly, measures of constitutional change need not only to be grounded in an intellectually coherent approach to the constitution, but to be evidence-based It is not sufficient for a Minister to have a bright idea and then for that to be embodied in a Bill and rushed through on the basis of some supposedly self-evident principle. I have previously made the point that public policy should be evidence-based. Bills that seek to change our basic constitutional arrangements need to be based on sound evidence and subject to sustained parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that they are. That requires, wherever possible, pre-legislative scrutiny as well as sustained examination once a Bill is introduced.
Take, for example, something already referred to: the proposal for a super-majority of 55 per cent in the other place for a premature dissolution of Parliament. That needs to be thoroughly tested. Why a super-majority? Why 55 per cent? When the question has been put, the response has generally made reference to the position in the Scottish Parliament, where a two-thirds majority is required. This troubles me as it suggests a lack of knowledge of what happens elsewhere, other than in Scotland. The Scottish situation is not exceptional. A number of countries employ the two-thirds requirement. None, though, requires a 55 per cent majority. Perhaps my noble friend, in replying to the debate, could tell us the genesis of the 55 per cent requirement. That will be a useful starting point. We need to ensure that this is a thoroughly well grounded proposal and not some back-of-the-envelope approach of the sort that we have seen in the past.
I am not arguing against the proposal, but making the point that it must be thoroughly tested. Changes to how we are governed must be based on compelling evidence and located within a clear conceptual framework. That, I think, is the fundamental message I wish to convey. Ensuring this requires a rigorous process of scrutiny not only within Parliament but within government itself. Ministers may wish to take a leaf out of the book of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. When he appeared before the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House in 2001, as part of its inquiry into the process of constitutional change, he produced a flow-chart identifying the stages a measure had to go through before it was introduced to Parliament. I do not think that it outlived the tenure of the noble and learned Lord, but it is something well worth considering by the new Administration. Indeed, it will be very useful to know from my noble friend what particular processes have been established for determining the strength of proposed constitutional changes prior to their introduction to Parliament.
Ensuring that Bills have been thoroughly tested, both in terms of rationale and empirical support, is likely to mean that they are not rushed. It is important that Parliament is not front-loaded with such Bills. There is no need to rush; indeed, there is every reason not to rush. We can fruitfully utilise some of the time of the new Session to ensure that we do have enhanced processes of scrutiny in place. At the end of the previous Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, reported, a number of informal working groups of your Lordships' House came up with proposals for strengthening the House in its conduct of business. Let us focus on those proposals and make sure that we have in place the most effective processes for examining changes to our constitution. I hope that the Government will do likewise. It is better to be right than to be rushed. Our constitution is not the plaything of any government. We need to ensure that change is justified both in principle and practice. It is essential that we have in place the mechanisms to do justice to whatever the Government bring forward.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I welcome the phrase, “It is better to be right than to be rushed”, which guides what I want to say in this important debate. Since 6 May, whenever David Cameron or Nick Clegg has spoken, it has always been in the national interest, never in the interests of the Conservative Party or of the Liberal Democrats. They have tried to give the impression that what was in the interests of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was in the national interest and that any party with a different view was not speaking or proposing actions in the national interest. I do not intend to leave questions hanging in the air when I sit down because I need to give a lot more thought to the generality of constitutional change, but I speak with experience, having been the opposition Chief Whip between 1990 and 1997. I was also in the Whips’ Office in the Commons on 31 March 1979 when Labour went down by one vote. Immediately the Prime Minister went to the country to ask for an endorsement.
The arguments that we have heard all have merit, but I think that the coalition parties are so determined—or so frightened of each other—that they want to fix the parliamentary arithmetic so that whatever happens they are guaranteed to remain in office. I give one or two figures. You do not have to look into a crystal ball to recognise what the Conservative Party has done in the past. Given that I was the Chief Whip, I am perhaps more a figures man than a policy man, but the House will be interested to hear about some figures that pertained when Labour was in power between 1974 and 1979. In 1975-6, there were 146 Divisions, of which the Government of the day lost 126. Of course, you might say that that was because rotten policies were involved. However, in 1981-2, there was the same number of Divisions, 146, but the Government lost only seven of them. You can stretch the imagination and say that that was the luck of the draw and that different policies were involved, but we know that the figures are the product of the composition of the House at the time.
In 1988-9, there were 189 Divisions, of which the Government lost 12. I am grateful to the Library for having provided me with these figures. In 2002-3, there were 226 Divisions, of which the Labour Government lost 68. In 2005-6, there were 192 Divisions, of which the Government lost 62. Even in the Session that has just ended, there were 43 Divisions, of which the Government lost 14. By and large, the previous Government won two Divisions and lost one. Those figures are remarkable.
As regards the composition of the House, when I ceased to be the Chief Whip in 1997, there were 116 Labour Peers and 477 Conservative Peers. You might say that it should not be like that if we claim to be part of a democratic process. In 1991-2, there were 115 Labour Peers and 451 Conservative Peers. That again indicates not just the size of the disparity but its consistency. I am not privy to any information other than that which I read and listen to, but if a case is being made for doing something about numbers, why does one need more Members—unless it is for a political fix—when the present composition of the House guarantees the coalition Government their say?
In 1998-9—just before the Lords Bill—there were 1,210 Members of this House, 484 of whom took the Conservative Whip and 193 of whom were Labour. Tony Blair and the Labour Government said that that disparity had to be corrected and it was. They increased the number of Labour Peers from 116 in 1996 to 201 in 1999. I invite noble Lords to ask for the relevant papers, but rough parity was achieved. My noble friend Lord Grocott made an interesting point in that regard. There was an unwritten understanding that what one needed was parity, particularly between the Conservative and Labour Benches. We now have something like parity, around the 200 mark. However, there were 200 Labour Members when there was a Labour Government and a House of 700 Members. The then Government had 500 potential opponents. We never tried to increase our number above about 200 and we know of the various changes that brought more people on to the Cross Benches.
We need to be careful when we look at these changes. If we are honest—I accept that we are honest politically—we must accept that we are faced with a naked attempt not only to bolster those in office but to try to ensure that they are never driven out of office again. As far as I am concerned, the Conservative and Liberal coalition Government need to be very careful before they overstep the mark and are seen to be cynically manipulating the constitution.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, in expressing delight that my noble friend Lord McNally is sitting where he is, I should also express my thanks and appreciation that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, with their invariable courtesy and constructive dialogue, occupied that Bench with distinction.
In retrospect, Mr Tony Blair and his Government in May 1997 were unlucky and unfortunate in terms of the way in which this country has been governed. They had too big a majority. Had there been a small, or indeed no, majority, we would have seen completion of the necessary reforms that were set out in the agreement between Mr Robin Cook and the then Mr Robert Maclennan. Instead, of course, we had very timid Lords reform. We had no outcome from the Jenkins commission on electoral reform, to which Mr Blair had committed himself. Instead, he was in thrall to old Labour—Messrs Prescott, Straw and Blunkett—and there was no partnership for a radically reforming Government in the 21st century. We had 13 years of retreat on civil liberties; constitutional renewal was under constant attack; there was subservience to the right-wing tabloid press; and even the 2008 Lords reform White Paper sat gathering dust for two more years. There was weak-kneed collapse of the discussions on cleaning up party funding and then only a deathbed repentance on electoral reform. Those on the opposite side of your Lordships’ House who now bemoan what happened on 6 May have only their side to blame, because they failed to address the collapse in public confidence in politics and Parliament.
I never thought that I would say this but, in contrast, David Cameron deserves full credit for recognising, in the first hours after the electorate gave their verdict, that a much more imaginative and radical response was required to make possible any renewal of trust in politics and Parliament. It would have been only too easy to have adopted the Wilson lesson of the summer of 1974. I remember it well. What Mr Wilson did was to delay any serious discussion of the economic problems, to delay any of the painful decisions that were necessary and to postpone all the difficulties until he thought that he would get a majority. On our side, it would have been very easy for the Liberal Democrats to continue in the comfort zone of perpetual opposition.
I give full credit to David Cameron and Nick Clegg. That was true leadership. Breaking the mouldy mould of confrontational politics was not only the right thing but the popular thing to do. By 2:1, a large majority, the public are showing their favour for the new agreement. That is far greater support than any other Government since the war has enjoyed. People recognise—
Lord Hughes of Woodside
How could the electorate give a confidence vote to an agreement that was never envisaged at the time of the election?
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I have heard so often from those Benches the expression that the public are in support of something because the polls show that and because a large majority of people voted for those parties. That is what people do at general elections. They do not vote for every jot and tittle of the manifestos; they vote to support the judgment that they believe to be nearest to their own view. That is what happened. I say this honestly and sincerely to friends on the opposite side of your Lordships’ House: it is important that they, too, recognise what the electorate said on 6 May, as we have, because people recognised, in the light the economic legacy, that a different response was required. The Labour Party has not yet woken up to that reality.
I yield to no one in my respect for the former Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. I have the greatest respect for her, but, honestly, her speech on Tuesday did not do her justice. Sarcasm does not suit her. It was a very ungracious speech. It is amazing how quickly former Ministers, bereft of their advisers, fall into the trap of silly oppositionitis. Take the example that has regularly been mentioned today that the new Government have a complete and guaranteed automatic majority in your Lordships’ House. That is to suggest that Members on the Cross Benches have no influence and no say in what happens in this House. That is simply not true.
Lord Grocott
I shall be brief. Can the noble Lord confirm that, if the Liberals had always voted with the Labour Government in the past 13 years, every single Division—bar one or two at the most—would have been won? The Government have a majority in this House and to suggest anything else is to distort the language.
Lord Tyler
That was not the point that was being made earlier today or on Tuesday. The conventions were referred to. I served on the Joint Committee on Conventions. It is simply not true that the conventions are as were described on Tuesday and today. I certainly agree that we must review them, but it is not true that the conventions meant, as was stated on Tuesday, that the Salisbury/Addison agreement, which was an agreement between only two parties, still stands today. That is simply not true.
We have had a discussion about the threshold for Dissolution. I can tell your Lordships’ House that the original idea was to adopt the Scottish 66 per cent. As has been implied, that is indeed the custom elsewhere, but it was sensibly decided that that percentage was excessive. For those who do not understand the difference between a vote of confidence and the Dissolution of the House, I should draw attention to the sensible—as one would expect—contribution by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. These are different issues. What is important at this stage is that this is the first Prime Minister who has been prepared to give up the right to call a general election when it suited his party’s advantage. That was not, of course, the case with the previous Prime Minister, who only dallied with the idea of a fixed-term Parliament during the fifth year of the Parliament.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
If the noble Lord is pleading the case that this is the first Prime Minister to give up the right to call an election, surely he would agree that that was in exchange for a guarantee that he would not face the country until the end of a five-year Parliament.
Lord Tyler
I am not yet in a position to give any undertaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. I hope that I will be given injury time, because I seem to be provoking a certain amount of difference.
I sincerely hope that my colleagues and friends on the opposite side of the House and in the other place will not fall into thinking that we are simply back where we were before 6 May. The electorate have spoken and I very much hope that the new leader of the Labour Party will not dance to the tune of Labour reactionaries in both Houses. We need cohesion but also continuity and consistency in this Parliament if we are to deal with the economic problems that our nation faces. It is simply untrue, as has been suggested, that somehow any form of electoral reform will necessarily lead to an increase in the occasions when we have no overall majority in the other place. As Professor John Curtice, the most influential of all psephologists, has pointed out, first past the post is likely to deliver that, too.
We had the 2008 White Paper on Lords reform and there was a great deal of agreement. I hope that we can build on that and I understand and undertake to pursue as fast as I am able to—as one Member of your Lordships’ House—the idea that the next full stage should be done as a public discussion of the options that still remain within the context of pre-legislative scrutiny. The great advantage of that is that the public can be involved, in a public way, in a discussion of the options. Relatively few issues need to be resolved, but it is not fair, right or proper for Members of your Lordships’ House to suggest that we are rushing into this. I remind them that your Lordships’ House and the other place passed the Parliament Act 1911 with the preamble that it would,
“substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis”.
That has hardly been rushed.
Finally, I turn to the role of your Lordships’ House. Yes, of course we need to undertake the most effective scrutiny on all these issues. There should be no shilly-shally. That is quite right. However, since the coalition has now guaranteed that it will pursue the whole Tony Wright agenda for reforms of the Commons, it is surely right that the exercise referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and others, stimulated by the Lord Speaker under the title “Strengthening Parliament”, should be advanced as quickly as it can be. I, too, was glad to hear what was said from the Front Bench.
The contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the contribution over many months by the Institute for Government on improving the way in which we operate—both Houses, all Parliament working together holding the Executive to account—demand a radical review. I hope that that will happen, because the core problem of restoring public trust and confidence remains with us.
Lord Laird
My Lords, I rise in this debate on the gracious Speech aware of the new political time in which we now exist. We in Northern Ireland have put our political process through contortions in the past decade. Included in that is the requirement for people to sit beside those with whom they never expected to work.
Devolution has meant that the issues which I can raise in your Lordships’ House are limited. However, I have a few areas of concern which are appropriate.
Once I worked in a bank. The period was the 1960s and into the 1970s, and my role was very humble. The position of the banks today is very different. The staff rewards may be enhanced, but regard for them in society has been diminished. I wish to bring to Her Majesty's Government's notice the case of the successor bank to the one in which I was employed at the start of my career.
First Trust Bank is today a subsidiary of the Dublin-based AIB Group. AIB was born in 1966 with the merger of a number of banks that had a presence throughout the island of Ireland. In Northern Ireland, although long-standing, the new bank's coverage was a minor part of the banking scene. In 1991, AIB acquired TSB Northern Ireland. The move created First Trust Bank, which then became a major player. This gave AIB a comprehensive network throughout the island of Ireland, which was its stated objective. To many, the Dublin-based AIB was regarded as an Irish nationalist bank. Now, because of the financial mess that AIB has created for itself, it has placed First Trust up for sale.
For many unionists, this is very interesting. It is increasingly clear that the Irish business establishment accepts the concept of the Belfast agreement of 1998 by underlining that there are two separate countries with their own national identities and economic systems on the island of Ireland. AIB proposes to confine itself to the Irish Republic and to be rid of its United Kingdom connections, even on the island. Of further interest to unionists is that the move underlines the permanence of the border. It also shows, when times are tough, how quickly the Irish are willing to abandon anything in Northern Ireland. AIB is a lesson to unionists.
However, there are a number of critical areas of which I would like HMG to be aware. AIB is rushing to raise capital with asset sales and so avoid potential nationalisation by the Irish Government. However, the interests of its Northern Ireland customers, its staff and its pensioners must be protected. Constituent parts of First Trust have traded locally for almost 200 years. It is clear that as a result of the bank being put on the market, its local staff, at all levels, are demoralised and disillusioned by the way in which they have been betrayed. This low morale, coupled with a lack of leadership from AIB, has been apparent to the customer base, which has been very poorly treated over the past 18 months. Information is difficult to obtain and is often not correct. A once helpful bank has turned into a nightmare for customers. I am hurt that an institution for which I have some loyalty is now the object of ridicule and gossip at dinner parties and other such gatherings. Good will takes a long time to build but only a few disastrous months to disappear.
I ask the Government to ensure that whatever body scrutinises the banking sector in the future, First Trust customers and their interests are monitored. It is also vital that its existing staff and pensioners, of whom I am not one, have their rights and entitlements protected. This is an issue in which I propose to take a careful interest and will, no doubt, return to many times in the future.
Legislation concerning the method of selection of the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland is also a matter for this Parliament. May I suggest that there is a need for consideration of the democratic understanding for such posts? Speaking in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 18 January 2010 on the very controversial subject of a multilane motorway from the border to Londonderry, the A5, Martin McGuinness, the Deputy First Minister, said:
“It is imperative that the A5 road project go ahead. I understand that some landowners will have concerns, but they will have opportunities to make enquiries and raise those concerns. However, let nobody be in any doubt whatsoever that those two vital projects—the Belfast to Larne project and the Aughnacloy to the north-west gateway project—will go ahead”.
That is from the Official Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The concerns that landowners have in the case of the A5 are full scale and important. Farms in fertile areas, listed buildings, habitats for wildlife and homes are to be destroyed, and the official process of planning and environmental assessment will count for nought, according to Mr McGuinness. “Be under no doubt the project will go ahead”, he told the Assembly. There was no mention of the statutory planning process. This may be the kind of democratic process that Sinn Fein thinks it has signed up to, but it will not be tolerated by the ordinary people of the area.
I agree with the new Government's decision to cut down on the use of consultants. I would also ask that they examine the quality of some of their work in future before engagement. I am concerned with the work undertaken in the area of environmental assessment.
Earlier this week, central government asked the Northern Ireland Executive to cut £128 million from their budget. It is fair for us to play our part in the overall savings required by the nation. However, the loss of fuel and cigarette tax collections as a result of activity in south Armagh is calculated to be well in excess of that amount every year. In south Armagh, under new leadership, the republican movement has changed from fuel laundering to importation from the Irish Republic and the collection of VAT on both sides of the frontier. Careful organisation has made this trade, and that of bulk loads of cigarettes, very profitable. I ask the Government to clamp down on this activity and, in doing so, reduce the national deficit.
Like many in our country, I am intrigued by the coalition which forms the Government. The interaction between the two leaders seems to have sparked a public mood. This is one of those times when we all must work together to put our nation back on the tracks again. If we do not, the next generations will not forgive us.
Lord Richard
My Lords, this is in many ways a special debate on a special day. Quite apart from the fact that it is the first time that Liberals have been in government for 70 years, it is certainly the first time that I have seen the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in such close proximity to the Conservative Party. Now he sits cosily there, next to the Leader of the House, as he was earlier on, as to the Front Bench born; but I have to say to him—I say it with, I hope, sincerity and respect—that it is deeply disappointing for many of us who have for years known him and those like him in the Liberal Democrat Party and their record of anti-establishment and anti-Tory campaigning. I dare say that he will get used to it. I dare say that we will have to get used to it too.
I wanted to say something significant to mark this unlikely coupling, so I turned, as I so often do in these times of serious stress, to the wisdom of Lewis Carroll. In the middle of the 18th century, the Reverend Isaac Watts, more known for hymn writing than anything else, wrote an improving text entitled “Against Idleness and Mischief”. It starts:
“How doth the little busy Bee
Improve each shining Hour”.
In Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll changed this. His version is perhaps apposite to the situation of the Liberal Democrats today. It runs:
“How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!
How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in
With gently smiling jaws!”.
I hope that the Liberal Democrats note that.
I want to say a few words today on two subjects. The first is the absurd proposal to impose a 55 per cent qualifying limit before a dissolution can take place. As I had understood it until recently, the proposal set out in the coalition's programme was to legislate for five-year fixed-term Parliaments, and that that legislation would also provide for dissolution only if 55 per cent or more of the House voted in favour. The 55 per cent is expressed as 55 per cent of the House, not 55 per cent of the Members voting in the debate. However, from what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said today, this is still in doubt.
This is extraordinarily dangerous. At the moment, the Conservatives in the House of Commons have 306 seats. The combined Liberal Democrat and Labour total is 315. If, in order to force a dissolution, the Opposition must produce 55 per cent of the House, that puts the target at 357. Even if the Liberal Democrats, having come to their senses and left what I was about to call this gimcrack coalition but should perhaps call this recent coalition, had reverted to their more normal and sensible posture and decided to vote with us against the Government in the House of Commons; and even if one were then to add in all the 29 Members of the other parties—and we know five of them will not turn up because they are Irish nationalists—we reach a total of 344. In any event, it would be impossible in the House of Commons for the opposition parties to get up to 357. This cannot be right. If the Parliament is to last for five years, that gives the present Government a majority which on the face of it is impregnable.
That is how I had understood it until recently. However, reading the short debate in the other place, and particularly the speech of Mr David Heath, I emerged more confused than ever. He said something very firmly and definitely that was partly repeated today. He said:
“The Government will still have to resign if they lose the confidence of the House, and that will still be on a simple majority. There is no ambiguity about that. If the Government lose a vote of confidence, they are no longer the government of the day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/10; col. 148.]
In that event, the Government having gone, there will then be an opportunity to see whether another Government can be formed. If they can, I assume that they will take over and govern for the remainder of the five years. If they cannot, a Motion to dissolve will be put to the vote and will require the 55 per cent for it to be carried. Let us assume that the Conservative Government has been defeated. I am not sure how they could be, but if they were defeated on a Motion for dissolution in the House of Commons, it would presumably be open to that Government to try to cobble together another coalition with another set of parties.
I am overwhelmingly driven to the conclusion that I do not see the point of this. What is the object of the exercise? In 1979, Mr Callaghan lost a Motion of confidence by one vote. What did he do? He immediately told the House that he would resign the following day and request a dissolution of Parliament. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, remembers it well. It was a simple procedure that Mr Callaghan followed to the letter. If the Government cannot command a majority in the House of Commons, they have to go and an election should follow, not a further period of political negotiation. That, as I understand it, is the British constitution. I was always brought up to believe that that was what it was. It should not be interfered with in order to provide the Conservative Party with an opportunity to stay in power, despite what Parliament says, for the whole of a five-year term.
The other matter that has concerned me greatly is the Government's policy towards this House. The reference in the Queen's Speech is clear. It said:
“Proposals will be brought forward for a reformed second House that is wholly or mainly elected on the basis of proportional representation”.
As the House will know, I have favoured this for many years. If this is a serious commitment by the Government, and one which their supporters in this House can be induced to accept, then of course I welcome it; but there are many questions still unanswered. I regret that I do not have time to ask them. However, I will say something about what happens in the interim before the House is reformed. I refer in particular to the proposal that seems to have been leaked at a superior level for the creation of at least 100 Peers. If we are to “rebalance the House”, whatever that means, and if the House is to be constituted on the basis of the popular vote at the last general election, it would involve creating something in the order of 96 Liberal Democrat Peers and 77 Conservative Peers. While it is true that the Government have resiled a bit from that position, I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that that is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
It was a clear understanding between the Conservative and Labour parties, certainly since I came into this House 20 years ago, that no one party should seek a majority in the House of Lords. Broadly speaking, there was parity between the two sides. The situation in this House has been changed enormously with the creation of the coalition. There is now only one opposition party in the House. The coalition already has a majority over the Opposition. There are 258 Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers and 211 Labour Peers. While in office, we never sought to outnumber the combined opposition parties, and only increased our numbers gradually. Despite the 1999 Act, Labour still had fewer Peers than the Tories until 2005.
I am conscious that the figure 8—now the figure 9—has appeared on the monitor. Therefore, I will stop. I will say this to the Government. If they are serious about House of Lords reform, and if they can persuade their people in this House to go forward on the basis of a mainly elected House, I would welcome it. However, I have grave doubts about whether the enthusiasm for House of Lords reform will remain as bright on the other side of the House as it is on the Front Bench. We shall see.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his humane and humorous introduction. I hope that he will follow the example rather than the advice of the noble Lord, Lord St John, as he continues his business. I will make a brief comment to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is the mosquito that is the most dangerous creature, not the crocodile. There are many mosquitoes around, ready to bite and infect.
I was particularly impressed by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I am grateful that he took our attention beyond the walls of Westminster and into the world out there that we are called to serve. The assertion in the Book of Proverbs that without a vision, the people perish, is open to a variety of interpretations. However, it probably rings true among political parties. The vision of Her Majesty's Government of a big society shaped by a legislative programme based on freedom, fairness and responsibility, is one that many of us would affirm—not least those of us who are members of communities of faith. We welcome the development of a partnership between the Government and civil society that will empower local people to tackle the issues that impact most closely on their lives, and which shape or misshape their existence—the issues that they understand best. Faith groups are well placed to play their part, alongside many other voluntary and community groups, in helping to turn vision into reality.
We have people on the ground already for whom loving their neighbour is part of their spiritual DNA. I imagine that any of my colleagues on this Bench could take your Lordships to Christian individuals and communities who are caring for people with learning difficulties, supporting the homeless and those suffering from alcohol and drug abuse, carrying the bereaved, and supporting people in debt and those who are ill. Your Lordships will be aware of the Christian origins of the hospice movement. Less commonly known is the fact that churches have more youth workers than does the public sector. If I want to show people what churches can do, I take them on to a particular outer estate in Bradford where, I have been told, half the homes have a member of their family in one or other of the various churches—but not on a Sunday. There is a wealth of community activities for people of all ages from the very young, involving playing and teaching massage for babies, to the elderly with their luncheon clubs and so on. It is an exceptional achievement but by no means unique. I could bore your Lordships for ever on it but I think I would be guilty of the sin of pride.
Next month, I shall be hosting a lunch here in the House on behalf of the Church Urban Fund. This wonderful charity specialises in providing seed corn grants for small projects which enhance personal and community well-being—making the bricks, so to speak, needed to build the big society. Some of these small projects grow beyond all expectation. However, there are some “buts”. The big society and the relevant proposals in the gracious Speech, the encouraging of individual and social responsibility and the reliance on social enterprise, require a dramatic change in our political culture which needs to go far beyond the democratic reform of which most of us have been speaking. Some local councillors behave as though their elected status confers on them an exclusive responsibility to decide what is best for the local community. Voluntary groups are seen as unprofessional and as getting in the way. Yes, they are less professional but therefore they are also likely to be less bureaucratic and, at the same time, far more innovative.
Another “but” is that our most deprived communities have very low levels of self-esteem and social expectation, and this needs to be addressed if the big society is to become a reality. It is therefore unfortunate that just when the Government want to,
“train a new generation of community organisers and support the creation of neighbourhood groups across the UK, especially in the most deprived areas”,
a number of our innovative and effective courses in community development are facing an uncertain future. I think especially of the excellent MA in community development which the University of Westminster runs but which, I believe, is due to close.
A renewed civil society with genuine local decision-making on local issues will not only enhance our social fabric; it will also revitalise political life at the national level as people cut their teeth on, and get a taste for, politics—if noble Lords will pardon two metaphors which do not really belong together—in an arena where they see that they can make a difference. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, in effect that vision will be no more than a pipe dream unless the Government devolve more financial decision-making to the local level. As in many areas of life, what we do with our money shows where our heart truly is, and that will be true for the new Government.
There is half a sentence in the gracious Speech which warms my heart more than any other part, although no one else has referred to it thus far, and indeed it requires little or no legislation. It is the expressed commitment of the Government to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. The locking up of children, many of whom are already traumatised by their experiences in their home countries, by an often tortuous journey to Britain and by their insecure existence here, is deeply inhumane and shameful to the values that we claim to hold in common as a civilised country. I ask the Government, through the Minister, whether it would be possible, as an earnest of their intention, to release those children who are currently held in detention.
I believe that the country wants the Government to control immigration. The temptation, though, is to have a draconian policy which creates the illusion of strong government rather than a thought-through policy based on those principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility to which the Government have committed themselves and which takes account of skills shortages and other special needs that we have. I hope that those same three principles will also govern the way that we process asylum seekers, the quality of the initial decision-making in particular, and also the way that the end of the process is handled.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I have been wondering how on earth to open this speech. For the first time in many years I really do not know how to do it because I do not know where I stand. What the noble Lord—now my noble friend—Lord Tyler, said just now was right: we cannot deal with constitutional change other than through the parliamentary process, and that involves pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills. He and I, who have quarrelled over many things, at least agree on that today. One simply may not foretell or forestall the democratic process. That is how I start.
The horses of the three main parties are all there groomed in their stables. Her Majesty’s Opposition have in a sense—thank heavens—been restructured. We heard a magnificent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, on the adjournment debate; we have been spoken to by the right honourable gentleman Jack Straw; and we have two spokesmen on the opposition Front Bench—I do not ask them to move—who are, frankly, totally respected on all sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is one of them, and that will provide great support for the House in the future.
From there, I suppose that we start with the main problem of legal and constitutional affairs. As I said, I have no speech; I have a lot of illegible notes. I shall do the best that I can in eight minutes and sit down. The main concern is to change the whole system of government. That was spoken about in the rose garden, elsewhere and all over the place, but not in the gracious Speech. That is crucial. The gracious Speech has a handful of evolutionary Bills dealing with aspects of parliamentary and political reform, but they do not deal with the fundamental commitment spoken about in the rose garden. Where are we? Where do we stand? What can a Back-Bencher like me know? You cannot even pick this up in the Bishops’ Robing Room. There it is; the parliamentary process and procedures would, as a practical reality, inhibit Royal Assent to a constitutional Bill within five years. I shall deal with those in a moment.
In the previous gracious Speech we had two constitutional Bills, one of which was withdrawn and the other bundled into the washtub. That cannot happen again. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, wrote in his prophetic article in the Times on 14 April, which proved Professor Bogdanor’s contribution to the debate:
“There is much work to be done”.
There is indeed, but not only on this Bill. There are always events, such as the euro crisis, and other crises, on which the stand of our Prime Minister is highly to be commended, as well as on other matters naturally not referred to in government business. I want to deal with the practical realities if there is time, but looking at the clock, there will not be.
The ship of state, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, in her truly remarkable speech is not yet in trouble. On the gracious Speech, has it not already dropped anchor at the fringe of an uncharted water as to the change of the whole system of government? If those on the bridge of the ship are agreeable to be subservient to the democratic process there would be no trouble, of the kind that worried the noble Baroness, but we do not know at the moment where we stand.
I have one minute left so I cannot deal with the realities of the situation which would restrain within five years a constitutional Bill. I cannot really deal with the reform of your Lordships’ House—it is all very odd as it is not your Lordships’ House but a second House or an upper Chamber. I am beginning to wonder what will happen. I am not a technical lawyer but an ordinary person. Whichever Government are in power, our mailbags bulge when there is trouble. Now and then we do our stuff. We table amendments. Speeches are made—there was one on casinos recently from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that won the day against my party. I went with the Archbishop. That can happen. Is that all going to go? Will that relationship be put into another washtub? I hope not.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on becoming members of the Government. I have known the noble Lord for a long time; we were in the Commons together. I do not think that I am allowed to call him my noble friend but I can call him my friend. I hope in that spirit that he will accept my little story about something that happened when we were both in the Commons. It was a time when the late Lord Whitelaw was Home Secretary and an occasion when the Government did a 180 degree U-turn—surprising, but it happened. Those of us who had enormous affection for Willie Whitelaw will remember that when he was embarrassed, and he had to make the Statement on that occasion, he would keep his head down and read it as fast as he could in the hope that we could not hear anything—
Lord Dubs
Very quietly. Even Willie Whitelaw had to pause for breath in the middle of the Statement. The brief silence that followed was filled by Enoch Powell who said, “Eat them more slowly, Willie”. I do not need to editorialise on that.
Some of us were fully involved in the heat of the election campaign and were busy canvassing while others—those who are more sunburned—were not so. The reflection of many was dismay that we were not allowed to have a vote. This is not the occasion to debate that fully but surely Members of this House, like other citizens, ought to be allowed the right to vote because we should have some influence on the nature of the Government and who they will be.
I welcome two things that the Government have done, one of which was referred to by the right reverend Prelate, which is the commitment to ending child detention in immigration cases. That is a good thing but I hope that it follows that families with children will also not be detained so that children are not separated from their families. I have been involved with other people in campaigns on this for a long time and I welcome the Government’s Statement. I also welcome the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary that the Government will fully investigate allegations of complicity in torture by members of our security services.
I now wish to raise something entirely different on a specific matter about the Palace of Westminster. I do so with the knowledge of the person involved. I refer to the wife of the Speaker in the Commons, Sally Bercow. Because she was a candidate in the recent Westminster City Council elections she was not permitted to go on living in Speaker’s House and had to move out during the campaign and rent a flat nearby. She has three young children aged six, four and two. The eldest, who is autistic, was particularly disturbed at having to move out of their home in Speaker’s House. There is something unfortunate about that and it reflects badly on the Palace of Westminster as a whole.
I shall now turn to the substance of the gracious Speech and the Government’s policies. I welcome the commitment to have an elected, or mainly elected Lords Chamber. I doubt, though, whether a period of 15 years is the right way in which to deal with it. Surely the point about elections is accountability. If one is elected once, one is then not accountable to anybody for the remainder of the 15 years. It would be better if we had three goes of five rather than be elected just once without accountability. I am dismayed, as many Members of this House are—I know that this is shared across the House—at how many more appointments are to be made. I quote from the coalition programme, which states:
“In the interim”—
before there is a newly elected Chamber—
“Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election”.
That is a very disappointing policy. My noble friend Lord Richard has already said that the coalition has an adequate majority for all purposes. You do not need more than that. It will simply look ridiculous if the Government appoint another 100 or 150 Peers in order, in the interim—I am careful about the word “interim”, but it is used in the coalition programme—to abolish the House and change it to an elected one. That does not make any sense.
I like the idea of fixed-term Parliaments. I do not know why they should not be for four rather than five years—I simply ask that question. I find the dissolution arrangements for 55 per cent totally confusing. I have read the debate in the Commons the other evening and I was left as confused at the end as I was at the beginning.
I understand that the Government have said that they want to abolish identity cards. Fair enough. I wonder whether the Minister can explain what is said in the coalition programme:
“We will … halt the next generation of biometric passports “.
I had always understood that biometric passports were increasingly becoming an international obligation. If we want to visit other countries, we will have to have biometric passports. Never mind ID cards, what are we going to do about biometric passports, or do the Government now have information that we do not need them any more? I, too, would like occasionally to visit the United States and do not want to be kept out because of government policy.
The coalition programme also states:
“We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation”.
I wonder what that means in relation to the use of intercept evidence—something about which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, knows a great deal. I understand that under the previous Government, officials were looking into the possibility of using intercept evidence in criminal courts. I understand the difficulties about disclosure, and so on, but it was being considered. I wonder whether the Government will consider whether we could have intercept evidence in criminal cases.
Finally, I turn to Northern Ireland and again quote from the coalition programme for government. It states:
“We will work to bring Northern Ireland back into the mainstream of UK politics”.
I do not know what that means. Terminology matters a great deal, especially in Northern Ireland. I hazard a guess that the different communities in Northern Ireland will interpret that statement, quite differently one from the other. It is certainly ambiguous. Some clarification would be welcome. The coalition programme goes on to say that this will include,
“producing a government paper examining potential mechanisms for changing the corporation tax rate in Northern Ireland”.
Frankly, I am in favour of that to bring it in line with taxation in the Republic, but it is slightly odd to say that we will bring Northern Ireland more into the mainstream of UK politics and then immediately bring out a policy that takes it away from us. That is slightly confusing.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, this debate gives us an opportunity to look back at the criminal justice system when the Conservatives were last in power. Ken Clarke was the Home Secretary, and one fact remains: at that time, the prison population was about 44,000—the figure cited earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. The legacy that the Labour Party has left us is that the number in prison exceeds 85,000. Therefore, we must ask ourselves where within the criminal justice system we have produced that discrepancy. More women, more children, more people from ethnic minorities have become a regular feature of our present system.
I welcome the opening statement of the gracious Speech. The coalition programme is to be based on the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility. I certainly welcome the Bill to restore freedoms and civil liberties. I am glad that identity cards are to be scrapped and unnecessary laws repealed. So far, so good. But the big picture—the safer society—cannot be complete until we look at the crisis facing our present system of justice, which reflects the prison population that I mentioned. There are difficult measures that the coalition must tackle. Equally, the legislative programme cannot be cast in a tablet of stone; we must be able to tweak it to take into account concerns that we have failed to deal with in the past.
Some suggestions may look very attractive at first glance, but we must also ensure that in the legislative momentum, we do not create more problems than we solve. For example, on police authorities, we need to ascertain further details about proposals for directly elected individuals including the content of the proposed model. For example, what are the checks and balances to ensure that the commissioner’s power cannot be abused? What is the timing and process of implementation? Ultimately, what is the expected outcome of change?
In essence, we have to get this right. We must never forget that police authorities provide a strong, transparent and robust local accountability structure which reflects the diversity of local communities. We need to be absolutely sure that we do not tamper with their independence and accountability. I am sure that we will need further consultation with appropriate bodies, including the Association of Police Authorities, on such matters.
The establishment of a new coalition Government gives us a unique opportunity to rethink the country’s approach to crime and criminal justice. The Government’s strategy should also include listening to the voice of people who have been on the receiving end of the criminal justice system—offenders and ex-offenders. Yesterday evening in Portcullis House, I attended the launch of User Voice—a new charity led by rehabilitated ex-offenders. User Voice is working with the Prison Service, the probation service and the Youth Justice Board to help them learn from the insights of offenders and former offenders into the best ways to reduce reoffending. Any private sector organisation knows that that approach makes sense. Commercial organisations regard it as obvious that they should consult their consumers on whether the service that they provide meets their needs. The criminal justice system should take the same approach. It should work with organisations such as User Voice to consult with offenders and ex-offenders, learn from their experiences and listen to their views about the most effective ways to help them to avoid reoffending.
The past 13 years of the Labour Government rank as a wasted opportunity to improve the state of our criminal justice system. The previous Government introduced some individual welcome changes, such as the establishment of the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams, increasing resources for drug treatment programmes and the establishment of a new Sentencing Council. Overall, however, if we look at the state of our criminal justice system today and compare it with 1997, we can see that little has changed for the better. The Labour Government failed to end the serious overcrowding of the prison system. Today, 82 out of 140 prisons hold more prisoners than they were built for, and 19,000 prisoners are held two to a cell that was designed for one person. This country has 151 prisoners for every 100,000 people in the general population, compared with 96,000 in France and 88,000 in Germany.
Prison overcrowding increases crime. Overcrowding makes it harder for prisons to provide rehabilitation programmes for all their inmates, and this increases reoffending on release. Although the previous Government built an extra 20,000 prison places, the system remained as overcrowded as ever because the prison population increased faster than the number of prison places. The Government responded to this increase by committing themselves to a further large programme of prison expansion that required a large input of resources that would be better spent on prisoners’ resettlement, alternatives to custody, crime prevention and victim support.
Labour also oversaw an increase in custody for young offenders. In the final days of the Labour Government, there was a belated fall in the number of juveniles in custody. Despite this, the number of young people in custody is now much higher than it was in 1997. This is partly because the previous Government passed a whole series of legislative measures that made it easier for the courts to detain children at increasingly younger ages and for less serious offences. They did this despite the evidence that showed that around 80 per cent of these young people are reconvicted within two years of leaving custody. As a result, most of the Youth Justice Board’s budget is now absorbed by the cost of custody. These resources would be far more effective in reducing youth crime if they were spent on strengthening and expanding community supervision programmes.
The previous Government also did far too little to tackle the lack of help or supervision for short-term prisoners. Most imprisoned offenders receive sentences of less than 12 months. On release, these prisoners do not receive supervision by the probation service, and their reconviction rates are much higher than those for other prisoners. They are responsible for much of the high-volume offending that causes such distress to people living in high-crime areas. The Labour Government recognised the need for action, and in their Criminal Justice Act 2003 they included provision for a new custody plus sentence that would have involved post-release supervision for short-term prisoners. The reality was that this was never implemented. Nor was anything else done to fill the gap.
The Labour Government recognised the need to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act but failed to take action to bring about reform. In 2002, a Home Office review group recommended that the Act should be reformed by shortening the very long rehabilitation periods. They even adopted an obstructive approach by arguing against my own Private Member’s Bill, which would have enacted the changes which they had earlier said that they favoured. Of course, I shall introduce my Bill at the next available opportunity.
In the early days of the Labour Government, I was encouraged by their willingness to set up the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, yet after 13 years of Labour Government the position of minority ethnic people in the criminal justice system is worse than it was when the Stephen Lawrence inquiry reported. The disproportionate use of stop and search is even more extreme now, and the proportion of the prison population is higher than it was in the late 1990s.
There are some very practical examples of measures that have been adopted in various countries, and we need to examine them. Everyone who has worked with offenders knows that many of them have a background of problems such as inadequate parental supervision, family conflict, parental neglect and abuse, school exclusion, unemployment, substance abuse, mental health problems—you name it. The serious economic challenges which this country faces are rightly receiving priority attention from the new Government, but the challenge of improving our criminal justice system is just as vital a part of ensuring the fabric of a healthy society as the challenge posed by our economic situation. I hope that the new coalition Government will not shirk that challenge.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I congratulate the new Ministers and I wish the coalition well. In fact, I hope that it works. Leaving aside the fact that the arithmetic did not provide an alternative to which the words “strong and stable” could be remotely attached, if it works—and, as I say, I hope it does—it will knock on the head once and for all the media threats to the British people at election time about what might happen if they vote the wrong way. I can see that work, and it is important.
I have supported fixed-term Parliaments a lot longer than I have supported proportional representation. I would have preferred four years, but I will vote for five because three is too short and six is too long. Five years is about right. My main reason has always been economic. If one looks back through the years, the UK economy has suffered massively over the decades by the manipulation of the economy to the electoral cycle as perceived by opinion polls and then the manipulation of the economic cycle to the electoral cycle. I cannot prove it, but I know that those factors have been taken into account over the decades, much to the detriment of the economy.
Fixing the term means that there has to be a built-in constraint to ensure that it works as intended and is not abused. A coalition breaking up mid-term does not mean, and should not allow, an abuse by the Prime Minister to go for a dissolution after perhaps a period of minority rule when the polls look good. There has to be a constraint built in. I will not go down the arguments. I will vote for a constraint and there will have to be a debate about the kind it will be. I would not support a simple majority, as happens now, because it is wide open to abuse within the system of a fixed term. Any constraint should have widespread support.
I also support a smaller House of Commons, which I said when I was a Member of that House. I would aim for 500 MPs, not 585. There is a built-in ratchet in the present system. With every boundary review it grows. The formula is such that it will never decrease, which is a problem. We are a UK Parliament and there should be a single quota for all constituencies. That should be the same throughout the UK. Everyone knows that under the present arrangement, and that of the past 20-odd years, there has been a built-in bias in the system which favours one party over another.
The simple fact is that people’s votes are not equal. They should be. That ought to be a guiding principle. I realise that MPs will complain that they cannot cope. Frankly, they will. Even with my 500 MPs, the quota of constituents for each would be only 88,000. I understand that the Government plan to have around 575 MPs, which would mean a quota of around 75,000. After a boundary change in 1983, my former constituency increased from 52,000 constituents to 76,000. Without all the resources that MPs have today, I managed to keep an eye on the Government and to bring my constituents’ problems to the Floor of the other place. I was, of course, a full-time MP, for which I do not apologise.
The key for the Deputy Prime Minister is to stop the wide variation in the size of seats, which is crucial. If it is left to the Boundary Commission, it will fail. It should not be charged with it. The rules have to be changed. I would not allow a variation of more than 5 per cent in total, plus or minus 2.5 per cent. It has to be as rigid as that in order to give the votes an equality of value throughout the country. I would warn him not to let it be left to political organisers who could fix those boundary changes even when they are held in public. All of us can have a view on this. That place down there is the people’s Commons. It is not the Members’ Commons. Therefore, although we do not have a vote, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, we have got a view to put forward.
I will not go into the alternative vote. I made my position clear in the debate on 24 March. I oppose it on its own. I want a system that encourages people to vote for what they want as a first priority. The alternative vote does not do that. In fact, it makes tactical voting even worse because of the second part of the vote. It is not proportional. I will not support it and I hope that we can amend it as it goes through the House.
On Lords reform, electing Lords on proportional representation will make a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber far more representative of the people than the Commons. We should accept that, and the penny will drop soon enough. To be wholly or mainly elected means that we tear up the Parliament Act and do not use the conventions but the full powers of this House. Why should it be so constrained if it is fully elected? There is no argument for that. The reason for the constraint is the non-election of Lords. It is self-denying ordinance: we are not elected, therefore we must not use all the powers.
As ever, the answer is that we must clearly set out in legislation the powers and functions of a second Chamber and only then look at the composition of the House. It is cheap and immature politics to constantly talk only about the membership of the House without discussing these other important matters about a second Chamber. As I heard someone say earlier, it is time to visit the 2006 Joint Committee report on conventions of the UK Parliament. That report alluded only to the present state of play and said that if there was a change of composition and of the procedures, it should be revisited. That is absolutely crucial. I, too, ask: why would people stand for election if they do not know what the powers are? Why should the public vote for them when they know that they cannot vote them out at the next election because they are there for only a single term? However, all those issues are secondary to the functions and powers of the House. I would demand that at a suitable time we make that clear.
On Tuesday, I was very pleased to hear the Leader of the House refer to the workings of the House and to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said today. I will say what I intended to say—I know that it has been mentioned by others, but when there is a good story it is worth repeating. It focuses in on the difficulties that some Ministers will have in discussions that will take place if they can quote what has been said. I know that that is important.
In my view, the job has been done on the workings of the House for the three Leaders and the Convenor. It is well known that last October the Lord Speaker hosted a seminar on the strengthening of Parliament, which resulted in three unofficial reports that were not led by the Lord Speaker. There was one on the scrutiny of primary legislation, one on non-legislative procedures and one, which should frighten everyone here who is involved in outside activities either in non-departmental public bodies or the private sector, on governance and accountability arrangements in this place. It is devastating to read the report of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy.
All members of the groups acted in a personal capacity—everyone makes that absolutely clear—and their reports were sent to the party leaders and committee members in March. I would like—we may be able to get this—to have those reports considered properly by the relevant committees of this House. They should look at the recommendations—nothing is perfect and they could be changed—and, whether or not they accept them, the reports should come back to this House for it to decide whether it wants to make any changes; it should not be a question of a committee saying, “We are not going to put this to the House because we do not agree with it”. There will be plenty of opportunities to do this.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and other Members who participated in the process have also raised these issues today. If we really want to strengthen Parliament, the ingredients and the menu have been provided. The reports are not secret; they were placed in the Library well before the date of the election. I am gratified to learn that the chairs of the three working groups have been invited by the Government to have discussions about this. I wish them well and I hope that we will get a positive outcome.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, we are told in the gracious Speech that proposals are to be brought forward,
“for a reformed second House that is wholly or mainly elected on the basis of proportional representation”.
I am glad that a possibility, at least, remains of retaining an element of appointed independent Cross-Bench Peers.
I follow very much what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has just said. Discussion of House of Lords reform seems always to concentrate on how its Members should be chosen. Surely we should first be discussing, as a prior question, what a reformed House should do and what its role should be in the constitutional system.
In today’s legislature, the House of Commons has primacy. This House has useful functions as a revising and debating Chamber and in holding the Government to account, but, in the end, the will of the House of Commons is sovereign and can be made to prevail. Your Lordships accept that degree of subordination because Members of the other place are chosen by periodic election on a universal suffrage, and we are not. Whatever the shortcomings of the electoral system, this is seen as conferring a uniquely democratic legitimacy on the House of Commons such as to justify its primacy within the legislature.
If the second House were to be wholly or mainly elected by universal suffrage on a system of proportional representation, but its functions continued to be as they are now and it continued to be subordinate to the House of Commons, how successful, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested, do we suppose that the process of election would be in attracting suitable candidates for election? The British public already enjoy the inestimable benefits of participating in elections for membership of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, local councils and the European Parliament; how ready will they be to turn out for yet another set of elections to the second House at Westminster on a system of proportional representation? What about the additional costs to the taxpayer of another set of elections and another set of elected representatives in Parliament?
For how long would a second House elected by proportional representation on a universal suffrage be prepared to accept constraints on its functions and being subordinate to the House of Commons? It would surely, sooner or later, begin to feel its oats and assert its rights. It could be expected to insist that it was no less democratically legitimate than the House of Commons—perhaps even more democratically legitimate if the Members of the House of Commons continued to be chosen by a system so unproportional as first past the post or even the alternative vote.
The role and functions of the second House would have to be reviewed and enhanced. It would deserve, and expect to be given, something much nearer parity of esteem, constitutional power and responsibility with the House of Commons. Is that what we want? Is it what Members of the other place want? I do not know the answers to these questions, but they need to be asked and answered when we are thinking about House of Lords reform.
I suggest that election by universal suffrage should not be regarded as the only means of conferring representative legitimacy on a parliamentary Chamber. It would not be beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby Members of a second House could be chosen by processes of indirect election to represent the various social and economic groups and activities which make up the fabric of national life. Such a system would at least meet the requirement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, that it be different.
There could be groups of Members chosen to represent, for instance, manufacturing industry, service industries, commerce, banking and financial services, the trade unions, the public services in central and local government, the medical and health professions, the legal professions, the educational professions, the universities, the arts, the churches and so on.
There could be a system of quotas of Members to represent each group. The quotas would be of varying sizes, to reflect the significance of each of the groups in the body politic and economic. Your Lordships will therefore see that the system that I have in mind would be not only representative but also proportional.
In each group, the representative Members could be chosen in whatever way seemed appropriate to the constituent members of that group. This could, if it was thought advisable, be combined with a system of quotas for representatives of political parties chosen by party leaders, with a view to ensuring whatever was thought to be the appropriate balance of party representation in the second House. We could even continue to have a group of independent Cross-Bench Peers, perhaps a little smaller than it is now.
The size of the various quotas would depend on the desired size of the second House. It would be necessary to define the length of terms for which Members would serve. The process could be co-ordinated through an independent statutory appointments commission. Candidates for membership could be recommended to the commission, which could confirm the suitability of candidates recommended to them, perhaps register their political affiliations and ensure a balance of representation from the countries and regions of the United Kingdom within whatever size of House was prescribed.
Such a system would enable the second House to be equipped with a wide range of expertise and experience which would inform the quality of its work and enable it to be effective in bringing forward proposals for legislation as a revising and debating Chamber and in holding government to account.
The second House would therefore be broadly and proportionately representative of the main interests and activities at work in the United Kingdom and in its component parts. It would have a high degree of representative legitimacy, yet it could continue to be ultimately subordinate to the will of the House of Commons, representing the will of the people as established from time to time by universal suffrage.
I urge that the terms of reference of the body—we do not yet know whether that body will be a Cabinet committee, a departmental committee of inquiry, a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament or a royal commission—be drawn up widely enough to allow it to examine the merits and advantages of a system of the kind which I have had time only to adumbrate this afternoon.
Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, there is an old Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times”. Well, we all are here now. The one thing that Members of your Lordships’ House on all sides can say is that none of us voted for the present situation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon
Yes, of course, it does not include us in this House.
What we witnessed in the five days after election night is but a foretaste of what we can expect if the country turns to proportional representation: days of beer and sandwiches-type haggling and the wholesale abandonment of manifesto commitments made to one side or another. Five days is nothing. In future, it could easily be more. Germany took 40 days to form its current Government, while Belgium was without a Government for six months.
In the recent events, we also saw the Liberal Democrats announcing in advance that they had the moral obligation to negotiate with the Conservatives. Then, at the last minute, they entered into secret negotiations with Labour. I had visions in those hours of my party being humiliatingly jilted at the altar. The words of the old music hall song came to mind, although I will not sing it:
“Can’t get away to marry you today. My wife won’t let me”.
But what does this conduct say for the hopes of future good faith in a coalition? Trust is an essential ingredient.
That brings me to the first of my two questions on the present situation as it affects your Lordships’ House, as it is still called, at least for the moment. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, touched on the first one in moving the Motion on the adjournment on Tuesday when she pointed out the strange bedfellows that a coalition makes. In the past, I have referred to Members of the Liberal Democrat Benches as “the noble Lord” so and so. In the rose garden, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to his “colleagues” and to a “partnership”. Am I supposed to say “my noble colleague” or “my noble partner”? Actually, it has been made clear by my noble friend Lord McNally that “my noble friend” will do. That at least sounds nicer. However, I must point out one thing to my noble friend, which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, also pointed out—the less than supportive attitude that my party and its policies have often received from the Liberal Democrats in the past. A Member of the other place beat me to it by voicing the same question on Tuesday. I was going to consult the Leader of the House or the learned Clerk, but I shall take my noble friend’s advice and leave it there.
There is another major and far more serious, indeed basic, constitutional measure about which I have great reservations—the requirement for a majority of 55 per cent to secure a Dissolution of Parliament before the expiry of the proposed fixed term. I do not believe that a centuries-old democratic convention can simply be demolished by Parliament without a referendum or some discussion, especially by a Parliament in which no party has a majority and no party included the suggestion in its manifesto. The convention is basic: a Government who cannot command even a simple majority of Members of the other place have to fall.
As Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister rightly and insistently, but fruitlessly, demanded a referendum on the Lisbon treaty because it gave away so much of our national sovereignty. Yet here he is preparing to legislate away a major concept of parliamentary supremacy—the unfettered power to dismiss a Government with a minimum majority vote. I remind your Lordships that, with a 55 per cent rule in place, Chamberlain could have claimed to have morally survived the vital vote just 70 years ago, on May 7 1940, because he had a 58 per cent majority. Even if this arrangement is sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, which I predict will have a difficult passage in your Lordships’ House, I point out that one Parliament cannot bind its successors and cannot even be bound not to repeal a law that it has itself recently passed.
I have to ask what credibility a lame duck Prime Minister would have if he lost a vote of confidence by even the “one is enough” described by Disraeli 130 years ago. Also, what influence would a Prime Minister have over his own fractious Back-Benchers, or in this case also a mutinous coalition partner, which came third in the recent election, if he abandoned the power to request the Dissolution of Parliament? The composition of the other place is such that the joint votes of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats can barely muster the 55 per cent between them. Even if the Lib Dems do not abandon ship for some reason in, say, year four, it will take only a couple of Back-Benchers anxious about their minuscule majorities to veto any resolution. The whole concept is impractical, if not nonsensical, as well as—and this is the important thing—unconstitutional.
The Prime Minister has also announced that Mr Clegg will be consulted on ministerial appointments and sackings. What happens if Mr Clegg does not like the changes or objects to one of his nominees being sacked or moved? There is plenty of scope for disharmony in the present superficially cosy partnership. The unfettered power of patronage to appoint and dismiss Ministers, to promote those worthy of advancement and to replace those who fail is a most important instrument of prime ministerial authority, as well of good government. Now it is being severely constrained, to say the least. These proposed constitutional changes bring to mind the aphorism used in his resignation speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, to whom the Prime Minister was once an adviser:
“We give the impression of being in office but not in power”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/93; col. 285.]
These problems have been created because of a shotgun marriage between the two parties, which was clearly cobbled together in frenetic negotiations over a couple of days in a conclave held in the Cabinet Office, without the benefit of the advice of constitutional lawyers. As the old adage says, “Marry in haste and repent at leisure”.
Speaking as a party activist, and a Whip when we were last in Government, I would sometimes have to remind voters—and even MPs on occasions—unwilling to support part of our programme that being a Conservative was not like going into a restaurant and choosing from an à la carte menu. The manifesto is a table d’hôte. I would tell them that that is what they had to do: they had to swallow the whole package. Following my advice, in my 17 years as a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have never voted against my party’s Whip. However, in common with other colleagues with whom I have spoken in recent days, I feel that it will be a struggle to support some of the constitutional matters at issue at present.
Your Lordships will notice that I have confined my observations to the constitution, which I love. Some of us on the Conservative Benches are derisively and condescendingly referred to by the media as the “party faithful”. I wear that badge faithfully and proudly. But I am also faithful to the constitution and the constitutional conventions of this country and Parliament and I will not see them lightly diminished.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
My Lords, after that speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I should immediately say that I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, on their appointments and that I recognise that the coalition is the best solution possible given the result that the electorate delivered us. Indeed, I frankly would like it to be a tripartite solution, because this country faces economic problems that will require almost a unanimous view in Parliament if the measures that are taken are to be acceptable in the country at large.
Alistair Darling said that the cuts that would be coming would be more severe than anything under Margaret Thatcher, so, if we are honest, we can safely say that three-quarters of the cuts proposed by the coalition would have been brought forward by a Labour Government anyway. The quicker that we recognise that, the quicker politicians will regain the respect of the public, who know that things are tough and that quantitative easing, necessary though it may be, is methadone economics and does not solve the problem in the long run.
From time to time, I have mused that, much as I love the pomp and ceremony of the State Opening of Parliament every year, there might be a case for having it only after a general election and setting out a programme for a five-year Parliament. I wondered whether the coalition Government had privately decided to do that, because there are 25 Bills. That is an ambitious programme to achieve in five years, let alone just one quite long Session of Parliament.
I am particularly concerned about the state of play in Scotland. The media and the political class in general had not really caught up with the devolution legislation that had been enacted until the health warnings in the prime ministerial debates, which said, “By the way, what you are about to hear does not apply in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland”. It may not have escaped noble Lords’ notice that Alex Salmond has opted to delay public spending cuts for a year. To give him the benefit of the doubt, there may be legitimate economic reasons for going more gently in Scotland. However, it is also the case that the Scottish elections are due next year and I would not like to think that Scotland will face double trouble, perhaps under another Government immediately after the election, where we might have had slightly less pain if we had introduced the cuts more gently this year.
We have a problem in Scotland—I regret that a lot of my fellow countrymen would like to blame someone else for their problems. The reason why I think that there is a case for giving greater fiscal responsibility to the Scottish Parliament is that it would presumably end that, although I have heard SNP spokesmen blaming Westminster for the crisis in the Royal Bank of Scotland, which defeats logic. In Scotland, if you can blame someone else and the other person is English, you score double; if they are English Tories, you hit the jackpot.
I am also glad that we have a coalition with substantial Liberal Democrat representation in Scotland. Again, without being too cynical, if I were David Cameron, Scotland contributed one MP to my total and getting rid of Scotland left me with probably a safe Conservative majority in England, I would find it tempting to cobble together a deal with Alex Salmond. The Liberal Democrats would have much more to lose if that happened, so I hope that they will exercise a restraining influence. Like all Scots, I value the Union, if only because we Scots need something bigger to run than Scotland.
I also draw attention to the fact that in 2015 the five-year Parliament here will end and there will be Scottish government elections. We will therefore be faced with the electorate in Scotland having elections to Westminster under one system, elections to the Scottish Parliament under another and possibly even elections to the House of Lords under yet a third system. What a recipe for total chaos.
That brings me, naturally, to the House of Lords. I do not believe in an elected House of Lords, but I recognise the validity of a lot of the arguments put forward for it. You certainly can have an elected House of Lords, but do not try to make it subservient to the House of Commons. As the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Armstrong, both said, if the House of Lords were elected by proportional representation, which the Liberal Democrats passionately believe is a superior system, how would it not be at least the equal of, if not superior to, the House of Commons? You cannot say to a House of Lords that is elected, “You can have nothing to do with the Budget, with supply and everything else”. It will demand the powers and take them gradually. If not given them, it will threaten a total strike on all legislation until it is given them. That will happen ineluctably.
The second argument that I would put against election is to ask whether the public really want a second set of MPs. I doubt that they do. Are we going to pay an elected House? If we are going to pay and it is partly elected, do we pay the ones who are elected or do we pay everyone? If we pay everyone, how popular is that going to be with the public? It would mean great expenditure at a time when the rest of the nation has been asked to make sacrifices, all to achieve a political principle of how we put people here, not to change fundamentally the nature of the job that they do. The other point that I would make about an elected House has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: there is no accountability if you are elected for a single term, because you are not responsible to anyone.
There are problems in this House. I am sure that we can do better and we must never be complacent, but, honestly, when you look at the two Houses of Parliament dispassionately, which do you think is in more need of reform? I am sure that even the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, would admit that it is the House of Commons; it is the more important House and it is certainly more drastically in need of reform. After all, do the electorate elect a member of the Government or someone to control the Government? One-third of the majority party or the coalition are in government and therefore have a somewhat vested interest in looking after it, while at least another one-third want to be in it and therefore will not be too hard on the Government in the hope of preferment in the future. The only people on the government or coalition side who will really be scrutinising the Government are those who will have been kicked out after the first reshuffle and will have nothing to lose. We have things to change in Parliament as a whole, but the first priority is at the other end of the building.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, I particularly welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to replace the present undemocratic House of Lords with a wholly or partially elected House based on proportional representation, as long as the system chosen is the single transferable vote, and not the iniquitous list system which exists in some other countries. It will take more than one Session to implement all the policies in the coalition’s programme, but I was disappointed to see that, although there are 25 Bills in the gracious Speech, as has been mentioned, there is no implementation of the promise to take action to promote public health and encourage behaviour change to help people live healthier lives.
Everybody knows about the increasing burdens that are being laid on the NHS by the misuse of alcohol. Without effective means of combating this self-harm, further significant increases in spending will be needed in the future to cope with alcohol-related ill health. One of the main reasons why the prisons are bursting at the seams, as my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dholakia pointed out, is the large number of people who are there because they committed offences related to alcohol misuse. The only measure in the gracious Speech that I can see which deals with this problem is the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which is aimed at alcohol-related violence and anti-social behaviour. Surely it would be far better to discourage people from drinking irresponsibly first, than to deal afterwards with the problems they cause. The interim analytical report on alcohol harm of 2003 hit the nail on the head when it said that the two main supply-side levers that influence alcohol use are price and availability. That advice was ignored, so the problem got worse over the past seven years under the Labour Government.
The coalition is to increase—or, at least, to review increasing—taxes on alcohol, which will have the double advantage of reducing harm and at the same time increasing revenue, though it may not fully address the cheap deals being offered by supermarkets. Duty increases in the past three years of 9 per cent, 10 per cent and 5 per cent have not prevented Tesco offering 24 cans of Carlsberg Export for £16. If we had minimum pricing, instead of above-cost pricing, at 40p per unit of alcohol—the lowest which has been suggested—this offer would have to be increased to £21. Perhaps a combination of minimum pricing and an increase in taxation would be the answer.
A third of the 14 million people a year who attend A&E departments are there because of a condition related to alcohol consumption. In 2005 the Department of Health allocated £32 million to be spent on screening A&E patients and brief interventions. There is a large study now under way across A&E departments, primary healthcare and criminal justice settings to determine the most effective and cost-effective screening method. Will the DoH continue to fund this programme and provide money for alcohol social workers to conduct brief interventions, using any of the screening methods discussed in the SIPS report? The University of Sheffield’s review of the effects of alcohol pricing found that a 10 per cent increase in the price of alcohol would cut hospital admissions by 50,000 a year and reduce criminal offences by 65,000. If these price increases were achieved by taxation, the extra revenue generated would be of the order of £1.5 billion. Will the Government ask the University of Sheffield to verify this arithmetic or make its model available to other researchers who could do the calculation?
The coalition programme—but not the gracious Speech—promises concerted government action to tear down the barriers to social mobility and equal opportunities to build a fairer society. It talks about increasing the focus on the neediest families under Sure Start. These excellent principles would be undermined in the case of the neediest and most disadvantaged of all minorities in the UK—the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—by the undertaking to adopt the Conservative Green Paper, Open Source Planning. We and the Conservatives both called for the abolition of regional spatial strategies, but the Liberal Democrats added the qualification that,
“we are not intending to disturb the plans already in place for providing Traveller sites”.
If this is not accepted, provision of lawful sites will cease, and that seems to be the intention with the announcement yesterday of the decision to cancel the Gypsy sites grant. Worse still, the article “Gypsy Sites Crackdown” in last week’s Sunday Express says that there are plans summarily to evict Travellers from land they own and occupy without planning permission.
The existing plans for eliminating unauthorised sites, on which one in four Traveller families live because there is nowhere they can stop legally, were to determine what number of pitches were needed in local authorities in England and Wales, and then to designate land for that purpose under the planning system. Does not the Conservative proposal mean leaving it to the unfettered discretion of 368 lower tier local authorities to decide where Gypsy sites shall be located? Does it not mean that Circular 1/06 and the laborious process of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments, and the public inquiries which follow them, extending over many years, will be scrapped? Local authorities are not going to court the unpopularity that invariably results from designation of land as a Gypsy site unless there is a national framework to which they can point as the reason for their decision.
Equalisation of the responsibility for provision of the land is an essential feature of the present system and enables the settled population in one local authority area to see that what they are being asked to approve is fair. If there is no mechanism for sharing, people will not be able to see that others are pulling their weight and that their contribution is a necessary part of a plan to eliminate unauthorised encampments.
I hope that the children in Traveller families will benefit from the additional resources that are promised for disadvantaged pupils in the coalition programme because they show serious and chronic underachievement at every stage of education, both compared with all other ethnic groups and with the national average. Perversely, the future of the Traveller education support services within local authorities was already in doubt since their funding was already no longer ring-fenced. How are we to ensure that local authorities continue to provide the non-school based services that were provided by the Traveller education services such as support for families to make them informed and active participants in their children's education, liaison across boundaries to ensure continuity of access to services, inter-agency partnerships to address issues across the Every Child Matters spectrum, distance learning, mediation and mentoring? I have forwarded to my noble friends a copy of an e-mail from the National Association of Teachers of Travellers on the need to maintain the specialist services and the consequences of not doing so.
A fair society is one that takes special care of the weakest and most vulnerable sections of the community, and in the case of Gypsies and Travellers it looks as though we are doing the very opposite. I beg my noble friends not to spoil an otherwise excellent start for the coalition by this perverse contradiction of an essential principle.
Lord Dear
My Lords, as other noble Lords have done, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, to the Front Bench. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs—four or five speakers back—mentioned his long political association with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Mine goes back a good deal longer than that—in fact, all the way back to University College London when we were rather disreputable undergraduates together. We have come a long way to arrive here in your Lordships’ House today. We are undoubtedly wiser, older and, I think, better looking—certainly on his part.
I think that the noble Lord would join me in expressing relief not to be facing another monster criminal justice Bill, policing Bill or evidence Bill, with which we have had to put up, certainly during my past four and a half years, and, in his case, for a good deal longer. Instead, we are asked to endorse a repeal of unnecessary criminal offences. I say, “Hear, hear” to that. If anyone is looking for a list, I will willingly add some to it, but it is something which needs addressing as a matter of urgency.
Today I should like to highlight a number, but by no means all, the issues that are important. Indeed, I should have liked to have spoken at length, as others have, on the whole structure of government and, in particular, the structure of this House—but I refrain from that today. In no order of priority, I wish to go through a number of issues and then concentrate on a rather more important one.
First, crime is undoubtedly reducing numerically overall, but public concern about lawlessness seems to continue at a high level. One might well say that the fear of crime outstrips the reality. I contend that that is driven by what is often called the yob culture. Anti-social behaviour, which seems to gain in its virility and impetus almost on a weekly basis, is seen in its more extreme form in binge drinking. We are asked to consider, later in this Session, tackling low-priced alcohol. That is probably good, but it is probably only one small step down what must be a very long road. There was a time, 10 or 12 years ago, when we were trying very hard to bring about the growth, or even the implementation, of a café culture or café society. I do not think that we have done that. We may never get there—certainly not in the short term—and we need to look very closely at licensing hours, which may be too long. Certainly they extend too far into the small hours. We need to examine the proliferation of large drinking establishments which are clustered together in many city and town centres, to look for much better-co-ordinated action by the police and local authority, and a much more consistent and realistic sentencing policy in the courts. In other words, on this issue, we will find ourselves winding the clock back to where we were 15 years or so ago, rather than trying to develop the café culture going forward.
On scrapping ID cards, we have spent too long and too much money and effort on them, and I would endorse their immediate demise.
On the regulation of CCTV, there is a balance to be struck. Your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, in a paper published in 2009, Surveillance: Citizens and the State, recommended a number of things: a statutory regime for the use of CCTV in the public and private sectors, legally binding codes of practice, a complaints system, an oversight procedure and so on. We could well use that report as a good starting point for looking at this. There is a balance clearly to be struck on this and, indeed, on other issues also.
The same Select Committee commented on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. We need to look at RIPA in a thoroughgoing review—in particular, the use of that legislation by councils. The use of RIPA to deal with dog fouling, excessively filled bins and so on debases the intent of that legislation.
On the use of intercept evidence, I have been pleased—as have many others in your Lordships’ House—to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who is not in his place, in trying to introduce the concept of intercept evidence into criminal procedures. We should examine and identify ways of introducing it into criminal trials. At the same time, we should be wary of what the security services and the police have already cited as examples of where they do not want their sensitive methods and procedures demonstrated in the public arena. We need to balance that; but it is not beyond the wit of man or, indeed, the skills of this Government to find a way to address it.
On self-defence—an issue that is bobbing about, but which attracts a great deal of attention in the media from time to time—I see no need to change the law. I support what the Law Society has said at length, and there is a real need for the exercise of common sense by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in their approach. There needs to be speedy resolution—particularly in such cases—rather than leaving someone hanging about wondering what the outcome will be, and only finding out months after the event that no proceedings are to be taken against them. Speed is always essential in the judicial process, particularly in those circumstances.
I have nailed my colours to the mast on DNA records. I simply say once again that I believe we should adopt the procedures and requirements established in Scotland. In saying so, I do not so much declare an interest in this, but mention for the record that I am chairman of a company that provides forensic examination of DNA to the police and many other organisations but has no interest in the maintenance of the records and the DNA register.
Finally, before I touch on my major point, I think we should examine whether the growth in control orders and their use is fully justified and whether the use of terrorism surveillance powers for relatively trivial terrorist offences—if that is not an oxymoron—is justified and review the counterterrorist legislation generally so as adequately to empower the police and the Security Service but also safeguard the basic, fundamental, long-established rights of the citizen. This is an issue in which it is well known that your Lordships have shown a continuing interest over the years, and I am sure that it will continue.
So far as policing is concerned—I declare an interest here because I served in all ranks of the police service for over 30 years up to and including 1997—as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said in his excellent maiden speech, we do not want any more reviews. What we want in the public sector is leadership. So far as the police service is concerned, the need for good leadership is paramount. I commend to the Government attention to the development of leaders of quality in that service. We have made considerable gains in terms of structure, but we could look at the structure again, if not in this Session, in later Sessions.
Lastly, I want to touch with some emphasis on the Government’s proposal to make the police more accountable and to have directly elected police commissioners. I could speak for half an hour on this, but time prevents me. I am not sure what “commissioner” means in these terms. If it means a directly elected police chief, I would die in a ditch over that. The Minister shakes her head, and I am relieved to know that. If we are talking about directly elected chairmen of police authorities, we should examine that. Police authorities may not like that too much, but if what we are talking about is not so much accountability, which was mentioned in the gracious Speech, but about making the police more accessible, more sensitive to local issues and more aware of what the public want, we should do that. If a direct election of the chairman is necessary, then we should do it.
However, I conclude on this warning note: it is very dangerous ground. There are great dangers when directly electing somebody to this position of having political influence, which leads to political control. That control could be overt or covert. A power to hire and fire, for example, would be taking away and cutting across the residual powers of the Home Secretary, which one has already in place in extremis. I say unashamedly that I will support the concept, but I want to look very closely at how we stop it running through into political influence and control, which I would abhor. Put very simply, being sensitive to public opinion is a good thing; being subordinate to it is another. It is a matter of great constitutional importance, and I am sure that your Lordships will treat it as such in due course.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on his appointment. He graces the Front Bench as to the manner born. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, on a very brave speech. She nailed her colours to the mast, and I respect people who speak out for their principles loudly and clearly.
On Tuesday, I especially enjoyed the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He trenchantly pointed out to us that in 1979 a one-vote majority propelled Mr Callaghan out of government and ushered in Mrs Thatcher for what became 18 years of Conservative government. I take this opportunity to explain a disagreement, perhaps a misconception, between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and me. In the House of Commons, the rule is simple: whatever the proposition, a majority of half the Members voting plus one carries the day. What the Government are proposing is 55 per cent of the membership of the House of Commons plus one—at least that is what everyone thinks that they said. It is disappointing that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could not answer a simple question about which it is. We shall see what happens.
I cannot compete with the 55 years of devoted service to this House of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I spent 27 years in the other place. I came here in 1997, so I have almost 40 years of experience. In all that time, I have never known such flagrant control-freakery—that is the only way to describe what the Dem-Con, or Con-Dem, alliance is up to. I had a vision of the first Cabinet meeting, with Ministers filing through the door and Mr Cameron saying to Mr Clegg: “Quick, nip around with this bottle of superglue and squirt all the seats, so when they sit down and get their legs under the table we cannot get rid of them”. What has happened is a sign of weakness.
The proposition that the voting rules should be changed in the House of Commons, and also the reduction in the size of the House of Commons, never appeared in anyone’s manifesto, despite the ludicrous proposition expressed this afternoon that the electorate had voted for the coalition. It did no such thing. The coalition did not exist: it was not voted for. In these circumstances, the Salisbury convention does not apply: it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, your Lordships’ House is perfectly entitled to vote down this measure. Indeed, it has a right to vote down the proposition, and I hope that it will.
I move on to what is meant by the new rules. At the moment, the numbers may stack up in the coalition's favour. I have no malice towards any individual MP who supports the Government in the other place: I certainly bear them no ill will. However, by-elections happen, and on the present figures, five by-election losses would make the coalition very twitchy. Will they revisit the proposition and say, “When we settled on 55 per cent, the conditions were different. Perhaps we should raise it to 60 or 65 per cent”? There is no end to the ingenuity of those determined to keep power by any means.
We are now told that we will have an increase in the membership of your Lordships’ House, under the proposition that the ruling coalition has a right to a share of the membership according to the number of votes that they received. They are rewriting the constitution as they go along. They do not need any extra Members. What is most revealing about this proposition is that we now know the real intentions of the Liberal Democrats. This House, and eventually the House of Commons, will be fully elected on a 100 per cent PR system. The only way to get that is to have a list system. A list system of candidates is the least democratic option available. It is absolute nonsense to say that this is democratic, and they should not be allowed to proceed with it.
I will say two more things. The first is something that has rankled for a number of years. In 1997, when Prime Minister Blair proposed the nomination of additional Peers to this House, they were immediately dubbed “Tony’s cronies”. I had no problem with that. What are we to call the new coalition peers? What about “Cameron and Cleggy’s creepies?” That is what they will be.
Vince Cable apparently said that his in-laws once told him that arranged marriages work much better than conventional marriages. The marriage between the Lib Dems and Tories—I put it that way because the press call it the Lib-Con coalition so that the Conservatives are reduced to being the junior partners—is not even a marriage of convenience. It is a forced marriage—forced by circumstance. A thrusting lust for power has been within the breasts of the Liberal Democrats for many years. They are prepared to do anything to get it and finally they have it.
I am reminded of something that Nye Bevan said many years ago. It was in an entirely different context but none the less is apposite. Despite the dressing up of statesmanship, the nation and all the rest of it, he said, “Call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm”, and that is precisely what we have on the other side.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, I, too, welcome the new Ministers and congratulate them on their appointments. However, I wish to refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. He and I sat next to each other in Cabinet for five years in a coalition Government—although one of a different hue—in Scotland. I formed a very high regard for him during that time, for much of which he was Minister for Justice and I was Lord Advocate. Jointly we had responsibility for the justice system and faced some very difficult issues. I hope that I do not embarrass him by saying that I always thought there was very little political difference between us, but it is perhaps a measure of the times that we find ourselves so far apart across this Chamber. He is very highly regarded in Scotland across all the political parties and his appointment will be warmly welcomed.
In a recent speech, the Deputy Prime Minister promised us the greatest set of political reforms since 1832. Quite why he chose 1832, I was not clear, because many historians would say that 1867—although of course that was a Tory Administration—or the enfranchisement of women were more significant. He could also have mentioned the more recent reforms: the establishment of the Scottish Parliament; the National Assembly for Wales; the Good Friday agreement, which led to the new constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland; the Mayor of London and the London Assembly; proportional representation for the European elections; the establishment of the Supreme Court and the new arrangements for judicial appointments; or the start of the reform of this House. Indeed, in that speech, unless I misread it, the only reform of the past 13 years to which he made any reference was the Human Rights Act.
Had the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged those reforms, he could, with justification, have claimed some credit for his party in the passing of many of them because the Liberal Democrats added considerable intellectual muscle and political weight to the arguments. However, he eschewed any such claim, perhaps because they were all opposed by the very party with which they are now in coalition, or perhaps because he did not want to acknowledge any achievement by the Labour Party. Well, I am happy to take the credit—collectively, of course—for the Labour Party.
The attempt to airbrush out 13 years of constitutional development is, I believe, worrying because it fails to recognise the very profound constitutional developments that have happened, the way in which the constitution has changed and, indeed, the way in which politics themselves have changed. The relationship between the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and the devolved Administrations, and more widely between the nations of the United Kingdom, will be of great significance during the course of this Parliament, however long it lasts.
The Prime Minister has said that the Government will rule Scotland with respect. In my judgment, he got off to a good start by visiting Edinburgh, Cardiff and Northern Ireland and attempting to establish good relations with each of the Administrations. However, it will be on their deeds that the Government are judged, not on style and rhetoric.
With the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I served on the commission under Sir Kenneth Calman on Scottish devolution, so I welcome the announcement that the Government will bring forward a Bill to enact the commission’s recommendation. I worry a little about the timing of the introduction. We know that the elections are due in May next year so it would be right and proper if these new powers could be in place for the new Parliament and Executive. Will the Minister let us know whether the timescale of the Bill will meet that timetable?
Central to the Calman proposals are tax and borrowing recommendations. In the Scotsman yesterday, the Secretary of State, Danny Alexander, was quoted as saying the he could not confirm that the recommendations would be in the Bill. If they are omitted, that would be extremely serious. My view is that the Government need not bother introducing the Bill in that case because those recommendations are so central to it. I worry that that is the start of a rearguard action by the Treasury to roll back on the commitment given by the previous Government that they would enact, more or less, the recommendations on tax and borrowing. The Secretary of State, to be fair, says that he has to speak to Scottish Ministers, which is well and good, but he and the Government collectively should know that on constitutional issues the Scottish Ministers do not speak for Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is representative of Scottish opinion and the SNP Government are a minority Administration. The Scottish Parliament co-sponsored the Calman commission and welcomed its recommendations. I remind the Government that the Labour Party fought the election on a promise to implement Calman and won 42 per cent of the popular vote in Scotland.
In speaking to Scottish Ministers, will this Government, like the previous Government, first speak to representatives of the parties, including my own Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament, and take their views on board? When will we get an announcement about what is to happen on tax and borrowing powers?
There are three areas on which we need a more coherent United Kingdom approach. One is the West Lothian question and I note the Government’s intention in relation to a commission on that matter. I am sceptical whether there is an answer but I am happy to look at it. Secondly, the Barnett formula on funding needs to be on a UK-wide basis. Thirdly, I doubt that in Scotland there will be a referendum for independence because of the arithmetic within the Scottish Parliament. We ought to set down a principle that there should be no referendum unless there is a majority in the Scottish Parliament who want it. The time has come for a written constitution that sets out not just the relationship between the various parts of the United Kingdom but between the other institutions of the United Kingdom.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, home, legal and constitutional affairs and local government provide enough material for several days of debate. We have heard very little about local government today, but as we have only eight minutes each we have to use our time carefully.
Therefore, I shall concentrate on one subject—civil liberties. I welcome the proposals in the coalition programme on civil liberties, including scrapping ID cards, extending the Freedom of Information Act, reviewing libel laws to protect freedom of speech, preventing the proliferation of new criminal offences, and other matters.
I also welcome the undertaking in that section of the coalition programme to set up,
“a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights”.
That clearly excludes the threat, which concerned me in the past, that new laws might be enacted which would restrict the power of the United Kingdom court to apply all the provisions of the ECHR. As the United Kingdom is bound by the ECHR as a member state of the Council of Europe, it would be absurd to restrict the power of our courts to apply the ECHR and leave litigants needing to take their case to the court in Strasbourg.
What should we add to the ECHR to make a British Bill of Rights? The most obvious addition is the right to jury trials for serious offences. That cannot be part of the ECHR because some countries do not have jury trials. That is an essential element of the United Kingdom's legal system and should be protected by its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. It should not be an unconditional and absolute protection, because there are exceptional circumstances in which serious offences may have to be tried without a jury. In Northern Ireland, some criminal trials could not safely be heard by juries during the Troubles, and the judge-only trials in Northern Ireland worked very well. In fact, they had some advantages for defendants over a jury trial because it was the duty of the judge to explain why he had reached a decision to convict, which was something that could be taken to the Court of Appeal. As recently happened in England, it may be necessary to have a judge-only trial where there is reason to believe that a jury will be tampered with or that previously a jury has been tampered with.
Moving beyond incorporating the right to a jury trial—or, perhaps even incorporating that right—may be difficult. Two years ago, I took part in a seminar organised by Justice about a British Bill of Rights. The seminar included lawyers from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England, and the general view held by those attending the seminar—I get the impression that this is a general view among the profession—is that a British Bill of Rights would not be acceptable unless it is approved by the devolved Assemblies as well as by Westminster. Of course, Scotland has always had its own laws and legal system, which differ considerably from the English law and legal system. As an example, the existing rights to jury trial differ significantly between England and Scotland. Some groups in Northern Ireland want to have a separate Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland on its own. Others in Northern Ireland no doubt disagree with that. Therefore, it would be doubtful if we could get a consensus in Northern Ireland for a British Bill of Rights. The question is: would the Bill be a British Bill of Rights in the strict sense—a Bill applying only to Great Britain—or a United Kingdom Bill of Rights?
There are also some gaps in the civil liberties section of the programme. It is a long-standing obligation under the European Convention of Human Rights to allow at least some prisoners to vote in elections. Understandably, that was not mentioned in the programme, but it is a hot potato that needs to be dealt with soon. I personally suggest as a simple solution that prisoners should have a vote if their sentence will expire within a period of not more than five years, so that they will have a vote in the election of MPs who will represent them when they emerge from prison.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said, there is a need to look again at indeterminate sentences: so-called imprisonment for public protection. The indeterminate sentence has been a total and expensive failure, and it should simply be abolished.
Finally, on a different point, I hope that one element of spending cuts will be the cancellation of the building of new prisons. On prisons, I entirely agree with the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia. Since crime has diminished in recent years, we should reduce rather than increase the number of prisons. We all recognise that the Ministry of Justice will have to cut its spending, but it would be far better for it to do so by cutting the construction of new prisons, or not extending existing prisons, rather than by cutting legal aid, which is of enormous importance and has suffered severely in the past few years. It should suffer, if possible, no more.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to be in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Over the past 13 years, I have found myself in the same Lobby as them on many occasions in the defence of liberty—and liberty is the lodestone of my life in Parliament. There are differences between us, but I have managed to work out my differences with those on my own Front Bench and I am sure that working them out with the Liberal Democrats will be a good deal easier.
The Opposition are still addicted to oppression rather than liberty. That was clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about CCTV. It is a drug that brings short-term relief in publicity but has nasty long-term side effects. I very much hope that a few years in opposition will have the same effect as a stay in the Priory and that we will recover the Labour Party that I used to look up to 20 years ago. Indeed, I was under the illusion that it was still there in 1997. I remember consoling myself over the loss of my job in 1997 by the thought that Michael Howard would no longer be Home Secretary. Every Labour Home Secretary has been worse and now at last we have the hope of some improvement.
I am also delighted that we are putting a strong emphasis on local decision-making. That is a constitutional change that, if it is taken radically and if we do as much as we should, will have great consequences. I see it fitting in extremely well with the changes in number, size and distribution that are proposed for parliamentary constituencies. I hope that it will bring an end to, or at least the diminution of, parliamentarians viewing themselves as consultants who deal with drainage and other petty issues that should be dealt with locally and properly but are not because of the lack of power and quality at a local level.
I totally agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said about prisons. I declare an interest in that I am heavily connected with the charity Safe Ground, which works in prison education. Yes, there are people in prison who need to be there for our protection and people who need to be there as a punishment for what they have done, but there are many more who ought to be in prison or some form custody or penalty for their rehabilitation. You cannot rehabilitate given the state of prisons at the moment. They are overcrowded and there is no money left because of all these people who are pushed into prison. All we reap is a reducing rate of good behaviour after prison; we reap ever greater expense without doing our society any good. I very much hope that we will be able to take a few radical measures just to set us on the right track again and get the prison population to dip. We must allow money and practices to come through that will improve the rate of rehabilitation and get us back to where we used to be with prisons under Home Secretaries such as the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and Lord Whitelaw. That is where I would like to find myself.
I was immensely inspired, too, by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. If he needs a foot soldier in his campaign, I am happy to be that. I have not heard such stirring words since I last read C Northcote Parkinson on public service reform. We can do so much. For example, prestige could be given to those in the Civil Service responsible for delivery to make sure that they see projects through from beginning to end and reap the rewards for it, rather than prestige being a matter attached to policy development, where the incentive is to develop policy after policy and to keep the whole thing turning and changing. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, knows much more about that than I do and I would be happy to treat him as my leader in this matter. I look for early action.
We all know that constitutional reform is not easy. The party opposite can look back on the abolition of the Lord Chancellor and even on the creation of IPSA as things on which it wished it had taken a bit more care. We have clearly fallen into the same trap when it comes to fixed-term Parliaments. Yes, it is a good idea. I support it and I think that it is well worth exploring. But it is not a simple idea. There are lots of little consequences and lots of things that we need to work out. I do not think that my noble friend should take the Labour Party too seriously when it huffs on about 55 per cent. It had fixed-term Parliaments in its manifesto and must have had a mechanism in mind for making sure that the Government could not simply overturn it because they happened to have a majority of seats in the other House. The figure of 55 per cent is randomly chosen. In most Parliaments in the past it would have been totally ineffective because the Government had a greater number of votes than that and could just have overturned it. The figure of 66 per cent, as in Scotland, seems to be much more sensible. We know what the Government are about and why they want to do it, so let us take this carefully and sensibly and not rush at it. We should make sure that we get the detail right, think through all the possible complications and then go firm on legislation. The Government have got their five years for this Parliament. There is no need to rush for further reform.
My sentiments on Lords reform are similar. I am a supporter of an elected House of Lords, which is a necessary, good and inevitable idea. I am as disturbed as the party opposite by the idea that a House that is already too large will have 150 to 200 Members added to it in order to make up the proportions. It would be ridiculous and would bring us into total disrepute. I do not think that noble Lords opposite should worry too much about their ability to defeat the Government. They managed it quite a lot while I was on the Front Bench when we had a vast hereditary army ever at our beck and call. A little bit of having late-night Divisions and a little smiling at Back-Bench Members opposite will work wonders.
Above all, I hope that in considering Lords reform we will not do what the party opposite has done and conduct our deliberations in secret. We should be open in our processes. If we set up a committee, it should publish its deliberations and be open to representations. We should have not just us but the nation feeling that it has been absorbed in—to the extent that it wishes to be absorbed in—the process of deciding the future of the House of Lords. It is not a simple matter. Anything that we do will have consequences. However limited the changes that we make around even the fact of election will have consequences. If we go for any of the more radical options, such as those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, we will find ourselves in difficult waters. To do that closed, without involving people in the process, is merely to invite years of chaos afterwards.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to those noble Lords who have become Ministers in the new Government. I congratulate in particular the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose long experience was partly gained through the Labour Party. I am glad that his political hero is still Clement Attlee. That his experience and ability should be channelled into government is good news and I warmly congratulate him on that.
As has been pointed out in the debates, there are many ironies in the current governmental situation. I was struck by this when I returned to my London flat after spending most of the election period at home in the north-east of England. Having marvelled at the harmony and mutual admiration shown by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in their Downing Street press conference, the first piece of literature that I saw on my doormat was an election communication from the Liberal Democrats warning me that the Tories were putting the NHS at risk and asking me, “What else are the Conservatives not telling you?”.
However, as many people have pointed out, the parliamentary arithmetic as a result of the election made some kind of coalition or joint arrangement inevitable and, given the numbers, the coalition that has now been formed was the more obvious outcome. I pay tribute to both parties for the huge efforts that they put in to negotiate and secure a deal. Having said that, I believe that it is probably in the area of constitutional affairs where the greatest tensions within the new coalition Government are likely to arise. We have seen some evidence of that even today.
While I have often agreed with Liberal Democrat colleagues in the past on issues of constitutional reform, like my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd I was somewhat taken aback by the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister in which he rather grandiloquently compared his reform programme with that of the Great Reform Act. He criticised the outgoing Labour Government for excessive decentralisation and for quashing dissent in a way that I found both wildly inaccurate and, sadly, ungenerous. As has been pointed out, Labour had enacted a profound decentralising programme with devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London and even proposals—sadly voted down in a referendum—for regional devolution within England. The Liberal Democrats had supported most of that programme. Indeed, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, I remember the days of the coalition Government in Scotland. At that time I was an Agriculture Minister and worked closely and happily with my Liberal Democrat counterpart in the Scottish Parliament, Ross Finnie. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out in his speech that, as well as these decentralist measures, our Government also brought in many measures on civil liberties. I am glad that he listed those and I wish that the Deputy Prime Minister had at least alluded to some of them.
The Government’s programme contains constitutional proposals that I certainly support. Like the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I wish the Government well on Lords reform, as I have always supported the principle of a largely or wholly elected House. I agree strongly, however, with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Royall in her speech on Tuesday—and, indeed, by many others in today’s debate—rejecting the idea of creating in the interim many more Conservative and Liberal Members. That seems to fly in the face of a principle that I thought was widely accepted in this House. It also runs counter to the comments repeatedly made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in previous debates—he even repeated them today—that a House of over 800 would lack credibility. If these proposals are brought forward, that is exactly what we would have, if not considerably more than 800. I hope that there will be a re-evaluation and reconsideration of that approach.
One suggestion that could be picked up from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill that failed to make it through the wash-up period before Dissolution is that of allowing existing Members to retire. It would be interesting to know—perhaps the Minister will say in her wind-up—whether or not provisions will be brought forward to allow existing Members to retire from this House in the way foreshadowed in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill before Dissolution.
I also support the proposal for fixed-term Parliaments but, like many others who have spoken today, I do not support the 55 per cent requirement, which smacks of political manoeuvring. I hope that the Government will try to reach a wider consensus on this issue. It would be worth while doing so, particularly since opinion polls seem to show strong public support for the idea of fixed-term Parliaments.
I support changing the voting system to AV, although I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats settled for that. Furthermore, winning a referendum on it, particularly depending on the political circumstances of the time, will not be easy. Perhaps I might suggest, rather controversially, that AV be considered for the European Parliament. I was elected a Member of the European Parliament in the days when we had constituencies. Even though I was aware that the first past the post system distorted the vote, it was nonetheless very satisfying to represent a specific territory and have that territorial link. The constituency that I represented was very big, but it was suitable for the kind of industrial and economic issues that were dealt with in the European Parliament.
Like others, I am concerned about the Government’s approach to local government. I hope that they will not proceed with the proposal to force elected mayors on 12—I do not know where that number came from—cities. I do not favour forcing local authorities to go down that route. I am concerned, too, that Governments—I include my own in this—do not recognise sufficiently some of the achievements of local government. The local authority that I represented and worked closely with for a number of years, Gateshead, had an outstanding record, which compared favourably with those of the great local governments of the 19th century. It was good at promoting educational success, which is why I have some concern about the wholesale academy approach being put forward by the Government.
Finally, I am concerned about the likelihood of the Government making much greater use of referendums in our constitution. This has not been mentioned much in today’s debate, but we seem to be in danger of lurching towards a plebiscitary rather than a representative democracy, without thinking through the consequences. At local level in particular, the Government seem to favour a plebiscitary approach. That has not proved a panacea, as examples such as California amply illustrate. I strongly recommend to the Government the recent report of this House’s Constitution Committee on referendums and urge caution in this respect.
The Government have set themselves an ambitious constitutional programme. While I genuinely wish them well in pursuing some of those goals, I hope that they will be prepared to think again about others on which I have expressed some reservations today.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I join others who have so warmly and sincerely congratulated the new Ministers. I also appreciate the tributes that were so properly paid to those who have been translated from ministerial office to opposition spokesmen.
I shall speak to two matters in the Queen’s Speech, which stated:
“My Government will propose parliamentary and political reform to restore trust in democratic institutions and rebalance the relationship between the citizen and the state. Measures will be brought forward to introduce fixed term Parliaments of five years”.
Perhaps I may comment on that latter statement. It will be noticed that reference is made in the plural to “Parliaments”, but the Prime Minister says that the provision now adumbrated is in respect of this Parliament only. Is that a clerical error, or has there been a change of heart on the part of Her Majesty's Government? We will welcome a statement on that in due course.
In relation to fixed-term Parliaments and to the sovereignty that is vested not in any institution but in the ordinary people, a great deal can be said with regard to the matters suggested here. One thing that you cannot have is fixed-term parliaments on the one hand and a greater exercise of sovereignty by the ordinary people on the other hand. Let me give this instance. A Prime Minister dies; one died in 1923—Bonar Law. A Prime Minister resigns on account of chronic ill health, as did Anthony Eden. A Prime Minister may find himself so much in opposition with his own party that there is no alternative. Most people would argue that it is utterly proper, all things being equal, that a fresh mandate should be sought by that new Prime Minister. That was the clarion call of the Conservative Party three years ago when Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair, and I thought that there was a great deal of sense in it. Had Mr Brown taken that course, he might very well be Prime Minister today—but that is another matter. What you cannot have is a situation of a fresh mandate for a fresh Prime Minister, when Prime Ministers are becoming more presidential all the time, and at the same time have fixed Parliaments. There is a price to be paid for everything and, very often, although these views are honourably held, they are antithetical to each other.
There are arguments for and against fixed parliaments, and one could say that they are very much like curates’ eggs—good only in parts. A very substantial statement was made 12 months ago by a very well known public personage, who said that there was a case in favour of fixed parliaments and then went on to say this:
“I know there are strong political and moral arguments against fixed-term parliaments. Political—because there's nothing worse than a lame-duck government with a tiny majority limping on for years. And moral—because when a Prime Minister has gone into an election, and won it promising to serve a full term, but hands over to an unelected leader half-way through, the people deserve an election as soon as possible”.
Of course, the author of those words is the right honourable David Cameron in May last year. As the House will have noticed, when he put the matter in the balanced way that he did, his words did not exactly light up with incandescent fervour for the idea of fixed parliaments.
When I first heard of the proposal of fixed parliaments with the 55 per cent rule written in as part of the structure of such an institution, I was horrified. It seemed to me that when a Prime Minister had been defeated, albeit by a single vote, there was no alternative but for that person to go to Buckingham Palace and surrender the seals of office. I accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that of course one should distinguish between the fall of a Prime Minister and the Dissolution of a Parliament. But to say that that Administration or political structure and that party or those parties would still remain in power unless there was a 55 per cent defeat would create an impossible situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, with his usual statesmanlike and scholarly approach to the question asked what the genesis was of the 55 per cent. In my cynical old age, I believe that the 55 per cent was decided on because it was 2 per cent more than 53 per cent. And what is 53 per cent? It is that proportion of Members in the House of Commons who are not Conservative Members. The Conservative Party has 47 per cent and the Opposition, as it were, 53 per cent, so 55 per cent leaves a margin beyond that.
A totally new factor has now come into the situation, which was referred to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who spoke of the speech made by Mr David Heath, the parliamentary secretary to the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, on Tuesday night. I have read through that speech a number of times and have found it somewhat confusing, but ultimately one comes to a passage on which I should be grateful if the House would concentrate for a moment. Mr Heath said:
“Returning to where a vote of no confidence has taken place, it is extraordinary to suggest that there would be circumstances in which this House would refuse to vote for a Dissolution when it was clear that a Dissolution and a new general election were the only way forward. However, even given that, we are putting forward”—
and this is the new matter—
“the automatic Dissolution proposal, as a safeguard that we will make part of the legislation, if no new Prime Minister can be appointed within a certain number of days. It seems to me that that is appropriate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/10; col. 150.].
Mr Heath went on to say that the period could be 20, 30 or 35 days; it matters not.
In fact, 55 per cent is not part of that basic structure as has been suggested. If a Prime Minister had been defeated and given up the seals of office there is a period of 30 days for a successor to decide whether he or she can form a Government. If such a Government is formed, the 55 per cent does not really come into it. If it cannot be formed, then that Government has fallen, not because of the 55 per cent but because of the automatic Dissolution system. That being so, one then asks what is the purpose of the 55 per cent. I think that it was intended to be an instrument to be used in terrorem against the Liberal Democrats. Put another way, it is an instrument—a chastity belt—to prevent the Liberal Democrats jumping into bed with any other political association. If that is the case, and I believe it to be so, we should look at these arrangements and proposals exactly in that cynical light.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I wish to address the measures announced in the gracious Speech that relate to fixed-term parliaments, the alternative vote referendum and the principle of moving to more equal-sized electorates in constituencies.
As someone who has worked both as a volunteer and a professional in the last 10 general election campaigns, I personally welcome the proposal for fixed-term parliaments in future. It is not just a matter of personal convenience to be able to plan your holidays and work around the known dates of elections nor a matter of assisting everyone involved in planning the campaigns, including the staff, the parties and the media, but an important democratic principle.
It has always seemed unfair that the leader of one political party can choose polling day according to their own party's advantage. Of course, they sometimes make mistakes, such as Jim Callaghan in 1978 or Gordon Brown in 2007. But, by and large, the power to choose polling day based principally on examination of opinion poll or local election data has in the past given an unfair and undemocratic advantage to the party in government. That is why opposition leaders have had good cause to complain. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, argued strongly for fixed-term parliaments in 1992. But Labour's addiction to power after 1997 meant that that was one of the many reforms that did not see the light of day in Labour’s 13 years in office, although it resurfaced in its recent manifesto.
Since 1999, we have seen the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly function well with fixed-term parliaments, no one party having an overall majority, different coalitions being formed and periods of minority government. The sky did not fall in in response to any of that. Many noble Lords will also be aware of how most local authorities function on a fixed-term cycle based on elections every four years. In these councils, even a vote of 100 per cent of the members does not lead to a new set of elections. Councillors simply have to respect the voters’ verdict and make it work over the four-year term.
Fixed-term parliaments work in many countries. In the United States, President Obama knows that he is elected for a four-year term to head the executive branch of the US Government. Nothing can alter that, short of impeachment. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, suggested that perhaps if a Prime Minister dies there should be a new general election, but in the United States if a President resigns or is assassinated, there is no new presidential election—the business of government continues.
There has of course been much debate today on the principle of how a general election might be triggered at an earlier point than the fixed term. My noble friend Lord Tyler pointed out that when introducing fixed-term parliaments for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the previous Labour Government legislated to require a two-thirds vote for a new election to be triggered. To those who have said today that a Dissolution of Parliament should be triggered by a vote of 50 per cent plus one of the Members, I say that this would mean that we did not have a fixed-term parliament whenever one party, as is usually the case, had a majority. If a Government with a majority can vote for Dissolution and a general election then we will simply hand power back to the governing party to choose the time of the election. The 55 per cent rule is necessary—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, is it not the position that the coalition has more than 55 per cent of the MPs, and therefore it can trigger a general election whenever it likes?
Lord Rennard
Given the public commitments by both coalition parties, that clearly would not happen. The noble and learned Lord makes a good point, however. When we consider this fully and properly in due course and learn the lessons over this parliament, perhaps the 55 per cent measure will be seen as an insufficient trigger. Perhaps his Government acted sensibly and wisely in the Scotland Act in ensuring that in Scotland, as in Wales and in Northern Ireland, a two-thirds majority is required. For this parliament, though, 55 per cent provides stability.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Before the noble Lord goes on, is it not implicit in what is proposed in the coalition agreement that there should be a lost vote of confidence before there is a Dissolution?
Lord Rennard
It is probably logically necessary that there would have to be a vote of no confidence in the Government. If it were impossible to form a new Government, I have no doubt that Members in another place would vote for Dissolution by more than 55 per cent. That is what happens in the Scottish Parliament, for example: if the First Minister resigns and they are unable to elect a new First Minister, an election is triggered.
I draw the attention of noble Lords opposite to the manifesto on which they fought just three weeks ago. It pledged, and I quote it precisely, that Labour would provide legislation,
“to ensure Parliaments sit for a fixed term”.
Please note carefully the word “ensure”. Those who fought the election on the basis of “ensuring” that Parliament sat for a fixed term have some obligations to say how they would ensure that.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The noble Lord’s point about a fixed term is interesting. He cited with approbation the fixed term for the US President being four years. In local government, as he knows, the fixed term is four years. Why does he think that a five-year term is appropriate in this context?
Lord Rennard
Actually, I have not argued that case; I have argued the case for a fixed-term parliament. I think that the argument that those in favour of five years would make is that this is the first time in British history that a Prime Minister has surrendered that supreme partisan advantage of being able to pick and choose polling day according to opinion poll ratings rather than the national interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, effectively pointed out earlier, this has often been deeply damaging for the long-term British economic interest.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I hope that the House will provide some additional injury time for the noble Lord due to the interventions that he is accepting. This is a question that I wanted to ask him on the Floor: was he involved in the decision to proceed with the 55 per cent? Does he know where that idea came from within the coalition? Was it a Liberal Democrat proposition, or did it come from the other end of the coalition?
Lord Rennard
The answer is no, I was not involved, and I do not know how it came out of the negotiations, but the 55 per cent is logical for this Parliament. As I have argued before with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on “Newsnight”, it is relevant and effective for this Parliament because it is the first time that this has been done. I think that the case is made.
The Earl of Onslow
Is the noble Lord really saying that we should introduce 55 per cent statutorily for one Parliament alone? That is gerrymandering of the worst order.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I beg to disagree on the basis that if you do not have a percentage like that, you simply do not have a fixed-term parliament. If it is possible for one party with 50 per cent plus one of the seats in the House of Commons to trigger an election, you allow that party, for its own interests, to choose the time of the election, rather than have the fixed term that works in so many other countries.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I support fixed-term parliaments but I completely fail to understand what is wrong with a provision that says there should be a fixed term for X years, subject to a case where the Government are defeated on an Opposition Motion of confidence.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, you see what is wrong with that when you look, for example, at the models of many other European countries, where there are fixed- term parliaments, multi-party coalitions, systems of proportional representation, et cetera. If a Government fall there should always be the provision that it may be possible for another Prime Minister or other parties to form a Government. It is not necessarily logical that if one Prime Minister and one Government fall, you must assume that there will be a new general election. If you have terms of four or five years you must—as in Scotland and Wales, as noble Lords opposite legislated for 12 or 13 years ago—have provision for an alternative Government to be provided. If that is not possible, I accept that you must go to a general election.
My time is almost up and half of it has been taken up by noble Lords in other places. We will return to the very important arguments about the alternative vote referendum and to other points that need to be made in due course.
Lord McNally
Noble Lords are clearly getting a second wind but this is not the Second Reading of a Bill; nor will there be a vote on it at the end of the night. So can we still try to stick to eight minutes?
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, much of this afternoon’s debate on the gracious Speech has focused on constitutional affairs and, in particular, on the reform of Parliament. I wish to introduce a note of light relief by addressing home affairs. I promise to use neither the phrase “five years” nor “55 per cent” in what I am about to say. There is much in the gracious Speech on home affairs which has arrested my attention. The foreword to the coalition’s programme for government refers to the creation of a big society, matched by big citizens. This phrase has a built-in ambiguity but I think I understand the drift. I favour greater partnership between the Government and civil institutions, and welcome the affirmation of both local responsibility and the role of the voluntary sector. However, the state must be wise about the difference between the delegation of authority and the abrogation of responsibility.
The Deputy Prime Minister, as we have already heard, has described the Freedom Bill as the greatest shift of power to the people since 1832. These Benches had frequent anxieties about the previous Government’s perceived tendency to restrict civil liberties, but the proposed changes will require careful scrutiny. I welcome the scrapping of the identity card scheme and of universal DNA databases to protect privacy. A change to the Scottish system of retaining the DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted is probably right, though there is still a concern about how far this will reduce detection rates for serious offences. I am glad to see that the right to peaceful protest is to be safeguarded in light of the misuse of legislation designed to counter terrorism. There is a further need to restrict the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to ensure that these powers are used only for the detection of serious crime, rather than more trivial matters.
This points to a further issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has pointed out, about the legal aid system. Many of us are concerned that the recent cost-driven reforms in both civil and criminal justice reduce remuneration for legal aid, and thereby restrict access to the law and the ability to mount a defence to charges. The Magna Carta—even before 1832—says,
“to no man shall we deny justice”.
We urgently need to monitor this situation.
As far as I can see, the most controversial proposal in the police reform and social responsibility Bill is the direct election of supervisors for police forces. I share the view of many senior police officers that it risks further politicising policing and in a worst case scenario may allow eccentric or even sinister local interests to influence operations.
The system of indirectly elected police authorities allowed politicians to direct policy but safeguarded the operational independence of the police. Although the distinction between policy and operation is sometimes difficult to make, my fear is that this proposal might upset the proper balance of powers. It seems to me that local accountability is better pursued at the level of neighbourhood policing, as is already happening.
I worry about the language of “crackdown” on anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related violence, which often leads to tackling the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. For instance, it is easy to apply the law on anti-social behaviour to those with mental health problems, when we should be strengthening community mental health services. At the same time I welcome the proposal to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price and measures to restrict the sale of alcohol to children.
However, it needs to be said that there seems to a misconception in all of this that the major problem is binge drinking by “irresponsible people”, but the reality is that alcohol abuse is a much wider public health problem and should be tackled by a wide range of measures, including minimum unit pricing. On this I commend the report by the Health Committee in the other place on alcohol published in January.
The coalition programme mentions,
“overhauling the system of rehabilitation to reduce reoffending and provide greater support … for the victims of crime”.
I strongly support both these aims and instead of populist rhetoric and empty gestures I look forward to some well thought out measures in this area.
In conclusion, what seems most refreshing to many of us is that working together for the good of the country seems a far better way of going about things than much of what we have experienced in past times. I look forward to playing my part with my colleagues in building that big society matched by big citizens.
The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, it is great to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. I hope that, unlike one of his predecessors, he will not be pursued across the roof of his burning palace by rioters in Bristol, which once happened.
Macaulay stated in 1834 that,
“we look at the essential characteristics of the Whig and the Tory, we may consider each of them as the representative of a great principle, essential to the welfare of nations. One is, in an especial manner, the guardian of liberty, and the other, of order. One is the moving power, and the other the steadying power of the state. One is the sail, without which society would make no progress, the other the ballast, without which there would be small safety in a tempest”.
I hope that that exactly encapsulates the whole principle of this new coalition Government.
It is perfectly fair to say that Mr Cameron acted with supreme statesmanship immediately after the election, in which he was closely followed by Mr Clegg. This has resulted in a Government who I suggest are supported—or were supported at the polls—by more people than have supported any other Government since the advent of universal adult male suffrage, let alone universal suffrage. That gives this Government an essential ballast of authority to do the things that have to be done. It also combines those two principles—
Lord Harris of Haringey
Surely the principle of the moral authority which the noble Earl is talking about is when the Government have sought approval from the electorate for a particular set of legislative proposals—a manifesto. In this instance, both political parties have jettisoned their manifestos and the coalition agreement has never been put to the British people
The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, all Members of the House of Commons are elected on the Burkean principle: not as delegates but as representatives. I always have to think here, but the House knows what I mean. They are elected for their judgment. Thereby, when certain circumstances arise, as they did after this election, they had to make judgments on the facts as they were. The two leaders have taken a thoroughly great and statesmanlike decision.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Grocott and Lord Elystan-Morgan. I agreed essentially with them on fixed parliaments and the 55. If you say, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did, that the aim of the Government is to return power to the people, making sure that they cannot have an election seems a very odd way to do that. But then I did not go to university, so perhaps I do not understand that.
In 1923, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, Bonar Law was elected on a programme of free trade. When he died, Baldwin succeeded him and felt that he had to go to the country to get a mandate for a basic change in policy. I see nothing immoral or wrong about that. In fact, I see morality and right about that. The concept of 55—I do not know whether it is 55 seats or 55 per cent; and nor do the Government, who will have a consultation on that—seems absolutely, wrong. If the Government have lost power in a vote of no confidence, then they must be allowed to recommend a dissolution.
In France in the 1870s, the Government were defeated. I am not sure of my exact historical facts, but the President either could not, or would not, grant a dissolution. So what did they say? They said the French equivalent of “Yippee! What we can do is swap about being in government and we do not have to go to the people and give them any choice”. From then until 1940, when Pétain brought an end to the system—although it was reintroduced in 1945—the French had a Government every six weeks or months. If you have fixed-term Parliaments and an enormous trigger for a dissolution, together with an element of proportional representation, we will turn into the Third and Fourth Republics as sure as night follows day. Do we really want to bring Mendès-France, Daladier and all those other interminable French politicians back into the Palace of Westminster as new Franglais politicians, or something like that?
This is not the way to go about it. If a Government lose command of the House of Commons, that represents the basis of our constitution. Only the House of Commons can raise the money for the King or Queen’s Government to continue. If the Prime Minister loses the confidence of the House of Commons, he has to go—it is as simple as that—because he cannot raise the money to run the country, and that is why the House of Commons is, and has been for 300 years, the senior of the two Houses. This House, very wisely, gave up the right to raise tax some time in the 1340s. It did not give up the right to say, “No, you don’t raise tax”—which is a different issue. That was what brought about 1911.
I shall briefly comment on some of the other things. Between 1999 and the election, I thought that this House worked better than at any time that I have been in it, and I have been in it since 1971. That is not as long as my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but that is impossible. We used to combine in odd coalitions all over the place when the Government made mistakes. I know that as night follows day, however good this Government are, they will do silly things. All Governments do. I thought of calling my new Liberal Whig noble friends noble acquaintances. The independent Tories, of whom my noble friend Lord Lucas is certainly one, used regularly to vote with the Liberals against the Conservatives during the previous Session. I did that on the American extradition treaty and on control orders, and I do not resile from that for one moment. It seems to me that as a Back Bencher on a big government side, it is your duty to be constructively disloyal, and I promise my noble friends on the Front Bench, both Liberal and Tory, that I will be constructively disloyal because that is the duty of somebody who is here and who paid their debt to their political masters some time in 1801, or it may have been 1717, I do not know. That is how I hope that this Government will go on. I wish them the most enormous success because they are full of good ideas and represent the greatest section of the voting public since universal adult male suffrage.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I shall say a few words on electoral reform in general and AV in particular. I speak as a member of the Jenkins committee on electoral reform right back in 1998. It is interesting that, when the Commons wanted advice about how to change the electoral system, they chose a committee with four out of the five members being Members of this House. Unfortunately, two of them are no longer with us—Lord Jenkins and Lord Alexander—but my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton and I remain and I shall give a few reflections on the AV proposals from that perspective.
Your Lordships will recall that Jenkins proposed a system called AV+. That would constitute substituting AV for first past the post in single-member constituencies and creating additional members to make the system as a whole more proportional. So there were two legs to Jenkins: the AV leg and the plus leg. I supported, and still support, both, but I make no secret of the fact that I thought that the AV leg was decidedly the more shapely of the two on which Jenkins stood. Indeed, with my noble friend Lady Gould, I worked hard to design a plus that fell well short of the exact proportionality demanded by electoral reform fanatics. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me today, that proportionality of representation cuts across another equally valid concept: proportionality of power. We have seen tremendous evidence of this in this coalition agreement because to my mind the Lib Dems have got tremendous value for just 23 per cent of the votes in the general election.
First past the post in single-member constituencies will no longer do because the electoral facts that supported it no longer exist. In 1951, when the two big parties commanded 98 per cent of the vote in the country, it was a pretty fair approximation to MPs getting a majority in their constituencies. Nearly all of them did. However, in 2010, the two main parties polled only two-thirds of the national vote and the winning candidate had a majority of their electorate in under one-third of the seats. In 68 per cent of seats, they lacked that majority. By any standards, and leaving aside all the other arguments for electoral reform, that is a defective mandate for them to carry forward.
AV is not systemically more proportional than first past the post. It is not meant to be and it would not necessarily be more desirable if it were. AV does not, on the imperfect simulations that have been performed, make that much difference to the national overall election result. Nor, incidentally—and contrary to what Peter Lilley said in the debate in another place—does it greatly increase the chances of a hung Parliament; it marginally increases them. But that is not its purpose, either. Its purpose is as simple as it is right: to ensure that every MP has the support of more than half of his or her constituents. It needs no greater justification than that.
I am glad that the Government are proceeding towards an AV referendum, as would a Labour Government if they had won the election. Of course, the Lib Dems would like a more proportional system—they would like AV+, as I would, or STV—but it would be dangerous to move there in one leap.
With the proposal in the Queen’s Speech, we have jumped the first fence on the electoral reform course, but I remind the House that we have jumped it not for the first time. The Labour Government in 1997 also promised a referendum on voting reform: Jenkins was to pave the way for that. It never happened, for it fell at the second fence—I am sorry about the steeplechase analogies, but I cannot help myself—of getting parliamentary approval. The third fence—the approval of the electorate, which might also have been tricky—was never faced.
The second fence will be hard to jump this time round, too. The fact is—it is no good beating about the bush on this—that a majority of MPs from the main governing party are against changing the system. Indeed, the Prime Minister is against changing the system. There is a commitment by the Conservatives to whip through a referendum Bill. I have never been a Whip, but I do not think that they will find it easy to persuade a majority of their party to back a referendum on something that they do not want to happen. I trust that the Labour Party will support the Bill, which it would have introduced itself in government, but no Government like to rely on opposition votes.
The situation has been made trickier by the coalition’s decision to link the referendum on AV with the referendum to cut the size of the Commons and make constituencies more equal in size. I will not express a view on that proposal, but I have a clear view on the realpolitik of including it. The proposal to shrink the House of Commons is a threat to every single Member—not just the 65 who will lose their seats because there are fewer MPs, but the other 585 whose seats will be subject to redrawing by the Boundary Commission. Not one Member of the House of Commons can be absolutely confident, first, that their seat will survive; secondly, that with the redrawn boundaries it will be won by the party that holds it now; and, thirdly, because there will have to be reselection, that they will be the candidate for the seat when the election comes. By voting for the proposal to reduce the size of the House of Commons, Members will be taking a gallant decision to put their own futures at risk. I am sure that, as men of principle, they will do so, but I will not hold my breath.
My advice to the coalition, as an electoral reformer—I am a passionate believer in AV and in electoral reform in general—is to take things steadily. Let us have the AV Bill and referendum first. I very much hope that the British people will support it, as on its merits they should. Let us then have a separate attempt to legislate for a smaller House of Commons, based on the arguments for that change. Then let us take stock and see whether we want to go further and change the electoral system more radically, or whether we have had enough change for the time being and should let things settle. As chair of Make Votes Count, I have campaigned for electoral reform ever since I sat on Jenkins. One lesson that I have learnt is that often the price of going for the whole loaf is that you end up without even the crumbs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, sits down, I should apologise to him for muttering while he was speaking. However, he was referring to his golden age of 1951 and my muttering, which I should have aired aloud, was that in 1951 the party with fewer votes won the election.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will know, there has been a huge debate among psephologists ever since. The question is whether that was an artefact of the fact that the Conservative Party did not stand in Northern Ireland or whether it was the real mandate of the people.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I start by congratulating the newly appointed Ministers—in particular, my noble friend Lord McNally. I believe that what has been done by David Cameron and Nick Clegg has been in the best traditions of the history of our democracy. It has not been an easy coalition to put together. I do not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who suggests that there should have been a further general election after the coalition agreement was published.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way but I want to correct him. I was not suggesting that there should have been a further general election; I was saying that the claim of having some stupendous mandate by virtue of adding together the percentages of two lots of votes and saying that therefore everything should pass through without dissent because of that mandate cannot be made. That argument is destroyed by the fact that both manifestos were jettisoned in the coalition agreement.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord says, but talking of both manifestos being jettisoned is just unreal. The fact is that neither party won an overall majority and in coalition there plainly has to be compromise on both sides. It is as simple as that: in effect, we were commanded by the public. I found that on doorstep after doorstep people were saying, “I hope that there is a hung Parliament because it’s about time we had parties in Parliament co-operating”.
I must confess that it is with some wistfulness that I look across at the Members on the Benches opposite, because after 40 years in opposition I am not sure how it is going to feel being part of the governing party, but there we are.
I think that we still have far too many Bills—22, I believe—in the programme. It is a really deep problem for this country and our democratic process that the amount of legislation is far beyond the capacity of the culture to understand, let alone digest. Although Nick Clegg has promised a great repeal bonanza, I hope sincerely that we will think hard about the way in which we proceed in both this House and the other place.
I should like to refer to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when speaking on the Queen’s Speech. He referred to the prospect of election to this Chamber, saying that,
“if there is a demand for change, it must be addressed in a comprehensive way. Let me assure the House that proposals will be put before your Lordships at a formative stage”.—[Official Report, 25/5/10; col. 22.]
The key phrase there is,
“if there is a demand for change”.
I believe that the only proper, democratic way in which we can measure whether there is a demand for change in the method by which this Chamber is composed is by holding a referendum. I must be honest with the House and say that it was not until having hospitality with the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Bassam, an hour ago that I realised that it was part of the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last election that there should indeed be a referendum to consider whether or not to elect this House wholly or mainly. I believe that that is absolutely essential—primarily because we do not own this House. We are servants of the public and surely there can be no more fundamental change than to alter profoundly the way in which this place is composed. The public must decide that. Anything short of that will sell the public short. I hope that the noble Baroness, in summing up the debate, can tell the House that the Government will consider—and do so soon—the need for such a referendum.
I shall talk a little about legal aid, which is a bit of an orphan subject in this debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol referred to it and my noble friend Lord Goodhart made a passing reference to it. Let us make no bones about it, legal aid has been ignored too much. It was one of the great achievements of the Attlee Government. In a country where lawmaking is out of control and one cannot move without reference to the law, which is ever more complex and all-embracing, it is a scandal that the legal aid scheme has—I cannot say “failed”—is in extreme ill health. There are deserts of legal aid in this country and they are growing. The number of solicitors’ firms willing to do legal aid declines substantially every year. I have no time to go into the specifics but I hope that the Government will do more than what is suggested in the two lines in their programme and,
“carry out a fundamental review of Legal Aid to make it work more”,
not “efficiently”, as they say, but more effectively. In that regard I hope that they will note the fact that the Law Society, I am pleased to say, has at last undertaken an in-depth review of what it calls access to justice. An 80-page interim report is now circulating throughout the legal profession for feedback. I hope that the Government will act soon and work with that review in the hope that there can be some consensual reforms. That leads into what has been said about prisons and many other things.
In the two minutes that I have left, I shall refer to the charity and voluntary sector. The gracious Speech states:
“The role of social enterprises, charities and co-operatives in our public services will be enhanced”.
I hope that it is not just in our public services that the Government will make every effort to aid and abet the wonderful voluntary sector that we have in this country—the glory in many ways of the culture of the United Kingdom. Again I suggest that we need a bit of a change of attitude by government to the voluntary sector.
Too often, with the best intentions in the world, ministries will take initiatives, often with substantial funds, and will work not through the sector itself from the bottom up but in far too impository a way. For example, I would recommend that nothing should be done nationally without the close involvement of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is the umbrella body of the—what is it?—third of a million charities in this country, 90 per cent of which do not have a single paid member of staff. I suggest even more strongly that nothing, but nothing, is done towards reviving and engaging citizenship, helping charity—which often gets to the parts that the state cannot reach, namely the most vulnerable and fragile in our society—other than by working with what is there. The most vital tools are the councils for voluntary service in every city and every county in this land. They work closely with their membership—a plethora of extraordinary organisations.
In all that, I hope that there will be bureaucratic proportionality because by God there has been overkill. I hope that there will be a degree of proper risk by the state realising that sometimes you have to chance your arm, even in government, for greater prizes and returns.
Last but by no means least, I hope that the Government will realise that for every pound that they spend—let alone every pound that they cut from the charity and voluntary sector—they are not merely denying the work that was paid for but cutting off the state and its agencies from a vast input of voluntary effort, time, compassion, knowledge and contact. Please will the Government think twice, thrice and four times before cutting a penny from the voluntary sector’s budget?
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, perhaps I may ask your Lordships to put the following date in your diaries: 3 July 2012. There is a tiny thing going on at the East End of London—I think that they are opening the Olympic Games, or something—but the important event on that occasion is the 50th anniversary of my taking my seat in your Lordships' House. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Coe would have me carry the flame up the last few hundred steps, but his office has been silent on that matter up till now.
I very much welcome and appreciate the gracious Speech which we are discussing today—the more so because it was significantly crafted by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; of course the right honourable gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister made an important contribution as well, and I welcome that. I guess that I would have liked the gracious Speech even more if it had been solely crafted by my right honourable friend, but sadly, that was not to be.
Seriously, I would like to comment on one aspect of the gracious Speech which I very much appreciated. It was the language of the Speech which, this year, was so much better than in previous years. I am never quite certain who puts the gracious Speech into the language which Her Majesty reads out. Once, I ventured to table a Question on who had crafted the language. I was told that it is entirely lese-majeste to do such a thing and to remove my Question at once, which of course I did. This year, the Speech was in much better language than previously, and I greatly welcome that.
Thinking forward about the composition of your Lordships' House and the position of hereditary Peers like myself, of course I accept that, in the fullness of time, when reform is complete by whatever means we eventually decide, hereditary Peers such as me will inevitably disappear. I am naturally sorry about that, but it is the way it is. Back in 1999, the House of Lords Act passed with the concurrence of the majority of the hereditary Peers, who went thereafter in an orderly manner, following the agreement between my then noble friend Lord Cranborne and the then Lord Chancellor.
I suppose that it is worth commenting en passant that in any other country, if the Government of the day had forced through legislation to remove two-thirds of the opposition of one House of Parliament there would probably have been tanks on the streets. Not here, my Lords. As I said, noble Lords went in an orderly and dignified manner following the agreement to which I referred.
Looking forward, I am not wholly opposed to the principle of a largely or partially elected House. I am not in favour of a wholly elected House because I think that there would be an important role for a number of appointed Peers within an elected House, so I adhere to the 80:20 per cent formula, which I hope will find some favour in due course. I believe that we should keep a place for, for example, the leaders of the churches. Today, we introduced the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I have to speak carefully; I live in his diocese. I rather fear that in any formula that I may suggest, the Bishop of Guildford might not continue to find a place in your Lordships' House. However, I think that the present formula, where there are 26 bishops from the Church of England in your Lordships' House, is a bit one-sided. I would welcome an arrangement where there were leaders of all the significant faiths represented in your Lordships' House. I suppose that that would naturally mean a reduction in the number of bishops from the Church of England. Noble Lords may then ask whether that challenges the position of the established Church. I suggest that that is a matter for another day.
I also want the retired service chiefs to continue to have a place in your Lordships' House. I emphasise that they should be retired service chiefs. The serving ones, of course, serve all different Administrations with enthusiasm and equal loyalty, but when they come here as a retired Marshal of the Royal Air Force or whatever, they render a considerable service. I like, too, to see one or two retired police chiefs; I see the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in his place. That is an excellent arrangement, and perhaps other senior figures in our society could come to the House.
There are disadvantages to an elected Chamber, not in principle perhaps but in practicality. I have no doubt whatever that a largely elected House would exercise the present powers of the House right up to the limit, and I have no doubt that when they got to the limit the House would argue for more powers. I can well see that our honourable and right honourable friends in another place would not much care for that, but if there were to be any increase in powers in your Lordships' House, there is only one place from which those powers could come—the other place—which would cause inevitable difficulty.
It is said that a second Chamber that was elected largely through proportional representation, as has been suggested, would create tensions between the two Houses that would be difficult to resolve. However, those difficulties are resolved quite satisfactorily in other countries such as the United States, so I do not believe that those things are insuperable. I therefore welcome and support the proposition that a significant number of Members of this House be selected by an election of one kind or another.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I wish to address two issues: first, the 55 per cent dissolution trigger; and, secondly, electoral reform, which I support.
I have spent the past week arguing with colleagues the possible merits of the 55 per cent proposal: that is, 55 per cent of the vote in a dissolution Division, not 55 per cent of the House of Commons—an issue that we may have to settle in the Division Lobbies in either the Commons or the House of Lords. That was until I saw live on BBC Parliament the speech of David Heath, which I can only describe as very interesting. He confirmed my view that a Motion of no confidence in the coalition that was carried by less than 55 per cent of the House would trigger the resignation of the Government but not the dissolution of a five-year Parliament.
Following the carrying of the no confidence Motion, attempts could be made to form an alternative coalition, and dissolution would arise only where it had proved impossible to create an alternative viable Government. In these circumstances, dissolution would, as he said to the Commons, be automatic. Therefore, I add, there would be no need to use the 55 per cent trigger. I have been arguing the possible merits of the 55 per cent trigger, but in the light of what David Heath has said I no longer believe that it is necessary. It is the combination of the attempt to create the alternative coalition within the five-year term, and the automatic dissolution if that attempt fails, that has changed the argument. I should make it clear that by alternative coalition I mean a new configuration of political parties in government.
I support electoral reform, and will set out the reasons why I support it. I find it hard to justify the election of a Government on a minority vote that is as low as 35 or 36 per cent, as happened with the previous Government. The stacking up of votes in safe seats does not serve the public interest. There is a tendency in first-past-the-post safe seats for some MPs to take life easy. Levels of service by MPs in marginal seats where results are less predictable can be far higher, and party structures in first-past-the-post safe seats are often flimsier and there is less political debate. Huge first-past-the-post majorities can dilute the incentive for MPs to reflect electoral concerns. That may suit the Whips and the Executive and make party discipline far easier, but the strong Government for which the public yearn is too often built only on Parliaments that lack adequate debate and accountability and often end up out of touch.
I now believe, after 13 years of a Labour Government, that if you want courageous and radical decision taking that addresses public anxieties you need to have far more volatility within the system and dynamic tension within political institutions, which means more marginal Parliaments. For all those reasons and others, I initiated a project 21 years ago in 1989 to invent, or so we thought, a new electoral system. From a blank piece of paper we devised and named the system of the supplementary vote, only to find years later that variations on it had previously been designed in Sri Lanka and the United States of America two centuries ago. In the UK, following evidence I gave to the Plant commission—my noble friend Lord Plant unfortunately is not with us today—the commission recommended it to the Labour Party. Since 1998, it has been used in all the mayoral elections nationally. If you look at the academic work, of which there is a lot, the supplementary vote system is often confused with the alternative vote.
The benefits of SV are too often attributed to AV, the effect of which is to obscure the defects in AV. It was seeking to avoid some of those defects which led us to design the new system of SV. The idea that under AV candidates can be elected only with at least 50 per cent of the vote is a myth. Under AV, it is perfectly possible to be elected with less than 40 per cent of the vote. It all depends on the number of additional preference votes cast. We have learnt from the mayoral elections under SV that it is often a minority of electors who cast additional preferences. Under the SV system, candidates have only a first and second preference, which is marked for simplicity with just an X. AV is far more complicated and difficult for the public to understand.
The second defect in AV is that third place candidates on the first count can win seats after the transfer of additional member preferences. They can simply leapfrog into pole position, again often with less than 40 per cent of all the votes or preferences cast during that election. I think that we will have trouble selling that to the electorate in a referendum, which worries me.
That is the joy of SV. All candidates after the first count are eliminated, apart from the top two. SV concentrates the mind of the electorate on who is likely to be in the run-off. It provides an incentive for people to use their second preferences as they can really influence a credible result. It blocks the extremes who can sometimes pick up large numbers of additional preferences under AV.
As I have already said, AV is often confused by academics all over the world. A lot of material is available, much of which is in our Library. That being the case, why not have an SV question in the referendum? Such a question could be justified on the basis that it is a variation on AV. The public need a system that is simple to interpret and understand.
Finally on SV, I believe that we should build an element of greater proportionality—not full PR. I would argue that if 10 per cent of all seats were list seats, with built-in safeguards against excesses by list members—there has been some experience of that in Scotland—we could create a healthy electoral system that is fairer. We should work on devising a credible list system. Perhaps some of us should get together and do that.
In finishing my contribution, I should like to say to the Liberal Democrat Benches that they have to make the coalition work. If they fail, they threaten the whole programme for electoral reform. For the public to support electoral reform, they will have to be convinced that coalition government is not weak government, but that it is strong government which works. The route they have taken is very high risk. I wish them luck.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said in his excellent speech about Scotland and the various elections we might be faced with in five years’ time. I also agree with what he and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about the rearrangements, if I may put it that way, in this House.
I want to concentrate on one sentence in the gracious Speech which states that a Bill will be introduced,
“to create fewer and more equal sized constituencies”.
I shall not delve into the problems of AV. My political baptism was as a volunteer, coming through the ranks from branch to association and then to chairmanship of our own national union executive committee. The sentence about creating equal sized constituencies is very important and I was pleased to hear what my noble friend Lord McNally had to say in his opening speech. It sounds easy, but it is easier said than done given the vested interests. I wish to make one or two points which should be addressed as the Government give the boundary commissions their marching orders. In passing, perhaps I can be bold and say to my own party, “Do not be fast asleep when these changes are being discussed”. In my experience, our political opponents—here I refer to the Labour Party—are much better at dealing with maps and boundaries than ever our party has been.
What are the points to bear in mind? Fair votes means what it says: that, where possible, each person’s vote should be equal to that of the next man or woman. Is this so now? Certainly not. I shall deal with the obvious anomalies first and then ask a few pertinent questions which arise from the devolved assemblies.
Taking Glasgow as a typical city of the UK, I estimate that at present the average constituency has approximately 60,000 people. In one of the shire counties, Cambridgeshire, South West Cambridge has an electorate of 88,857 and South East Cambridge one of 83,068. I cannot for the life of me see what this example is except standing equality of representation on its head. It is not an isolated example. Bedfordshire has seats in the high 70,000s and yet three of the four Liverpool seats are in the low 60,000s. The figures speak for themselves and the boundary commissions’ membership must be made aware of the extreme disquiet that these anomalies create among those who study them.
Now is a good time to address these matters and, as legislation is required to cut the number of seats in the House of Commons—as I believe is common ground with our partners—then so be it. I realise that is upsetting for new MPs, who have to face a shake up of constituencies, but it must not be delayed as changes will take time to pass through the system. I hope that in any Bill brought forward the appeal timetable for the commissions’ work will be looked at. In addition, as the key will no doubt be the building blocks of the local authority boundaries, it is not as straightforward as it may seem. However, it must be addressed. It has been the practice to combine local authority wards together to make up a parliamentary constituency, but if the map is drawn in such a way that these wards are smaller than the average, the result is smaller than average parliamentary constituencies, particularly in the cities. I have a question in this regard. Can we be certain that equalising the size of constituencies is the rule that the Government will instruct the commissions to follow? If not, why not? Surely that is the meaning of fair vote reform in the manifesto.
I shall say a few words about the size of constituencies in Wales and Scotland. Now that there are devolved Parliaments in each country, whose Members cover many of the issues that used to be in the hands of their Westminster MPs, is it fair that those constituencies should in many cases be much smaller than their English counterparts? Coming as I do from Scotland, I see some glaring examples of unfair voting arrangements which do nothing for equality of representation.
I realise that the Western Isles is an island situation, as is Orkney and Shetland, but given that they have Holyrood Members in addition, is it fair that they should have electorates for Westminster of 22,000-odd and 33,000-odd respectively? I think not. If there is to be a cut in the number of seats and a consequent enlargement of constituencies, it would be possible and practical to link Orkney and Shetland to Caithness and Sutherland, making an electorate of 80,000, and the Western Isles with Ross, Skye and Lochaber, making an electorate 74,000-odd. Therefore, my second question is about Scotland. Will the Government instruct the Boundary Commission for Scotland to consult its English opposite number to ensure fair votes? Will the chairmen of the respective boundary commissions in each country be told that there are no no-go areas, as I understand was the case when the Scottish island situation was last discussed?
In Wales, I notice some quite small electorates compared to England; for example, Arfon, with 41,000-odd voters, and Aberconwy, with 44,500. They seem small when one considers that they have the benefit of a Welsh Assembly Member as well. In contrast, over the border in England, the Hereford constituency has 71,000 voters. That seems wrong.
I know that these questions could be interpreted as trying to tell the Government that all is not well in the boundaries area, but I firmly believe that to be the case. I trust that my noble friends will agree and realise that in order to do anything this side of a general election, the work has to start soon, with the guidelines for the commissions clearly stated and published to ensure transparency.
I wish the joint Front-Bench team well as they start their work together. In the days of Gladstone, who started life on the Tory Benches when Pitt, Liverpool, Canning and Peel were around, our party was a reforming party. In the years between 1846 and 1859, there was no monopoly of Whigs or Tories that undertook the many reforms. Gladstone was a leading light in many of those reforms, including colonial self-government for Canada, Australia and New Zealand and the reform of the Civil Service and the universities. However, I must remind my noble friends here from the Liberal Democrat Party that it was the Conservatives who brought forward the second Reform Act of 1867. If history is to repeat itself, changes that give equal value to the citizen must be accomplished within the lifetime of this Government.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, on his genuinely good maiden speech. He has very much to offer this House. He was the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education and Employment from 1997 till 2001, and he practised what he preached. He achieved a lot by change. We have much to learn from him.
I also congratulate with real sincerity the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on his appointment to the Ministry of Justice. He is somebody of real warmth and ability who is extremely popular in this House, and we all genuinely wish him very well.
My noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington wished to speak today; the noble Lord, Lord McNally, should be grateful that she did not. She would have mentioned how loyally the noble Lord served her father and the Labour Party, then how loyally he served the Liberal Democrats and, now, how loyally he serves the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the self-styled tubby toddler.
Lord McNally
She did give me a message—she said, “Jim must be spinning in his grave”.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in an excellent speech, mentioned the no confidence vote in 1979. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will remember what Jim Callaghan said describing that event—“Turkeys voting for an early Christmas”. I assume that it is that memory that has led the noble Lord to argue for a fixed-term Parliament, so that if the turkeys with whom he now associates lose a vote of confidence, they will not have to leave government.
What a marvellous sight the coalition is! The language of Cameron and Clegg is the language of love. It reminds me painfully of those “Spitting Image” programmes in the 1980s. Do noble Lords remember the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Steel, and the boy David nurtured in the arms of the noble Lord, Lord Owen? They had to choose a name for the leader and David Owen suggested that there should be one name from the Liberals—say, David—and one name from the SDP—say, Owen.
New politics—a coalition, and an opportunity to achieve through Parliament changes to the constitution which could be for the benefit of the whole country. There is a huge opportunity offered by this new politics, one which is in the process of being horribly lost. At the heart of the constitutional proposals are attempts to reduce the ability of Parliament to stand up to and restrain the Executive; proposals to prevent the Commons from forcing an election; proposals to make this House a creature of the Executive—something that it has not been since the late 1950s, when this House did not even bother to have votes, because a Tory Government down the road and all the Tories here did not think it worth while.
I think that a fixed-term Parliament is a good idea; it is a good idea to take away from the Prime Minister of the day the power to determine the date of the election. But depriving him of that power has to be consistent with the basic principle of our constitution—that the Government are selected by the House of Commons and survive only as long as they enjoy a majority in the House of Commons. For well over 110 years, whenever a vote of confidence has been lost in the House of Commons, the Government then go straight to the country. Why is that? It should not be us or them down there who choose who should be the next Government; it should be the public who choose.
Mr David Heath, the deputy leader of the House of Commons, suggested that there was an exception to that, when Mr Stanley Baldwin was defeated at the end of 1923 and Mr Ramsay MacDonald formed the first Labour Government. What happened in 1923 was that Mr Stanley Baldwin was defeated on the King’s Speech. The position should clearly be that if the Government fail to get the confidence of the House of Commons after an election, the right thing is not to ask the public to think again in a new election, but then and only then to choose a new Government in the Commons.
The twin aims of depriving the Prime Minister of the right to fix the election date while preserving the bedrock principle that if the Government lose the confidence of the House they should call an election can be achieved with a Bill that says that there should be a fixed-term parliament of X years subject to the PM having an obligation to advise Her Majesty to have a general election when his Government had obtained the confidence of the House of Commons but then been defeated on an Opposition vote of confidence. That would meet every aim that the coalition has. Why on earth has it proposed this 55 per cent? As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, a whole variety of different reasons have been suggested. But think what the consequences of that 55 per cent are. First, it means that this Government are not affected by the fixed-term Act because they have more than 55 per cent of the MPs. Secondly, well over half the years since 1945 have involved Governments with more than 55 per cent of the MPs, so it is likely that in years to come this provision will not apply to most Governments. Thirdly, what would happen if the coalition splits up? Fifty-three per cent is the number of non-Tory MPs in the Commons. If there was a vote of confidence—
The Earl of Onslow
If the party had more than 55 per cent of the MPs and the Prime Minister wished to call an early election after three and a half years, all the party has to do is to get 55 per cent in the Division and, lo and behold, it gets an election and the fixed-term Parliament is quashed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Earl has got it completely. That is exactly the point. The coalition Government can have an election whenever they want. They say now that it will be on 15 May 2015. Can noble Lords imagine a Prime Minister saying, in two years’ time, that circumstances have changed, and that of course it was right then to commit themselves to 15 May 2015 but the right thing to do now is for the country to see whether, in the current circumstances, it wants to go on with the current Government. It is a totally bogus piece of legislation as far as concerns the current Government.
I was about to talk about what happens when the coalition splits up. On the basis of the 55 per cent, if it splits up and is then defeated in a vote of confidence by the 53 per cent of non-Tories, there would not be a Dissolution. Until Mr David Heath spoke on Tuesday there would have been, as I describe it, a zombie Government. There would not be an Opposition who wanted to form a Government and the Conservative Government would not have the confidence of the Commons. What would then happen? I assume that there would have to be an election. If there has to be an election in those circumstances, why is there this 55 per cent in the first place? It is obviously a botched attempt by the coalition to stay in power even though it had lost the confidence of the House of Commons. I hope that it will admit that as soon as possible.
That sort of problem is something that this House would be incredibly good at fixing. However, we read in the newspapers of an intention to stuff this House with 100 coalition-supporting Peers. I am sure that it is not true and that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, will confirm that, because then Parliament would lose the one part of the body that has stood up to the Executive over the past 10 or 11 years.
The last point I want to make is that there was a sinister reference to the Salisbury convention by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Members of this House will remember that the Salisbury convention has at its heart the proposition that if the electorate has endorsed something—for example the Labour Party's proposals in 1945—it would be wrong for this House to reject it. It cannot seriously be suggested that because fixed-term Parliaments were referred to in the Liberal Democrat manifesto—the Liberal Democrats who lost more seats than they had before—that that represents endorsement by the electorate. If that is the case, then the coalition has very severely lost its way.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in our parliamentary new world, I would like to talk about one area of work already trailed by the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Rooker, and on which the House, through its working groups, prompted by the Lord Speaker, has already done a great deal of work. It is work for which this House would be particularly well suited with or without the Commons and the Joint Committees. We would be well suited because the work would and should involve all sides of the House and the coalition Government have made clear their intention not to be exclusive, because good government should be as inclusive as possible. That is the way to the best outcomes.
Having a coalition Government does not exempt any Member of the House, whether or not his party holds office, from holding the Government to account and scrutinising their decisions and actions. There is a distinction between government and Parliament that has been eroded over the years. I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about that.
I have not been the only one of your Lordships over many years to question the quantity of legislation with which Parliament and the real outside world is faced and to ask whether it is necessary. Is not its objective covered by earlier legislation? Is legislation always the best way to address a particular problem? I suggest that the time is right—as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, put it, “Let’s stop talking and start doing”—for the House to put in place a structure for post-legislative scrutiny. It should ask whether a particular Act has achieved what it was intended to achieve, which is not necessarily the same question as the merits of the underlying policy. Does it succeed in its own terms?It would be interesting to know in some cases whether all the parts of an Act have actually come into force, and how much has lain fallow.
What has the impact been on those who work in the particular policy area? Taking evidence would be valuable; we do so a little now at the pre-legislative stage, and I welcome the Government’s proposals for public reading stages of Bills, building perhaps on the Scottish approach. I welcome the view that no one has the monopoly on wisdom—or, if anyone does, it is those who are affected, not those who make the laws. I am sure that we would all have our own candidates for such evaluation or re-evaluation, and I am not going to go down the route of choosing or suggesting those candidates now.
Scrutiny, however, is not just a job for opposition. Indeed, I found in another sphere of government that there would be alliances between supporters and opponents of a given project, both vigorous questioners—the opponents because they wanted to find the weaknesses and the supporters because they wanted the project to succeed. I welcome the reports of the working groups that have been referred to today, and I trust that they will be pursued.
This seemed to be an occasion on which to raise that issue, although I realise it is important today not to be thought to be inward-looking. There are major matters of policy as well as of procedure. I have commented on the quantity of legislation in the past. Having no new legislation for a year and not many orders either would be an attractive thought but it is not going to happen, certainly not with a new Government—although we all recognise the public’s preference, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, put it some hours ago, for being left alone.
However, significant parts of the coalition’s programme for government are about the repeal of laws, especially in the area of civil liberties. The freedom Bill—the Liberal Democrats published such a Bill in draft some time ago—is about restoring freedoms to the citizens and rolling back the overintrusive state. I hope this will mean, among other things, an end to the notices that I find offensive around the parliamentary estate about the “offence” of trespass in what, above all, should be a public building. It was particularly sad that on the day of the Queen’s Speech, Brian Haw was arrested and the Mayor of London started proceedings to remove protesters from Parliament Square. The coalition Government are set to restore rights to non-violent protest. I believe that the Metropolitan Police commissioner commented:
“The one thing we would look for in any government is to properly clarify around Parliament what it is they want and what they do not want”.
I look forward to clarification and confirmation of these citizens’ rights.
Part of pushing back the state—or, as the Minister put it, the citizens’ control over the state—is acknowledging that other entities in the world of government may make mistakes, or what central government regards as mistakes. There is a degree of bravery required to let go. The previous Government dealt in earned freedoms and flexibilities for local government, and our coalition partners were very critical of that and argued the localism agenda. I could go further back in history, but I shall just say that I hope that neither of the coalition partners this time will bottle it. We should acknowledge that some local authorities will do things that central government does not like, and we should be careful about the constraints imposed or retained because central government thinks that it knows either how best to make savings or how best to set standards.
We need to recognise some dilemmas. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to CCTV. I have often felt that local authorities are pulled in two directions on this issue: public calls for CCTV for crime prevention, and public concerns about liberties. I suppose that the answer is somewhere in proper regulation.
One policy area which is moving fast is education, with the plans for academies. I have always thought that schools are central to a local authority’s operation because they are central to the local community. I am sure that Parliament will look at how academies fit into the localism agenda when it looks at localism in the round. Local government is not in for an easy time. One concern that I have is the perhaps unmanageably high expectations and demands that will be made of the voluntary sector in providing services. There are many in this House who will ensure that we do not lose sight of that. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury has already drawn our attention to this.
There are many more areas of Home Office policy than one can cover. Immigration proved in the election to be a thorny area, not least for my party. I hope we will look at the issues in the round and address what causes people such anxiety, not least housing and jobs. I am ashamed to say that in my own borough candidates with an obviously Asian name did not get elected, while others of the same party were elected in the same ward. It has made me wonder what people today would have made of my name on the ballot paper.
The House expressed its concerns on control orders not so long ago. I look forward to putting our legislation where our speeches are. Sentencing was mentioned by those who can speak far more authoritatively than I can. I will simply say that it is a happy coincidence that the approach to sentencing trailed by the programme for government, including neighbourhood justice panels, restorative justice and so on, is also money-saving.
In summary, on the whole: the less legislation the better. Let us find ways of reviewing legislation already on the statute book—and whatever may join it—through mechanisms at which I think this House could excel. In Parliament, as in life, it is not just what you do; it is the way that you do it.
Lord Bach
My Lords, we have enjoyed a valuable debate on several critical issues that face the country—constitutional reform, crime and justice and local government. Some major themes emerged. To try to get some easy popularity, let me tell noble Lords that I intend to be fairly short in my response tonight. I am sure the House will want rather more to hear what a new Minister has to say than to hear from an ex-Minister whose voice it may have heard rather too much over the last few years.
Lord Bach
That is precisely the response that I was looking for. I am tempted to sit down now but I cannot before saying how much I enjoyed, as did the House, the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. He was and still is an outstanding public servant. I first knew him—I do not think he knew who I was—when he was Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education and Employment. More recently, he left his position as chairman of the Legal Services Commission at almost precisely the moment that I became the Minister for Legal Aid. I do not think that was anything other than coincidental.
I welcome the two Ministers, as have all other noble Lords on all sides, and congratulate them on their appointment. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is in a great department of state and has inherited the best private office in Whitehall—I mean the personnel rather than the building. He is much admired in this House for his wit, his intelligence and, not least, his experience. He is much appreciated, not least by me, who, alongside the former Leader of the House, my noble friend Lady Ashton, worked very closely with the noble Lord on the Lisbon treaty Bill, ensuring that the Conservatives made no amendments to it. How well we pro-Europeans work together; how well we resisted the Conservatives who were out, as the noble Lord will well recall, to wreck the Bill. A little more seriously, I remember how politically brave the noble Lord was within the confines of his own party. I think he will know what I mean by that.
Now, less than two years on, the scene is very different and the noble Lord—I hope that he will forgive me for describing him as always having been a politician of the centre left—now sits on the government Front Bench. He is surrounded—that was certainly the case earlier this week—some might say smothered, by the Conservatives. There he is, Tories to the left of him, Tories to the right of him, into the valley of Tory scepticism, the noble Lord—I am afraid for the moment, at least—charges on. Where are his Lib-Dem colleagues? They are certainly not within his sights. They have remarkably said rather less in this debate than they normally do in debates of this kind and I think that they have looked a little glum. Does the noble Lord sometimes in the watches of the night—perhaps not yet, but soon—think to himself, “What have I and my party got ourselves into?”? Even the thought of seeing his beloved Blackpool football club playing in the premiership for at least one season cannot be a complete panacea to the noble Lord for the position in which he finds himself, or soon will find himself.
I am sure there is nothing in all this that causes any concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. As a true Conservative, she knows where she stands, and that is certainly not shoulder to shoulder with the Liberal Democrats. Her job as Security Minister is, as the House recognises, a crucial one for all of us and for all the citizens outside and we wish her the very best of luck with it. She will have to face—I am sure that she has already in her few weeks in the job—the real dilemma that anyone holding that post has of reconciling security with civil liberties. We hope that she will be every bit as robust in the way in which she approaches her job as was her predecessor, my noble friend Lord West.
I wish to deal briefly with two or three major issues that have arisen. The first is security. It is central to what people expect from their Government. That is why the Labour Government’s achievement in reducing the crime rate is so important a part of our record. It was down by 36 per cent and violent crime by more. We were the first Government since World War Two to achieve this. In the past few years, there was less chance of being a victim than there had been for many years previously. There were many factors in this, a number of which came up in the debate. Of course, one of them was policing policy, about which the noble Baroness will speak in this House. Others included giving extra money and resources to poorer parts of our country. It should not be forgotten how many communities have been completely restored by the efforts that have been made, led by the previous Government. Even during the recent recession there has been up till now no evidence of an increase in acquisitive crime, as there was in the previous recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. But there is another reason too and although it is sometimes hard to say it, I will do so. The fact that more serious criminals are in prison for longer is another factor in the crime rate going down. Although we must of course look carefully at the relationship between prison sentences and community sentences—we expect the new Government to look carefully at that—there will always be people who are bad, who have to serve prison sentences. Everyone has to accept that. We look forward very much to hearing the new Government’s policy on that matter.
CCTV and DNA are two different ways in which a great deal of crime has been stopped. I say to the noble Baroness, please be careful how you approach the whole issue of DNA. This has actually caught many very serious criminals, and also some who were not prosecuted at the time but whose DNA was taken and kept for a period. It proved later to be absolutely crucial in putting them where they belong—behind bars. Perhaps I may advise the new Government to walk cautiously in that field.
As far as constitutional and House of Lords reform is concerned, the House will be pleased that I shall say very little now. The House felt that my noble friend Lord Hunt set out the Labour Opposition’s views with great clarity and power. Many noble Lords on all sides have commented; not least my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I agree with everything that he said.
We can place on one side the absurdly overhyped announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister a few weeks ago, and his lack of graciousness—if I may use that phrase—in not accepting, as the Prime Minister himself did, that the Labour Government left behind a more open society. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister was a little carried away by his new and perhaps unexpected position. This side will look carefully, but fairly, at proposals when they emerge in legislative form. However, any quick fixes will be resisted with all the powers available to us.
I shall give one example which may seem small, but we think that it is important—the intended outrageous, anti-local Bill to stop Norwich and Exeter becoming unitary authorities. I say from this Dispatch Box that we will fight that Bill with all the powers that we have.
On the police, it is extraordinary that the coalition is pushing through the idea of elected police commissioners in the face of practically near-universal opposition. It is even more extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats are going along with this, because they forcefully spoke out against it in the past. Very effective on this was the right honourable Chris Huhne, who only last year said:
“The last thing the British police need is an elected sheriff leading the shootout at the OK Corall. Accountability must come from a broad-based police authority elected to represent all strands of the local community”.
The Government should listen to the president of the Police Superintendents’ Association. He said:
“We, the professionals, know about policing. There is no support for directly elected Commissioners within the Police Service. Make consultation your priority; do not adopt an entrenched and predetermined position and above all do not recklessly abandon the British model of Policing that is admired and respected across the world for short term political dogma and theory”.
I implore the Government to think again and I strongly advise the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition to stand by what it stood for so recently.
The Labour Government had much to be proud of in the fields that we have discussed. It included a more open society at home—for example, gender equality, sexual orientation equality and race equality. I have to say that much of the legislation was opposed by the Conservatives. There was the dramatic fall in crime, including violent crime. From comprehensively tackling domestic violence, which has not been spoken about enough, to many constitutional changes—many made with the help of the Liberal Democrats—we have tried, not always successfully, to look for political consensus, rather than trying to ram through constitutional change, which, taken in the face of great opposition, will never succeed.
We will suspend judgment on the new Government, of course, but their opening moves have not been entirely auspicious. First, there is complete confusion about their policy on the building of prison places and on allowing prisoners the right to vote. On that, I have two questions to ask the noble Baroness. What is the Government’s policy on the prison building programme? What is the Government’s policy on prisoners’ right to vote? Secondly, the coalition has also agreed to push ahead with elected police commissioners in the face of almost universal opposition, including from the Liberal Democrats. Thirdly, the cap on non-EU immigration is to be implemented, supported by the Liberal Democrats, even though, during the recent general election, their leader was more than eloquent in his total opposition to that policy. Is that a sacrifice that the Liberal Democrats are prepared to make for a cap policy on immigration, crude as it is, which they opposed so thoroughly at the last election? Let us be fair and see what comes next.
On this side of the House, our concern is that those who will suffer will be the poor and the vulnerable, who are the people who are always the main victims of crime and are always the ones to pay when the public sector contracts too quickly or too much. This side of the House, along with many other Members all around the House, will see it as our duty and our imperative to protect those people against the ravages that seem certain to come.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech has been extremely wide ranging and very stimulating. We do credit to ourselves in the quality and imagination that has been injected into a great deal of the interventions, and there have been 49 speakers. Before I do anything else, I join noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, to our House and congratulate him on his excellent speech.
It is very gratifying that the work of the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Communities and Local Government should attract such a long list of speakers, but it makes for a difficult task in winding up. We will undoubtedly return to all these topics in due course, which will give the Government an opportunity for fuller replies, so I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not tonight cover all the points that have been raised. I will endeavour to write on any substantive points that I miss.
Before I go to the substance, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution not only of those who took part in today's discussion but of the Ministers in the previous Government who were involved in the affairs that we have discussed today, particularly the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Hunt and Lord Bach. While in some areas of policy there will be changes of direction under this Government, in others it is clear that we shall be building on what our predecessors have done.
This Government have a strap line: freedom, fairness and responsibility. These themes run through the Government’s programme, and they have run through today’s debate with a strong focus on the citizen: the individual’s relationship with the state, the individual’s right to participate actively in the running of the society to which he belongs and the importance of people taking time and trouble to exercise those rights responsibly.
Before I turn to some of the more detailed points, I want to underline what my noble friend Lord McNally said when he opened this debate: this Government will be steadfast in their defence of civil liberties, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that anybody who knows me knows that I am entirely comfortable sitting next door to my noble friend Lord McNally.
Protecting the public and safeguarding our liberties are not mutually exclusive. They are not a zero-sum game; the more of one, the less of the other. Indeed, one might ask: what is the point of security in a society if it is not free, if not to preserve the values that we believe in and stand for? We will not compromise our national security in the face of a serious and continuing threat. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, rightly said, that is my particular responsibility. For me, the first duty of government is to protect a free society.
In this debate, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have been brigaded together. Hearing the remarks made by some noble Lords, I hope that they do not think that with this brigading, somehow the Home Office will not always act proportionately. I stress that it is very important that the Home Office, in carrying out the duties that are particular to it, does so always with proportion. We should not be solely in the business of protecting the state, since in the 21st century security, and national security, are about maintaining the prosperity and way of life of society as a whole. We come back to the theme that has run through our debate; the centrality of the citizen.
Before I go into more detail about the Home Office and the Government’s programme, I will address the questions raised by noble Lords about constitutional and electoral reform. I am in danger of wading into deep water here. It is clear that the prospect of change raises mixed emotions in this House, and a considerable degree of excitement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that a great opportunity for reform was being missed. Perhaps I might ask what the previous Government were doing for the past 13 years. Their enthusiasm for electoral reform was reserved for very near the election.
I turn to the substance of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and many other noble Lords, asked about legislation on AV and the referendum. He inquired about the timetable for both. The referendum is a priority for this Government and we plan to hold the poll as soon as possible. The precise timing will depend on the passage of the Bill through the two Houses. More information on timing will come with the introduction of the Bill in another place. The question to be put will be submitted to the Electoral Commission for comment on its intelligibility, to ensure that we get a good question. The choice will be between the current system and AV. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked about threshold and turnout, and a number of other more detailed questions. I am afraid that I cannot give him more information at present.
A number of questions were also asked about electoral issues that largely affect the other place. I do not propose to go into detail on those. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and others, suggested that speed in redrawing electoral boundaries might come at the expense of consultation. I entirely agree that consultation is important. However, many people might consider that the present system has created a situation in which the boundaries are out of date before they are ever used, as in the case of the last election, and that we need to improve the speed at which these things are done. We do not accept the thesis that larger constituencies lead to less accountability—there is not going to be such a radical change—nor that more equal-sized constituencies are a bad idea. We will allow small variations to accommodate local conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and many other noble Lords also raised the issue of reform of your Lordships’ House. Indeed, I suppose that if there were a single issue on which we focused most, not surprisingly it was that. As the noble Lord noted, a committee is being set up but not, I think, on this occasion located in the long grass. Its composition is currently under consideration and the aim is that the committee should make recommendations by the end of the year.
My noble friend Lord McNally has already given some indications of the Government’s broad direction of march on some of the important issues. The committee will look at the detail of these issues and such matters as the choice of the electoral system, the proportion of Members to be elected and the transitional arrangements, including some of the ones that we have discussed, such as grandfathering. These will also be matters for the committee, as indeed will the issue raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester concerning the future position of Bishops in our House.
We on these Benches are well aware of the strength of feeling in this House, including that we should have some say in our own fate. I share it. The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Armstrong, made characteristically to-the-point speeches about the issues involved, including the question of powers. Ensuring that views expressed in this House are heard properly and are thoroughly considered is important. The Leader of the House has already made clear the possibility of timely discussion at a formative stage and I am sure that we shall want to enable that to happen.
I think that on the Benches opposite there is great excitement—perhaps I may put it that way—about the possible effect of what they see as being new appointments to this House. At the moment, there are no announcements so far as I know, only rumours. If there are new creations, I doubt that they will be only on one side of the House; I am sure that they will be on the other side, too.
There has been a certain amount of questioning about Parliaments being fixed for a term of five years. When I travelled abroad—and I used to do a great deal of that—I found that most countries found it pretty odd that we did not have a fixed term. We are, in our present state, extremely unusual. Many in this country have long thought that it would be a good thing to move to fixed-term Parliaments. A Parliament of five years does not seem to be outside the British tradition, so I feel that it is a perfectly reasonable figure on which to fix.
The question of 55 per cent is a sensitive issue. There were a number of very thoughtful contributions from noble Lords about the 55 per cent threshold, as well as the expression of some anxiety and, indeed, criticism. However, there is no hidden agenda. Such provisions are normal in the context of fixed Parliaments. If you have a fixed Parliament system, you tend to have a provision of this kind, particularly in countries where there are coalitions. Germany, for example, is no exception. Therefore, if we are botching this idea—to use the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—I suspect that so are many other countries.
The first point that I want to emphasise is that the Government’s proposals on the 55 per cent vote for Dissolution do not affect the conventions relating to a confidence vote in the other place. A Government who lose a confidence Motion, even by a single vote, will have to resign. This is not about stopping Parliament dismissing a Government; it is about stopping a Government being able to dismiss Parliament. This is in the context of fixed terms.
Detailed consideration was also given to the matter in a debate in the other place on Tuesday night. It will receive further detailed scrutiny, first, when the Government publish a Motion in the other place stating the date of the next election and, secondly, when a Bill is introduced. The crucial thing is that there is nothing unusual about requiring a percentage of a Chamber to vote for Dissolution. As we know, in Scotland the figure is two-thirds and in other countries there are different percentages. The 55 per cent was the threshold that the Government thought right for the UK. I have no doubt that further contributions will be made by noble Lords on that subject.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said that it was implicit in the coalition’s proposal that the 55 per cent could be used by the Government for Dissolution only if there was a vote of no confidence prior to that. Is that correct?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I shall not venture into that territory because I do not think that I know the answer to that question. Clearly this is precisely the kind of issue that needs clarification. I entirely accept that.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
It seems to me that on Tuesday night David Heath was introducing a new institution into the situation, which was the period of 25, 30 or 35 days during which there would either be a failure to put together a Government, in which case there would be sudden death, or the whole matter would be prolonged. Was he speaking ex cathedra or not?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I am certainly beyond my area of knowledge. These are matters of detail and we ought to allow—
Baroness Neville-Jones
Excuse me, they are. They are the details that surround the general principle and we need to formulate them. The House is absolutely right to wish to know these answers and we will bring them forward as soon as we can.
I want to refer to two other points of constitutional significance that were raised during the debate. The first concerned Scotland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, who served on the Calman commission, asked about the timing of a Bill to implement the commission’s recommendations. It is hoped that a Bill will be introduced in the autumn. Obviously, given its importance both Houses will want to give it careful consideration and it would be premature at this stage to anticipate when it will reach the statute book. However, the noble and learned Lord can be reassured that we want the Bill to make steady progress through Parliament. That is one of the things that we want to get through. I also confirm that on this issue the respect agenda goes across the political spectrum. Already this week, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, met the leader of Labour MSPs, at Mr Iain Gray’s request, so the matter is under way.
My second point is the question of the Bill of Rights, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He asked whether the Bill would be UK-wide. The remit of the commission, which will consider many of the issues that he raised, is UK-wide but we will ensure—another point that he underlined—that the commitments made in the Good Friday agreement are respected.
I shall now turn to the Home Office side of the Government’s programme. We have set out a clear shift in the Government’s approach to a number of areas, such as ID cards. Your Lordships’ House will not be surprised by that. As an indication of our determination to get on with this part of the agenda, legislation has already been introduced in the other place. Our commitment to civil liberties is nowhere more apparent than in the decision to wish to do this—to abolish not just identity cards but the national identity register, which would have contained up to 50 items of personal information for each individual and to which the cards would have been connected. We want to remove the notion that the state has the right or the need to collect and amass huge volumes of personal data of people and lodge them all in one place. I must also say that much can be done. A noble Lord said that we still have too much legislation; that is a sentiment with which I personally sympathise. In my view, much can be done without legislation.
I turn for a moment to counterterrorism policy, where that is certainly the case. We will maintain the framework of the CONTEST strategy, which we have always supported as conceptually sound—I pay tribute to those who formulated and pioneered it. It is a model that many other countries have looked to and imitated. It has proved its worth and we will build on it. As noble Lords may also be aware, we are reviewing one part of it: the operation of Prevent, which is not at present attaining its objective of preventing people becoming terrorists.
We believe that effective intervention with individuals needs to occur upstream of the prevention of violence and that that policy should be about more than the enforcement of the boundary between lawful and unlawful activity. We see cohesion as a separate issue.
We will also review control orders. Consistent with the security situation, our aim is to cease to have resort to them. They have big implications, so I hope that the House will allow us time to achieve that. We have also undertaken to consider detention before charge. That will come up quite soon. We will also look at the operation of stop-and-search powers in relation to terrorism. An especially difficult area is our ability to deport foreign nationals whose presence is not conducive to the public good. We will pursue that issue, despite the difficulty of getting assurances abroad.
Finally, on the more general security front, as the House knows, we have instituted the operation of the National Security Council. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, we want in certain areas to roll back the powers of the state, and reduce the weight of government on our citizens and the surveilling of law-abiding people. We will adopt the protections of the Scottish model of the DNA database, which, we believe, will provide us with the necessary instruments for good policing and crime detection. We will regulate with due note for balance CCTV cameras and we will restore rights to non-violent protest and historic freedoms such as the right to trial by jury.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I ask a question about the operation of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is an independent committee of Parliament. Is the noble Baroness prepared to initiate work in her department on whether that could now be transformed into a full committee of both Houses?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the Government intend to give the committee greater status, more powers and greater separation from the Executive. Exactly how that is to be done is being considered at the moment, but I think that a proposal will come forward shortly. We are certainly moving in the direction that the noble Lord wants.
The time has come to wind up. We will do considerable work in the area of police reform. The election of an individual to whom the police will report and be accountable will not manage or interfere with operational independence. There will be checks and balances accompanying such an individual. Perhaps I can go into more detail in due course; we will consult with the necessary bodies which have an interest.
Many other points were raised by noble Lords, including matters concerning the forthcoming legislation from the Department for Communities and Local Government, where we will push forward our agenda of localism. I will write to noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on the various points that they raised.
In conclusion, I hope very much that the reforms that we have outlined in the Government’s legislative programme for this first Session will secure the ambition, which I am sure is shared in this House, of Britain being not just a safe and secure society but a free one. I commend the programme to your Lordships.