House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Thursday 24 June.
Bloody Sunday Inquiry
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 15 June 2010, of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, and of the Principal Conclusions and Overall Assessment, dated 15 June 2010, of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.—(Jeremy Wright.)
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
1. What his plans are for the budget for the probation service in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
7. What plans he has for the funding of the probation service in 2010-11.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
For 2010-11, the budget for the probation trusts will be £850 million. Budgets for 2011-12 are not yet set, and will be done through the spending review process to take place later this year.
Hugh Bayley
Last Sunday, on Sky News, the Justice Secretary said:
“let’s have fewer people in prison”,
and that there are
“some things we can do to stop people re-offending when they come out”.
Did he have the probation service in mind? Will the Minister give me a categorical assurance that there will be no cut in funding for the probation service, because it will be impossible to carry out that policy if there is?
Mr Blunt
It would be very nice if the country was in an economic position that allowed me to deliver such a categorical assurance to the hon. Gentleman but, as he knows perfectly well, I am afraid that I cannot do so. He also knows that part of the Ministry of Justice’s contribution to the £6 billion target was a £20 million reduction in the probation service’s budget. However, that budget had been added to by £26 million in mid-year by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is now the shadow Justice Secretary.
Mary Creagh
Wakefield is home to two prisons: New Hall young offenders institution and women’s prison, and, of course, Wakefield prison, which houses some of the country’s most dangerous and prolific offenders. West Yorkshire probation service, and Wakefield in particular, do a tremendous job of keeping local people safe and monitoring those who are released from those prisons, who are some of the most difficult individuals in the country. Does the Minister agree that public protection is the No. 1 priority for the probation service and that any future funding arrangements must not put that at risk?
Mr Blunt
Of course public protection is an absolute priority. We inherited good MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—from the previous Administration to deal with the sort of offenders who are released from Wakefield. It is right that probation services and all other agencies that are involved in MAPPA are closely engaged in delivering public protection with regard to such offenders.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I have visited the probation service in Milton Keynes and pay tribute to its tremendous work. Under the previous Government, however, the number of staff at headquarters ballooned, while front-line staff numbers remained static or even reduced. Might this Government reverse that trend?
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The previous Government refurbished the Ministry of Justice building at a cost of £130 million shortly before they announced redundancies, including to front-line managers, that saved £50 million. Can the Minister and his team say that this Government will have a better and more responsible set of priorities for spending in his Department?
Mr Blunt
I can guarantee that the probation service will not be led by the Ministry of Justice on any further refurbishments. I think that we have had enough refurbishments inside the Department for the time being and that we have an office that is perfectly fit for purpose.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his post, which is an excellent job that I am sure he will enjoy. Will he confirm to the House that reoffending rates fell considerably under the Labour Government, not least because of the 70% increase in probation funding over those 13 years? Will he also clarify what I think he said—that the £870 million budget agreed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in October 2009 is now £850 million? What discussions has he held—and will he hold—with probation services about the impact of that £20 million cut?
Mr Blunt
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, I have referred to the £20 million cut. The director of the National Offender Management Service and the regional offender managers will be doing their level best, in agreement with the probation trusts, to ensure that that reduction does not have an impact on services. However, we ought to remember that the budget settlement for the probation trusts that was agreed just more than a year ago was £844 million. That budget was being worked to during the transfer from probation boards to probation trusts, and that transfer was supposed to drive forward many efficiency savings to ensure that front-line services were delivered as efficiently as they should be.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
2. What timetable he has set for the completion of his Department’s review of sentencing policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
We are conducting a comprehensive assessment of sentencing policy with a view to introducing more effective sentencing and rehabilitation policies. We will take the time to get it right, and will consult widely before bringing forward coherent plans for reform. We intend to bring forward proposals on sentencing and the rehabilitation of offenders after the House returns from recess in October.
Tony Baldry
Does my hon. Friend agree that the punishment, in being sent to prison, is the loss of freedom? Does he also agree that what is important is trying to reduce reoffending rates, and ensuring that when people are in prison, they undertake activities that mean that they are less likely to reoffend when they are released? Alternatively, we might have not so many people going to prison, but if they are to be punished in the community, that punishment should involve activities that help to reduce the chances of reoffending. It is reducing the reoffending rate that is so important.
Mr Blunt
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have inherited a disaster, in terms of the reoffending rate among short-sentence prisoners. I do not think that anyone would want to defend the reoffending rate in that category, which is somewhere between 60% and 70%. Prisoners in that category do not receive probation supervision, and if we do not engage them with the great army of auxiliaries in the third sector who want to help us with offender management, we will not be able to address offender behaviour in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister undertake to read the excellent report drawn up on a cross-party basis by members of the Select Committee on Justice not long before Dissolution, which proposes a number of ways in which the large amount of resources that go into the criminal justice system could be focused more effectively on reducing reoffending?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that it adds insult to injury when a victim of crime, having seen the perpetrator sentenced, finds that the person is released halfway through their sentence? What steps will we take to reintroduce honesty in sentencing?
Mr Blunt
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because plainly the proposals that were in the Conservative manifesto will inform the outcome of the sentencing review. I am quite sure that he will be satisfied with the outcome, and that we will have a great deal more honesty in sentencing at the end of the process than we have today.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
3. What plans he has for prison capacity and prison construction programmes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
We must provide prison places for those whom the courts judge should receive a custodial sentence. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), we intend to bring forward proposals on rehabilitation and sentencing after the House returns in October. Long-term decisions on prison capacity programmes will be taken in the light of the policy agreed at the end of the process.
Mr Jones
On 30 January 2007, when asked whether we needed more prisons, the Prime Minister said, on the Jon Gaunt “talkSPORT” show:
“Yes…no doubt more prisons have got to be built.”
How does that fit with the Justice Secretary’s announcement this week that he would like to see fewer people in prison? Is this an example of Opposition rhetoric catching up with the Prime Minister, or is it yet another example of a policy disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary?
Mr Blunt
Absolutely not. I notice that the date to which the hon. Gentleman referred was in 2007, and there certainly has been a significant increase in the prison population between then and today. As far as the prison building programme is concerned, I draw attention to the evidence that the then Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor gave to the Committee referred to by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). He said that the prison building programme, as it now stands, is an opportunity to upgrade and update our prison capacity to make it more fit for the purpose of addressing reoffending behaviour. If we are successful in bringing about a drop in prisoner numbers—I am quite sure that everyone in the House would like to see that—we may be able to release other parts of the estate.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
In the context of capacity and overcrowding, what are the Minister’s views on short sentences, especially for women?
Mr Blunt
The evidence is that short custodial sentences are not working. They produce terrible reoffending rates. We do not have the capacity in the probation service to address people on licence, which is one reason why they do not have any supervision when they leave prison, and we are on the most dreadful merry-go-round. It is one of the glaring gaps in the way that we deal with offenders and reoffending behaviour, and the current Administration will do their level best to address the issue.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
4. What recent discussion he has had on reform of libel law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
We are committed to reviewing the law on defamation to protect free speech, and are currently considering the issues involved. In that context, Lord McNally yesterday met Lord Lester of Herne Hill to discuss his private Member’s Bill on the subject, which was recently introduced in another place.
Tom Blenkinsop
I am sure the Minister is aware of the case of Dr Simon Singh, who was famously sued by the British Chiropractic Association for his research. Although the case was unsuccessful, Mr Singh will recover only 70 per cent. of his £200,000 legal costs. Will the Government support Lord Lester’s private Member’s Bill to reform our libel system, which at present stifles scientific research?
Mr Djanogly
We are considering Lord Lester’s private Member’s Bill. The issues involved in it are complex and of great breadth, so we will look at it carefully and respond at a later date.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
5. What evidence he took into account in deciding to bring forward proposals to extend anonymity to defendants in rape trials.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
9. What evidence he took into account in deciding to propose to grant anonymity to defendants charged with rape.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
11. What evidence was considered before the announcement of proposals to introduce anonymity for defendants in rape cases.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape trials was included in the coalition agreement following negotiations between the two coalition partners. All the policy commitments made by the coalition Government were derived from the existing policy of one or both of the governing parties. The issue of anonymity for defendants in rape trials was adopted as party policy by the Liberal Democrat party while in opposition. It was also the subject of an extensive inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee, in its fifth report published on 24 June 2003.
Caroline Flint
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his answer. His Minister has indicated that he believes the stigma associated with those accused of rape is so damaging that, uniquely, they need further protection through anonymity, but evidence shows that the public are far more hostile to paedophiles and murderers, so why, on the evidence, does he choose to extend anonymity to those accused of rape?
Mr Clarke
There are arguments on both sides of the question, and they have frequently come before the House over the years. The Government think it is right to have a reasonable debate on them. That is one of the arguments in favour of anonymity. The argument that I have always thought is the strongest for anonymity is in cases in which the victim has anonymity—when there are allegations by children against teachers and others, or allegations made by women or men in rape cases. Where the victim is allowed anonymity all the way through, there is a case, which the House has accepted on occasions in the past, for giving anonymity to the person who is accused. There are other arguments on both sides of the case. We are not likely to have early legislation on the matter. This was the principal subject of debate in 2003 when there was a Bill before the House, and it divided all three parties. It is not a matter for party political ideology. It is a question that the House as a whole should consider with care.
Meg Munn
In my experience of working with sex offenders, it is extremely unusual for someone to offend on only one occasion. Publicising the name of the person accused often allows other women to come forward. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look seriously at this evidence, at research that has been done by the Home Office, and at research to which I have been directed, by the excellent criminology department at Sheffield university?
Mr Clarke
As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) reasonably said in the Adjournment debate, we are looking at evidence and seeing how many cases are multiple offenders, and in what particular cases that might have led to further complaints and detection, but I point out that 53%—I think that is the figure—of those accused in serious rape cases are known to the person making the accusation. They are usually ex-partners or ex-husbands. In those cases, where the person sometimes gets anonymity if they are the husband, not granting it might betray the identity of the complainant, and sometimes the person accused does not get anonymity, if they are the partner. There is a perfectly serious case to be made on both sides of the argument, and the coalition agreement has contemplated going back to anonymity. I had to look up which way I voted the last time the question was before the House. Other hon. Members would probably have to do the same. I voted in favour of anonymity then, but we are now listening to the arguments.
Bridget Phillipson
I have worked with victims of sexual violence and know how difficult it is for women to come forward and report offences. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the issue is not about party politics; it is about protecting very vulnerable victims of crime. If the Government intend to press ahead with those proposals, will he outline how they intend to encourage women to report rape offences and what measures will be brought forward to drive up the conviction rate in rape cases, which remains significantly lower than it should be?
Mr Clarke
The Government are committed to providing up to 15 more rape crisis centres. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that, obviously, nobody is questioning the long-standing decision that anonymity be given to all victims making allegations of rape. It is obviously important that everything possible be done to encourage more women who have suffered from that crime to come forward and seek the prosecution of the perpetrator.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I listened with great care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State said about the mystery of where the policy came from, but can he enlighten the House as to why, over that weekend of negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party about the coalition agreement, the matter suddenly became a major priority when it had not been in either manifesto before? Will he also please tell us how many women were involved in those negotiations?
Mr Clarke
I was not involved in the negotiations, but the policy actually emerged from them. I remind the hon. Lady that the Liberal Democrat assembly voted in favour of the policy in 2006, but it did so against a background of considerable debate. People from all parts of this House decided to vote for anonymity in 2003, and we recently had a report from Baroness Stern, who I do not think supports anonymity but recommended that the matter be debated more extensively.
The one thing that I can say to the hon. Lady is that the idea that the proposal was a male decision to the exclusion of female sensitivity on the subject is, frankly, slightly wide of the mark. Nobody in the House denies that rape is a serious offence; nobody in the House wants to reduce the protection that is given to women who are threatened with it or experience it.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
6. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the likelihood of rape victims coming forward of his policy to extend anonymity to defendants in rape trials.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
10. What plans he has to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
15. What assessment he has made of the likely effect of his proposal to introduce anonymity for defendants in rape cases on the number of prosecution brought in such cases.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The Government totally support the anonymity of rape victims and regard rape as a very serious crime that should be prosecuted in all cases where sufficient evidence exists. There seems to be no reason, however, why a victim should be deterred from complaining because the name of the accused will not be immediately publicised. The Government are, however, prepared to consider all arguments on that or any other aspect of the issue.
Kevin Brennan
The point is that the Justice Secretary has come before the House and talked about the proposal as if he were suggesting perhaps a Green Paper or a national debate, but it is in his programme of government, and I notice that his Front-Bench team is a Liberal-free zone. Does he feel, and will he now admit to the House, that basically he has been sold a pup?
Mr Clarke
No. I think that it is a serious issue, and, although I may not have initiated its appearance in the coalition agreement, the hon. Gentleman may gather that I am not averse to the House looking at it again. There are people who want us to do so, and we will have an opportunity, no doubt in due course, to put it to Members. I am not responsible for the whipping in the House, but I suspect that all three parties would rather prefer a fairly free vote on the issue, because I do not think that there is any consensus in any part of the House, unless I am suddenly told it is—[Interruption.] The Labour party is looking for new policies, I know, but I do not think that it has decided to make this issue the central plank of its much overdue reform.
We have said that we are attracted by the argument, and that we will debate it and consider all the arguments produced by Members from all parts of the House. The Prime Minister actually referred Members to the Home Affairs Committee on which he sat, which on an all-party basis recommended anonymity, at least until the time of charge, only a few years ago.
Katy Clark
I am pleased to hear that there may be a free vote on this issue and that the Secretary of State has so little personal enthusiasm for the policy. Does he agree that the main problem in rape cases is the low conviction rate and the fact that rape victims are not believed? Rather than trying to create ways to provide those accused of rape with more protection, we should be looking at ways to make sure that women feel able to come forward and that we increase the conviction rate.
Mr Clarke
I hasten to repeat that I have no responsibility or control over the whipping arrangements of any of the political parties in the House. When I was operating as a Back Bencher, I took this sort of vote very seriously. I considered it seriously in 2003 and came down in favour of voting for anonymity. It is no good trying to sweep the issue from the field, and we are not going to do that.
The conviction rate among those charged with rape is 38%, which is lower than that for some other offences, but rape is different in many ways from more straightforward crimes such as theft. In rape cases, we are essentially relying on the frame of mind of one of the parties; something that is perfectly lawful and affectionate if the woman is consenting is a very serious criminal offence if she is not.
Juries are the best people to decide whether they believe one version or the other in what, in my very distant experience of such trials, can sometimes be difficult cases that are best left to juries. That is why I am urging that this is a serious issue, and the coalition agreement was right to raise it. We have expressed our current intention, but Members from all parties will want to listen to all the arguments on both sides and not just be driven away from considering them.
Emma Reynolds
When the black cab driver John Worboys was charged with a string of sex attacks, more than 80 women felt that they could come forward and present themselves as victims. Anonymity for rape defendants would have prevented that from happening. Surely the Justice Secretary agrees that it is important that victims should feel able to come forward, not only to seek justice for themselves, but to strengthen the case for prosecution.
Mr Clarke
That could be a good argument, and we will look at it; evidence of that is, I think, one of the things that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said we would consider. We are trying to have a look at the Worboys case, which is always cited, to see how far the response to that was caused by publicity about the name of the accused person and how far it was a result of the police investigation into the nature of the rape. We can come back to that in later debate. It is not a conclusive argument. A very large number of rape cases do not involve multiple offenders; essentially, they often involve people who are well known to each other and have a history of a consensual sexual relationship.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that the appropriate counselling is available for victims coming forward? That counselling has recently been withdrawn in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). It is now provided by volunteers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at ensuring that appropriate funding is put in place for that service?
Mr Clarke
I certainly will. I have already referred to our commitment to try to provide new rape crisis centres, preferably using the proceeds of crime when they are recovered from criminal offenders. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that we are long past the stage at which a woman complaining of rape is treated as if she were complaining about a handbag robbery. There is no doubt that all these cases have to be treated with considerable sensitivity because it is very difficult for a woman to bring herself to complain and not enough do so, even in the present climate of opinion.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
8. What steps the Government plan to take to reduce reoffending by prisoners after release; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Nick Herbert)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election as deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats?
The Government believe that more can be done to cut reoffending by overhauling the system of rehabilitation. We are exploring how sentencing and treatment for drug use can help offenders to come off drugs once and for all. We are also exploring how we can do more with independent providers, including the voluntary sector, to reduce reoffending.
Simon Hughes
I welcome the Minister and all his colleagues to the Front Bench to consider such an important subject. May I encourage them, as they work out the plans to deal with reoffending—as has been said, it is a serious issue, which the previous Government did not address adequately—to take the advice of people such as the previous governor of Brixton prison, who were clear that, if secure housing and continuing support to deal with addictions are provided when people are released, the chance of immediate reoffending, which often starts in days, is hugely reduced?
Nick Herbert
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We must improve the multi-agency approach to tackling reoffending. That means bringing together the police, probation, prisons and local authorities, and ensuring that they work together more effectively. The key is to get offenders off drugs and into work, and, in particular, as he says, into housing. If we can do that, we have a chance of reducing the unacceptably high reoffending rates that we currently experience.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
But how will the cuts that have just been announced to the future jobs fund, which provides employment for ex-offenders in my constituency—a third of a million pounds comes from Connexions and an equal sum from Positive Activities for Young People—contribute to reducing reoffending in Slough?
Nick Herbert
Clearly, the Opposition still have not grasped the scale of the fiscal deficit that the country faces or their responsibility for creating it. Reoffending costs the criminal justice system and wider society billions of pounds a year. If we can succeed in reducing reoffending and capture some of that money to invest in rehabilitation services through a payment-by-results model, which we proposed in our rehabilitation revolution, we have a chance of producing the rehabilitation services that the previous Government lamentably failed to provide.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
12. What assessment he has made of the balance of expenditure between (a) prison building and (b) community sentences and restorative justice schemes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his unopposed re-election as Chair of the Justice Committee.
As I said in reply to earlier questions, our proposals for implementing the coalition agreement commitments on sentencing and rehabilitation will be presented after the House returns in October. Our future plans for, and the balance of expenditure between, custodial and community provision will need to be considered in the light of that, and restorative justice will feature strongly in that work, as will the work of the Justice Committee in its first report of 2009-10 on the case for justice reinvestment.
Sir Alan Beith
I thank the Under-Secretary for his kind words and congratulate him on taking office. Did he notice when he arrived at the Department that he was committed to a prison building programme, inherited from the previous Government, that cost more than £4 billion? It produced the highest incarceration rate in western Europe and pre-empted resources, which, if they were used to prevent crime, would save victims from suffering from crime in the first place.
Mr Blunt
My right hon. Friend will be glad to know that it did not entirely escape my attention. However, I draw his attention to the evidence that the then Justice Secretary gave to the Justice Committee in 2008. He pointed out that there was an opportunity to deliver the new prison places more cheaply on a revenue basis than the existing prison estate, and for them to be more fit for purpose in enabling the prison estate to address reoffending behaviour. The prison building programme per se is not, therefore, the problem but the number of offenders whom we have to sustain in custody. We need to examine the policies that drive those numbers.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I add my welcome to the Under-Secretary? I also offer my congratulations to the Justice Secretary and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) on their 40th anniversary this week as Members of the House.
Mr Straw
I think my hon. Friend means that it was shortly before the Chancellor was born.
Does the Under-Secretary acknowledge that there has been a sustained fall in crime from 1995 to date, and that the increase in prison places and the fact that more serious and violent offenders are now incarcerated has contributed to that fall?
Mr Blunt
Evidence on the effects of incarceration is mixed at best. We must take the political temperature out of the debate. Outbidding each other on how robust we will be in dealing with offenders probably does potential future victims no good. We must have policies that address future offending behaviour and consider the life cycle of potential and actual offenders so that we can support them effectively.
Mr Blunt
No, because the change in trend on crime was achieved by Michael Howard, the then Home Secretary, who delivered a robust policy that effected changes. He was the author of the change in policy, but there is a limit to continuing that process, as there must be to the rate of growth of incarceration. In the end, we cannot lock up everybody who might be a threat to someone, because in that way, the entire population would end up in prison. There is a logical end to that process, and we will do our level best to deliver more effective policies to ensure that there are fewer victims in future.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
13. How many and what proportion of prison inmates are accommodated on a doubled-up basis; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
In 2009-10, the average number of prisoners sharing a cell designed for one was approximately 19,000, and there are more than 1,000 cases in which three prisoners are sharing a cell designed for two. That overcrowding is concentrated in male local prisons, where 47.6% of prisoners are held in overcrowded conditions.
Claire Perry
Will the Minister comment on the fact that the previous Government’s mismanagement of the indeterminate public protection sentencing regime in many ways contributed to that overcrowding? That was brought to my attention by a prisoner in HMP Erlestoke in my constituency, who copied me in on a very good letter to Inside Time this month. Will the Minister tell the House what he will do to help to reform the IPP regime?
Mr Blunt
I notice that the previous Government had to reform the IPP arrangements in 2008, having introduced them in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We inherit a very serious problem with IPP prisoners. We have 6,000 IPP prisoners, well over 2,500 of whom have exceeded their tariff point. Many cannot get on courses because our prisons are wholly overcrowded and unable to address offending behaviour. That is not a defensible position.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In opposition, Conservative Members thought it was a good idea—in fact, they thought there was an extremely strong case—to build a new prison in north Wales. Is that still their view?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there would be a lot less overcrowding in prisons were we to adopt the very sensible policy of sending back to secure detention in their countries of origin the 13% of our prison population who are foreign nationals?
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
14. What recent representations he has received on compensation for people with pleural plaques.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
Let me first recognise the hon. Gentleman’s relentless campaigning on compensation for pleural plaques sufferers. I recently answered two written parliamentary questions relating to pleural plaques, and Ministers have received a number of letters from hon. Members and their constituents.
Mr Hepburn
I thank the Government for standing by the previous Government’s commitment to compensate past pleural plaques victims, but will the Minister go one step further, as Labour did when in office, and give a commitment that if any new medical evidence comes forward on the condition, the issue will be reopened?
Mr Djanogly
The issue was considered extensively in the last Parliament. A public consultation was carried out, and authoritative medical reports were prepared by the chief medical officer and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The Government consider that in the light of that evidence, it would not be appropriate to overturn the House of Lords 2007 judgment that the condition is not compensatable under the civil law of tort. However, of course, if the situation were to change, we would look at it again. If new medical evidence emerges that suggests that the existence of pleural plaques is an actionable cause and that the condition counts as compensatable damage, it will be open to claimants to pursue an action under the law of tort.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
17. What the conviction rate was for cases of rape reported in Liverpool, Wavertree constituency in the last 12 months for which figures are available.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Conviction rates are based on the proportion of defendants proceeded against who were found guilty. I can tell the hon. Lady that 44 defendants were proceeded against in the Merseyside police force area in 2008 and 13 were found guilty, giving a conviction rate of 30%. Court proceedings data are not available at parliamentary constituency level.
Luciana Berger
As the Secretary of State has just highlighted, the conviction rate for rape in my constituency is already dangerously low. Can he give us a definitive answer as to why rape defendants should be afforded greater protection than defendants accused of other serious crimes?
Mr Clarke
There are some relevant arguments on both sides, and other arguments that—with respect—are less relevant. I do not think that the conviction rate for rape is affected by whether the defendant had anonymity up to the trial. Nor is a woman’s decision to complain affected by whether the man’s name will be published in the newspaper immediately. It is important to ensure that all cases of rape are reported by victims who are then treated properly and that cases in which the evidence is sufficient are prosecuted and convicted. I trust that that will be pursued in Merseyside. As I say, some 30% of those charged are convicted, and I shall not dilate further than I did earlier on the particular nature of rape allegations, which are rather different from the allegations of normal violent crime or theft—[Interruption.] No, the nature of the issue before the jury is very different in such cases. The best analogy is with other sexual offence complaints made against teachers and others, in which anonymity is given to the victim but not to the person accused, and some Members have argued for that to be reconsidered.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
18. What his policy is on increasing prison capacity; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Durham (Kevan Jones) earlier.
Mr Evennett
I thank the Minister for his response earlier and agree with the comments that he made. Does he agree that the successful reduction of reoffending levels requires a long-term focus rather than a series of short-term piecemeal proposals? The Labour Government had short-termism and failed.
Mr Blunt
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am afraid that we have seen too much focus on the pursuing of political positions and influence by the media. What we have to do now is take advantage of the change in Administration, and the fact that we have a coalition Government, to try to take the political heat out of the issue, and achieve consensus on a long-term strategy to address reoffending.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
The Justice Secretary is reported as saying that millions of pounds could be saved by jailing fewer offenders and slashing sentences. Does the Minister accept that our first duty is the protection of the public and that we must provide prison capacity accordingly?
Mr Blunt
Yes, but I do not entirely recognise the hon. Gentleman’s presentation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary’s comments over the weekend. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the first objective is public protection, and if we are to protect the public of tomorrow, so that there are fewer victims, we have to ensure that we have a justice service that will deliver a reduction in reoffending rates and can divert people from offending in the first place.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
19. What steps he is taking to ensure that the interests of victims of crime are effectively represented in the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Nick Herbert)
The coalition Government’s aim is to establish a criminal justice system that rebuilds public confidence in the system and ensures that our streets are safe. The rights and welfare of the victim are vital to this. The Government are dedicated to ensuring support for victims and witnesses. We want to involve voluntary sector victims groups more and harness their ideas and innovation to help us to improve support.
Esther McVey
A constituent of mine, Jean Taylor, set up the charity, Families Fighting for Justice, after the murder of her son and daughter. Can the Minister assure her, and many others in similar situations, that these charities, which are filling the gaps in the justice system to provide support for victims of crime, will have sufficient transparency and lines of communication open to his Department in order to carry out their work?
Nick Herbert
I am happy to assure my hon. Friend of that. Charities and voluntary groups set up to promote the interests of victims are immensely important, and I would be delighted to meet the group concerned. Consistent with the proposals for a big society that we have been setting out for some time, we want to find ways to ensure that such groups have a voice, and give victims a voice, in the criminal justice system.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
What are the Minister’s plans for the future of the National Victims Service?
Nick Herbert
We are reviewing all these arrangements to promote the interests of victims. I welcome the appointment of the Victims Commissioner and the work she will embark upon. We are aware of the important work that the National Victims Service is planning to do.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the entire justice system, including the courts, prisons and probation services. Over the past four weeks, since taking office, I have sought to look at the major issues facing the Department and have worked closely with my ministerial colleagues to identify policy objectives and where savings can be made, given the current economic circumstances. We are conducting a full assessment of sentencing and rehabilitation policy to ensure it is effective in deterring crime, protecting the public, punishing offenders and cutting reoffending, while ensuring good value for the taxpayer. We intend to concentrate on the needs of justice while ensuring that legal aid works efficiently and that taxpayers’ money is well spent. In addition, I would like to inform the House that the Prime Minister has asked me to be the Government’s anti-corruption champion.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Secretary of State for Justice for his answer, although he did not mention his Department’s responsibility for the British Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Sark and Alderney. He will know that the previous Government were rather negative towards the loyal subjects in the Crown dependencies. Will he confirm that the new Conservative-led Government will be positive towards them and value their contribution to the British economy?
Mr Clarke
I recognise the important and very enjoyable responsibility I had for the Crown dependencies when I was Home Secretary, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government give a high priority to ensuring that the relationship with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is completely satisfactory. I am surprised that responsibility has found its way to the Justice Department—perhaps it was not considered carefully enough by the previous Government. I only raise the possibility that we will have a look at the allocation of responsibilities between Departments to find which allocation best suits both Her Majesty’s Government and the Governments of the Crown dependencies.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
T2. Ministers have referred to the recommendation in the Stern report on false allegations of rape. What are their plans to address the other 22 recommendations in the report?
Mr Clarke
The recommendations were only made recently, but I agree that there is no point looking at one aspect of the subject without looking at the others. I think the whole House agrees that we should do everything possible to protect the victims of rape, to enable proper allegations to be brought and to enable justice to be done, so that those responsible for this serious crime are brought to justice. I only mentioned one aspect of Baroness Stern’s report, but the whole report is indeed important.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
T5. A High Court judge, sitting on the board of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, recently told all MPs that they should be treated in exactly the same way as every other public servant. Will the Minister therefore consider publishing the travel and accommodation expenses and allowances of High Court judges so that we can find out whether we are indeed matched pound for pound with their lordships?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Lord Chief Justice decided that, from the start of the new legal year in October 2009, the expenses claims of High Court judges and above should be recorded in such a way that they can be attributed to individual judges and published at regular intervals. The first set, covering October to the end of December 2009, was published in March, and the next set, covering January to Easter, is due to be published in July. Figures for the summer term will be published in the autumn.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
T3. May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment? As a fellow Nottinghamshire MP, may I ask him to have a look at a problem that eluded his three predecessors, which is the creation of a community court in the city of Nottingham? People in Nottingham want the community court and people in the communities want it. However, it seems that the legal establishment in Nottingham does not want a community court. Will he use his good offices to make that wish come true in an area that is, as he knows, fighting crime very well?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Nick Herbert)
I am aware of the operation of the community court up in Liverpool, which I have visited, and the community court in Red Hook in New York, which pioneered this system of community justice. They are indeed interesting, and we should look at their success carefully. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any commitment on Nottingham, but we are interested in and aware of the importance of community courts.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T6. May I congratulate the Justice Secretary on his new position? Can he explain what the coalition Government’s position is on self-defence in the event of burglaries in one’s own home and the level to which we can defend our properties? I understand that we have undertaken a review of the position, and people would like clarification, following a number of Back-Bench Bills from Government Members.
Nick Herbert
I can tell my hon. Friend that we are reviewing the law and its interpretation carefully, and we will explore all the options before bringing forward proposals. We must ensure that the responsible citizen acting in self-defence or for the prevention of crime has the appropriate level of legal protection.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
T4. Will the Lib Dem-Tory Government be legislating to give prisoners the vote?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
The previous Government were considering the question carefully, and we are still carefully considering our policy on the issue.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
T7. What plans does the Justice Secretary have to reform drug rehabilitation in our prisons, so that we see fewer offenders languishing on methadone prescriptions than under the previous Government, and more going clean on abstinence-based programmes?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Clinical guidance for the treatment of heroin addicts in prison has been updated to reinforce the expectation that prisoners jailed for more than six months should not be maintained on methadone unless there are exceptional circumstances. We recognise that continuity of management of drug users is a key challenge. The work of Lord Patel’s prison drug treatment strategy review and last year’s review of the drug interventions programme will help us to strengthen arrangements between prisons and the community. However, I absolutely acknowledge my hon. Friend’s great concern about the issue.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
T9. In a recent case, a Salford man had committed a rape and was bailed, but then committed a further rape, and the police believe that there are further victims of this man. Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government have committed in their coalition agreement to extending anonymity to such defendants before all the evidence is heard? Can he also say who will now be consulted for that evidence?[Official Report, 24 June 2010, Vol. 512, c. 1-2MC.]
Mr Kenneth Clarke
With great respect, I find it very surprising that so many questions are being raised about a proposition that has been before the House, on and off, for the past 20 years and is not easily resolved. We will, of course, look at all arguments, including the experience of the case to which the hon. Lady has referred, but that is only one of the considerations to be taken into account. There will undoubtedly sometimes be cases where the publication of the name of the accused person gives rise to other people coming forward with well-founded complaints against that person. We will have to see whether there is any evidence that such cases are a significant proportion of the total cases of rape. We shall also have to consider the arguments on the other side, where a woman can make an anonymous complaint, the man can eventually be convicted, after going through a long and probably rather destructive ordeal, and the woman retains her anonymity as she walks away, with her ex-boyfriend or ex-husband left to live with the consequences.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
T8. Given that it is a surprise to some of us that so many drugs enter our prisons every day through a variety of methods, what steps will this exciting new Government take to try to crack down on this abuse of Her Majesty’s prisons?
Mr Blunt
Plainly, this issue is not new, and there have already been reviews of how drugs get into prisons. We are going to examine this matter and, as I have said, it will be a priority of mine. I am minded to try to ensure that prisoners have the opportunity to get on to abstinence-based programmes successfully and safely, within the prison estate, and to ensure that they do not get knocked off course by the availability of illegal drugs in our prisons—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to interrupt. It is understandable that Ministers should look backwards at those questioning them, but they must face the House.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Seventeen-year-old Ashleigh Hall, who lived in my constituency, was murdered last year by Peter Chapman, who is now serving a life sentence. While in prison, Mr Chapman has been writing to Ashleigh Hall’s parents and family. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable?
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
T10. What is the legal aid funding allocation per head in England and Wales, and how does it compare with legal aid funding in other countries?
Mr Djanogly
England and Wales have by far the most generous legal aid provision in the whole world. For example, Spain spends £2.55 a head, France spends £3.31, and Germany spends £4.69. Countries with a similar system, such as New Zealand, spend on average £8 a head, compared with £38 a head in England and Wales.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
On the issue of pleural plaques, when does the Minister expect to make the first payments under the new compensation scheme?
Mr Djanogly
The mechanics of the scheme are being consulted on, and we hope to start making payments towards the end of this month.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
In his capacity as the new anti-corruption tsar, will the Justice Secretary have a word with Andy Coulson? Andy Coulson and Rebekah Wade both admitted that they had paid police officers for information when running newspapers. They paid police officers; that is suborning a police officer. Will the Justice Secretary institute a review of the process whereby newspapers sometimes pay for information from police officers, and put a stop to it?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Personally, I think that this Government are going to give a very high priority to restoring and, I trust, maintaining this company’s reputation—[Laughter.]—this country’s reputation as one of the leading advocates of the elimination of corruption in trade and in Government contracts. We shall also ensure that the Bribery Act 2010, which we supported, is properly enforced, and that we are in the forefront of the people paying regard to this matter. With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s question bears very closely on that. I would also say to him that making allegations against people who are not Members, under cover of parliamentary privilege, should be done with great caution. He should not accuse people of corruption in the course of putting a question to me on this subject.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Justice Secretary acknowledge that, when our constituents are the victims of crime, they often need support and assistance to navigate the criminal justice service? Will he take this opportunity to, at the very least, ring-fence his Department’s expenditure on services for the victims of crime?
Mr Clarke
The Government will give priority to victims to exactly the extent that the House would expect. It should be in the forefront of all our minds when trying to protect the country against crime that the interests of victims should be paramount. My reflection on this hour of questioning is that it is no good for the Labour party to respond to every suggestion that there might be budget constraints as though that represents a threat to an essential service. The fact is that there is no money, and that is the fault of those in the Labour party. They will not be taken seriously again until they face up to the reality of the situation to which they have largely contributed, and start producing some realistic alternative policies to challenge those being put forward by the Government.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether his Department is to review the current system of classification of controlled drugs—which has been called seriously into question in recent months—and particularly the role of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs?
Mr Clarke
We have been looking at practically every aspect of policy in our first weeks in office, but we are not rushing to readdress the categorisation of drugs and we are going to ensure that scientific advice on this subject is treated properly, objectively and in the public interest. Any views that my hon. Friend wishes to put forward on the workings of the present system will be carefully considered by myself and my team of Ministers.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent spectacle of Roy Whiting exploiting British taxpayers to demand a reduction in his sentence is an abuse of justice and an insult to the memory of Sarah Payne?
Saville Inquiry
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry—the tribunal set up by the previous Government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972, a day more commonly known as “Bloody Sunday”. We have acted in good faith by publishing the tribunal’s findings as quickly as possible after the general election.
I am deeply patriotic; I never want to believe anything bad about our country; I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our Army, which I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear: there is no doubt; there is nothing equivocal; there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.
Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of Support Company who went into the Bogside
“did so as a result of an order… which should have not been given”
by their commander. He finds that
“on balance the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army”
and that
“none of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm”.
He also finds that
“there was some firing by republican paramilitaries... but... none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties”,
and that
“in no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire”.
Lord Saville also finds that Support Company
“reacted by losing their self-control... forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training”
and acted with
“a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline”.
He finds that
“despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers… none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers”
and that many of the soldiers
“knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing”.
What is more, Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while
“crawling… away from the soldiers”
and mentions another who was shot, in all probability,
“when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground”.
And the report refers to a father who was
“hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to… tend his son”.
For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says:
“The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries”,
and, crucially, that
“none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting”.
For those people who were looking for the report to use terms like murder and unlawful killing, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal, or for us as politicians, to determine.
These are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say, but we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. So there is no point in trying to soften, or equivocate about, what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal’s authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified.
I know that some people wonder whether, nearly 40 years on from an event, a Prime Minister needs to issue an apology. For someone of my generation, Bloody Sunday and the early 1970s are something that we feel we have learnt about rather than lived through. But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and hurt of that day, and with a lifetime of loss. Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The Government are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces, and for that, on behalf of the Government—indeed, on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.
Just as the report is clear that the actions of that day were unjustifiable, so too it is clear in some of its other findings. Those looking for premeditation, those looking for a plan, those even looking for a conspiracy involving senior politicians or senior members of the armed forces, will not find it in this report. Indeed, Lord Saville finds no evidence that the events of Bloody Sunday were premeditated. He concludes that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland Governments, and the Army, neither tolerated nor encouraged
“the use of unjustified lethal force”.
He makes no suggestion of a Government cover-up, and he credits the United Kingdom Government with working towards a peaceful political settlement in Northern Ireland.
The report also specifically deals with the actions of key individuals in the Army, in politics and beyond, including Major-General Ford, Brigadier MacLellan and Lieutenant-Colonel Wilford. In each case, the tribunal’s findings are clear. The report does the same for Martin McGuinness. It specifically finds that he was present and probably armed with a “sub-machine-gun”, but concludes
“we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire”.
While in no way justifying the events of 30 January 1972, we should acknowledge the background to the events of Bloody Sunday. Since 1969, the security situation in Northern Ireland had been declining significantly. Three days before Bloody Sunday, two officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary—one a Catholic—were shot by the IRA in Londonderry, the first police officers killed in the city during the troubles. A third of the city of Derry had become a no-go area for the RUC and the Army, and in the end 1972 was to prove Northern Ireland’s bloodiest year by far, with nearly 500 people killed.
Let us also remember that Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service that the British Army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007. That was known as Operation Banner, the longest continuous operation in British military history, which spanned 38 years and in which over 250,000 people served. Our armed forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible, and over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives to that cause. Without their work, the peace process would not have happened. Of course some mistakes were undoubtedly made, but lessons were also learnt. Once again, I put on record the immense debt of gratitude that we all owe those who served in Northern Ireland.
I thank the tribunal for its work, and thank all those who displayed great courage in giving evidence. I also wish to acknowledge the grief of the families of those killed. They have pursued their long campaign over 38 years with great patience. Nothing can bring back those who were killed, but I hope that—as one relative has put it—the truth coming out can help to set people free.
John Major said that he was open to a new inquiry. Tony Blair then set it up. That was accepted by the then Leader of the Opposition. Of course, none of us anticipated that the Saville inquiry would take 12 years or cost almost £200 million. Our views on that are well documented. It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness, but let me reassure the House that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past.
However, today is not about the controversies surrounding the process. It is about the substance, about what this report tells us. Everyone should have the chance to examine its complete findings, and that is why it is being published in full. Running to more than 5,000 pages, it is being published in 10 volumes. Naturally, it will take all of us some time to digest the report's full findings and understand all the implications. The House will have an opportunity for a full day's debate this autumn, and in the meantime the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence will report back to me on all the issues that arise from it.
This report and the inquiry itself demonstrate how a state should hold itself to account and how we should be determined at all times—no matter how difficult—to judge ourselves against the highest standards. Openness and frankness about the past, however painful, do not make us weaker; they make us stronger. That is one of the things that differentiates us from the terrorists. We should never forget that over 3,500 people, from every community, lost their lives in Northern Ireland, the overwhelming majority killed by terrorists. There were many terrible atrocities. Politically motivated violence was never justified, whichever side it came from, and it can never be justified by those criminal gangs that today want to drag Northern Ireland back to its bitter and bloody past. No Government I lead will ever put those who fight to defend democracy on an equal footing with those who continue to seek to destroy it, but nor will we hide from the truth that confronts us today. In the words of Lord Saville:
“What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland.”
Those are words we cannot and must not ignore, but I hope what this report can do is mark the moment when we come together, in this House and in the communities we represent; come together to acknowledge our shared history, even where it divides us; and come together to close this painful chapter on Northern Ireland's troubled past. That is not to say that we must ever forget or dismiss that past, but we must also move on. Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern Ireland, to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future. It is with that determination that I commend this statement to the House.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? As he said, it is more than 12 years since the then Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the Saville inquiry to establish the truth of what happened on what became known as Bloody Sunday. For the 14 families whose loved ones were killed, for the 13 who were injured, for the soldiers and their families, for all those whose lives would never be the same again, the report has been long-awaited. We all recognise how painful this has been, and the Prime Minister has been clear today. He said that there is no ambiguity, that it was wrong; he has apologised and we join him in his apology.
I also join the Prime Minister in thanking Lord Saville and all those whose work contributed to the report. The report speaks for itself and it speaks powerfully.
I remind the House of what Tony Blair said on the day that the House agreed to establish the Saville inquiry. He said that Bloody Sunday was a day we have all wished “had never happened” and that it was “a tragic day” for everyone. I reiterate his tribute to the dignity of the bereaved families, whose campaign was about searching for the truth. He rightly reminded the House of the thousands of lives that have been lost in Northern Ireland. May I restate our sincere admiration for our security forces’ response to terrorism in Northern Ireland? Many lost their lives. Nothing in today’s report can or should diminish their record of service. They have been outstanding.
The Prime Minister has acknowledged that the Saville inquiry was necessary to establish the truth and to redress the inadequacy of Lord Widgery’s inquiry, which served only to deepen the sense of grievance, added to the pain of the families of those who died and were injured, outraged the community and prolonged the uncertainty hanging over the soldiers. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for reminding the House that the setting up of the Saville inquiry played a necessary part in the peace process. Does the Prime Minister agree that, notwithstanding the considerable cost of this inquiry, its value cannot be overestimated in both seeking the truth and facilitating the peace process? Does he believe that Saville has now established the truth?
How the Government handle the report is of great importance, so I thank the Prime Minister for committing to seek a full day’s parliamentary debate on it. Will he consider allowing for a period of time between the debate in each House, so that what is said in this House may be considered before the debate in the Lords? When will he be in a position to say what, if any, action will be taken in Government as a result of the findings of the Saville report? What will be the decision-making process, and will the process be as transparent as possible?
The Prime Minister must recognise that some will no doubt raise the possibility of prosecutions. The prosecution process is independent, but has he been asked to consider the question of immunity from prosecution if we are instead to take things forward by a wider process of reconciliation? Is the time now right to move towards a process for reconciliation, building on the work of the Consultative Group on the Past, chaired by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley? Can there now be a comprehensive process of reconciliation to address the legacy issue of the troubles, such as that proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is what is now necessary?
The peace process is a great achievement by the people of Northern Ireland as well as by politicians. It is a process built on the value of fairness, equality, truth and justice. This House has played its part, not least in agreeing to the Saville inquiry. The Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement and, of course, this year’s Hillsborough castle agreement are all great milestones on the path to a lasting peace. Does the Prime Minister agree that the completion of devolution just a few weeks ago is relatively new and fragile and still requires great care? Our response to Saville must be as measured as it is proportionate. We have sought the truth; now we must have understanding and reconciliation.
May I conclude by expressing the hope that while people will never forget what happened on that day, this report will help them find a way of living with the past and looking to the future?
The Prime Minister
May I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she has said? I do not think there are any significant divisions between us on this vital issue and, as she said, how we respond to this matters: it matters for the peace process, it matters for the families and it matters for our country. She is right that the value of this is getting to the truth. Of course we can argue about the process, the time and the money, but that is secondary to the issue of the substance, and the substance is about getting to the truth on this issue. The right hon. and learned Lady raised a number of specific questions, and I shall try to deal with them.
The idea of leaving a period of time between the debates in the Commons and the Lords is very sensible, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to look at that—although, of course, we are not responsible for timings in the Lords. In terms of the action the Government should take, I should point out that this report is 5,000 pages long; as the right hon. and learned Lady has seen, it is the most enormous document, and it will take some time to go through all of it and identify all the points that need to be responded to. That will be led by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland. They will consider it and come to me with suggestions for what needs to be followed up, and I think we will have to see how others respond to this very full report too.
The right hon. and learned Lady raised the question of prosecution. She is right, of course, to say that these are decisions for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take in Northern Ireland and that should be entirely independent. On the issue of immunity, I am informed by the Advocate-General that the evidence given to the inquiry is subject to the undertaking given by the Attorney-General in February 1999
“that evidence given by witnesses to the Inquiry would not be used to the prejudice of that person in any criminal proceedings except proceedings where the witness is charged with giving false evidence.”
I think that is the right position.
The right hon. and learned Lady will know that we do not agree with some parts of the Eames-Bradley report, particularly the idea of universal recognition payments; we do not think it is right to treat terrorists and others in the same way. I think that it is right to use, as far as is possible, the Historical Enquiries Team to deal with the problems of the past and to avoid having more open-ended, highly costly inquiries, but of course we should look at each case on its merits. May I thank her again for the way in which she has responded to this important statement for Britain, for Northern Ireland and for a peaceful future for our country?
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, it is very important to have a measured and proportionate response to this report, both in this House and in Northern Ireland. Is it not, therefore, important that the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland, on both sides of the divide, show leadership in that respect? One thing that we do not want to do is see the Army return to the streets of Northern Ireland, and to avoid that situation coming about again we must have the correct response to this report. It will take time to digest, because it is 5,000 pages long and raises many issues. We have to look at this issue and the whole report, and we must do justice to it. That will take time and a reasoned approach.
The Prime Minister
First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on being elected as the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs? He has had a long interest in this part of our United Kingdom, and I know that he will do an excellent job. The point he makes is entirely right: how we respond to this as party leaders—this applies to all parties—will make a huge difference to the way that this is seen and understood. It is a highly charged and highly emotional issue, even 38 years on, and in our response we have to be responsible for what we say and how we say it. I think that it is important that everyone recognises that.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
As the political development Minister in 1998, when this inquiry was started, I think that I was right in agreeing with it. Having listened to the Prime Minister’s statement, all of which I agree with, I believe that, despite the costs and the length of time, it was right for this report to come forward today, after all these years. Does the Prime Minister agree that the chief priority, still, for Northern Ireland is its peace process and that all parties in Northern Ireland must agree with that process and with the way we go forward? Will he undertake to take personal charge of ensuring that that peace process continues, despite what he rightly calls the “shocking” revelations of this report?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman served with great distinction as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I know his commitment to the Province and to the peace process. He is right to say that the peace process still needs to be given our priority. I was keen to get to every part of the United Kingdom within the first 10 days or so of becoming Prime Minister, and I did go to Northern Ireland, where I met party leaders, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree, as a former Secretary of State, that it is important for us to give responsibility to our Secretaries of State and to ensure that, in the first instance, they are leading the process and making sure that the peace process moves forward—it is moving forward. It has been challenged many times over the past decade, and I am sure that today will be another fresh challenge. But I hope that the way that people respond to this report will make sure that, as I said in my statement, we can draw an end to this very painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s history.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Every soldier should be responsible for what actions he takes through the sight of a gun and every officer must bear responsibility for individual orders that they give, as must members of the IRA and other terrorist organisations. What steps will the Prime Minister take to make sure that the Saville inquiry report is used to draw a line under the past and ensure that peace remains in Northern Ireland, and is not used as a tool for propaganda by politicians to hit each other over the head with?
The Prime Minister
First, I know that my hon. Friend served in Northern Ireland in the Army, and I pay tribute to that. I think that how people respond will be a matter for them. I cannot stop people—as he put it —hitting themselves or indeed even each other over the head with this report. What I hope can happen as a result of today, given the clarity of the report and the lack of equivocation, is that whatever side of the arguments or whatever side people have been on, they will be able to draw a line under what happened and recognise that very bad things happened on that day; it was not justified and it was not justifiable, and there is no point quibbling or arguing with that. As I said, of course people in Northern Ireland will go on looking back to the past, because of the painful memories and also because of the information that has not yet come out, but at the same time as doing that it must be possible to look to the future. In my view, Northern Ireland has a very bright future.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
May I thank the Prime Minister for his clear statement? From talking to representatives of the families a short while ago, I know that they would want to be associated with those thanks.
This is a day of huge moment and deep emotion in Derry. The people of my city did not just live through Bloody Sunday; they have lived with it since. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a day to receive and reflect on the clear verdicts of Saville, and not to pass party verdicts on Saville?
The key verdicts are:
“despite the contrary evidence given by soldiers, we have concluded that none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers. No one threw or threatened to throw a nail or petrol bomb at the soldiers on Bloody Sunday”.
A further verdict is:
“none of the casualties…was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury.”
Of course, there is also the verdict that
“the British Army fired the first shots, these were not justified and none of the subsequent shots that killed or wounded”
anyone on Bloody Sunday “was justified.” In rejecting so much of the soldiers’ submissions and false accounts, the report highlights where victims were shot in the back or while crawling on the ground, or shot again when already wounded on the ground.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that each and every one of the victims—Bernard McGuigan, 41; Gerald Donaghey, 17; Hugh Gilmour, 17; John Duddy, 17; Gerard McKinney, 34; James Wray, 22; John Young, 17; Kevin McElhinney, 17; Michael Kelly, 17; Michael McDaid, 20; Patrick Doherty, 31; William McKinney, 27; William Nash, 19; and John Johnston, 59—are all absolutely and totally exonerated by today’s report, as are all the wounded? These men were cut down when they marched for justice on their own streets. On that civil rights march, they were protesting against internment without trial, but not only were their lives taken, but their innocent memory was then interned without truth by the travesty of the Widgery tribunal. Will the Prime Minister confirm clearly that the Widgery findings are now repudiated and binned, and that they should not be relied on by anyone as giving any verdict on that day?
Sadly, only one parent of the victims has survived to see this day and hear the Prime Minister’s open and full apology on the back of this important report. Lawrence McElhinney epitomises the dignity and determination of all the families who have struggled and strived to exonerate their loved ones and have the truth proclaimed.
Seamus Heaney reflected the numbing shock of Bloody Sunday and its spur to the quest for justice for not only families but a city when he wrote:
“My heart besieged by anger, my mind a gap of danger,
I walked among their old haunts, the home ground where they bled;
And in the dirt lay justice, like an acorn in the winter
Till its oak would sprout in Derry where the thirteen men lay dead.”
The Bloody Sunday monument on Rossville street proclaims:
“Their epitaph is in the continuing struggle for democracy”.
If today, as I sincerely hope it does, offers a healing of history in Derry and Ireland, may we pray that it also speaks hope to those in other parts of the world who are burdened by injustice, conflict and the transgressions of unaccountable power?
The Prime Minister’s welcome statement and the statement that will be made by the families on the steps of the Guildhall will be the most significant records of this day on the back of the report that has been published. However, perhaps the most important and poignant words from today will not be heard here or on the airwaves. Relatives will stand at the graves of victims and their parents to tell of a travesty finally arrested, of innocence vindicated and of promises kept, and as they do so, they can invoke the civil rights anthem when they say, “We have overcome. We have overcome this day.”
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman spoke with great power and great emotion on behalf of his constituents and his city, and I would like to pay tribute to the way in which he did that, and to the service that he has given to them. He spoke about the healing of history, and I hope and believe that he will be right. I know that he represents many of the families who lost loved ones that day, and he has always fought for them in a way that is honourable and right, and has always, in spite of all the difficulties, stood up for the peace process and for peaceful means.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, he is right that the Widgery report is now fully superseded by the Saville report; this is the report with the facts, the details and the full explanation of what happened, and it should be accepted as such. In terms of the people who were killed on that day, they were innocent of anything that justified them being shot; that is quite clear from the report. Let me read it again:
“none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting.”
That is what Saville has found. I hope that that is some comfort to the families, and to the people in Londonderry who have suffered for so many years over the issue, and that, as the hon. Gentleman says, we can now draw a line, look to the future and build Northern Ireland as a prosperous part of the United Kingdom.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I congratulate not only the Prime Minister but the Leader of the Opposition on their opening statements today, which, I have to say, were two of the most statesmanlike contributions I have heard on any subject in more than 13 years in this House?
On the question of possible prosecutions, may I draw to the House’s attention one fact? There was a sniper on the IRA side who killed something like two dozen British soldiers, but who was arrested only a relatively short time before the Good Friday agreement was concluded. As a result of that man’s conviction, he received a very long sentence, but served only a very short sentence. Should it not be borne in mind that that man, after all he did, is now out on the streets, a free man, before anybody starts calling for prosecutions of people, even though they did very wrong things a very long time ago?
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the statements by me and the Leader of the Opposition? I know that he cares deeply about this issue, too. What I would say to him about the very strong point that he makes is that the Good Friday agreement included clauses that were incredibly painful for people on all sides to cope with. The idea that someone who had murdered—and, as my hon. Friend said, murdered perhaps more than once—would serve only two years in prison was incredibly painful for people to understand, but these things had to be done to try to end the long-running conflict and to bring people to pursue their goals by peaceful means. That is what the peace process is about.
In terms of making a contrast between that and what soldiers have done, I am very clear that we should not try to draw an equivalence between what terrorists have done and what soldiers have done, because soldiers are operating under the law—operating for a Government. We should not draw equivalence. On the issue of prosecutions, I can only repeat what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, and I also make the point that it is important that I do not say anything today that would prejudice either a criminal prosecution or, indeed, a civil action, were one to be brought.
Let me end, again, on the point about the painful decisions that had to be made in the peace process. We all, particularly on the Conservative side of the House, know people who have been affected. The first person I ever wrote a speech for was Ian Gow, who was murdered by the IRA. It is incredibly painful and difficult for people to put behind them what happened in the past, but we have to if we are to make the peace process work.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and of course it will take some time fully to divulge the contents of the Saville inquiry. The events of 30 January will live with the surviving relatives for the rest of their lives. Thousands of other surviving relatives have had to do likewise. They have had no costly inquiries and no media interest, and there have been 10,000 other bloody days in Northern Ireland’s recent history. Murder and mayhem were caused by the Provisional IRA in the days, weeks and months before Bloody Sunday. Indeed, the two police officers whom the Prime Minister mentioned were murdered in the immediate vicinity of the march just three days before that march. I am glad the Prime Minister mentioned them today on the Floor of the House, because Lord Saville did not. That is an unfortunate and deeply regrettable omission.
We did not need a £200 million inquiry to establish that there was no premeditated plan to shoot civilians on that day. We did not need a report of such length to tell us that as a result of IRA actions before Bloody Sunday, parts of the city “lay in ruins”. Many have said that the difference between Bloody Sunday and the other atrocities that I have alluded to was that Bloody Sunday was carried out by state forces, whereas other murders were carried out by terrorists.
There has been no similar inquiry into the financing of the Provisional IRA at the inception of that organisation by another state—the Irish Republic. That Irish state acted as a midwife at the birth of an organisation responsible for murdering many thousands of UK citizens.
Soldiers answered questions in the course of the Saville inquiry. The 2IC of the Provisional IRA, Martin McGuinness, appears not to have answered questions. The public will want to know from today what he was doing with a Thompson sub-machine-gun on the day of Bloody Sunday. Does the Prime Minister agree that the sorry saga of the report is finally over and done with, and that we should look forward, rather than looking back?
The Prime Minister
I agree that we should look forward rather than back, and I hope the report will enable us to do that. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to refer, as I did in my statement, to the 1,000 members of the Army and security services who lost their lives during the troubles, and all that they did to try to keep Northern Ireland safe and secure. Of course he is right to refer to the many thousands of families who have lost loved ones through terrorism and who have not had an answer and have not had an inquiry into what happened to their loved ones. When it comes to answering questions, yes, it is important that IRA members and people who were responsible for things even now come forward and answer so that people can at least bury those whom they lost. Of course that is important.
I hope, as well, that the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is something about Bloody Sunday—about the fact that 13 people were shot by British Army soldiers and died on that day—that necessitated a proper inquiry. That is what the report today is about. Yes, we must come up with the answers to other people’s questions and yes, we have to go through with the historical inquiries team to try to settle those issues of the past, but let us not pretend that there is not something about that day, Bloody Sunday, that needed to be answered clearly in a way that can allow those families—all those people—to lay to rest what happened on that day.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for his courageous and honourable statement and, through him, Lord Saville for a very clear and unequivocal report which has, at last, answered the questions to which 27 families have been waiting for answers for so long. Does the Prime Minister agree that, given that the truth is the precondition of closure, justice and reconciliation, we now have the best possible way to move on because we have, at last, the truth about all those events on that terrible day?
Does the Prime Minister have any plans, when we have all had a chance to digest the report, to go to Northern Ireland and to Derry not just to express the solidarity of the whole House with the people there, and to confirm our support for the troops who for so long did honourable things in the name of the democratic Government, but to encourage the families of the bereaved and all those who, since that day in Derry and beyond, have worked so hard to make sure that Northern Ireland will never again have the terrible past that it had, but always have the prosperous democratic future which events such as Bloody Sunday made much more difficult, but which, in spite of adversity, so many people, including the women of Northern Ireland, did so much to achieve?
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree. This is about trying to heal the wounds of the past. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—the former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, who represents so many of the families in his constituency—put it, people in Londonderry have not just lived through it, but lived with it. That is the point, and that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) makes.
In terms of going to Northern Ireland, I am keen that as Prime Minister I should visit Northern Ireland regularly, and as I said, I have already been there in the relatively early days of my being Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in Londonderry two weeks ago and met the families, and he has plans to go back and do that again. I know that many people support Derry’s bid to be the European city of culture, and that is another part of the healing process in closing that painful chapter around the past.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I thank the Prime Minister for his very considered and thoughtful comments in respect of this particularly sensitive report. Since Bloody Sunday the families have had to live with not only the consequences of what unfolded in that short period, but the consequences of the many speculative reports and so on, which were produced following the events and which compounded their pain. So I am glad that, today, this report would seem to be a start in delivering for them the truth that they required and, I hope, the justice that they needed to be able to rebuild their lives.
The tragic events of that afternoon clearly and irrevocably changed the direction and course of the lives of people who were immediately affected by it, but it also cast a very long shadow over the society in which all of us live. Therefore I seek the Prime Minister’s assurances that, given how polarising the incident has been throughout politics and society in Northern Ireland, he will listen carefully to all the voices surrounding it, give people time to consider the content of the report fully and encourage them to take the time to read it in full before reaching conclusions on it. Can he also reassure us that he will deal with the Northern Ireland Executive and discuss with the Ministers there who have responsibility for individual victims how he intends to take forward the wider project of dealing with the legacy of the past?
The Prime Minister
First, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Lady on her election victory as the new Alliance MP for Belfast East? What she said was extremely sensible. The report is comprehensive and people should take time to study it, but it will take time for them to engage properly with all the information. Our key aim was to try to get it out as fast as we could in a reasonable way, to give the families and others advance sight of it and to try to publish it in one go properly. Mercifully, for a report as complicated and detailed as this, there have been relatively few leaks, and I hope that people can see it, read it and fully engage with it.
The hon. Lady says that people should read the report, but I also recommend the summary document, which is some 60 pages long and incredibly clear. That is why I reached my conclusion about there being no equivocation. When one reads the summary, whatever preconceived ideas one brings to the whole area and to what happened, one is given an incredibly clear sense of what happened and how wrong it was. I hope that, whatever side of the argument people come from, a report as clear as this will help them to come to terms with the past, because it puts matters beyond doubt. In that way, as I said, I think that the truth can help to free people from their preconceived ideas.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the beginning of his statement that that period of the 1970s was something that people of his generation had learned about. In the period between 1971 and 1975, we lost more members of the British Army than we have during the past four years in Afghanistan, such was the bleakness of the troubles in Northern Ireland.
I was born in the Royal Victoria hospital on the Falls road in Belfast in the latter part of the year that the events unfolded in Derry/Londonderry, and the events in Northern Ireland at that time shaped very many of us. One of the great joys of returning to Northern Ireland today is talking to young people, in their teens, for whom even the most recent events of the troubles themselves are something that they study and do not remember. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if civic leaders and politicians in Northern Ireland take the lead of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), this could be a cleansing opportunity of historic proportions, whereby the process of normalisation in Northern Ireland can continue and young people will never have to go back to the dark days of the 1970s?
The Prime Minister
I hope that my hon. Friend is right. As I said, I think that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spoke extremely clearly and passionately, and there should be a chance of working for a shared future. That is what we want in Northern Ireland.
The point that my hon. Friend makes is right. Every year—every month—that goes by with the peace process working and without a return to violence further embeds a culture in which we do things by political means and we get normal politics in Northern Ireland. That is what we should be aiming for, and it is certainly what we shall try to do.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition both spoke with great sensitivity and balance this afternoon. In that spirit, does the Prime Minister agree that any action taken against former members of the armed services subsequent to the Saville report should be carried out in the interests of justice and not vengeance?
The Prime Minister
The short answer to that is yes. These matters should be determined independently by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the correct way. One of the things that should mark us out is that these things should happen only in the interests of justice and not in the interests of vengeance. I am sure that that is what will happen. I set out the position to the right hon. and learned Lady.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I should like to thank the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Lady for their measured contributions. On other days, soldiers who had been based at the Colchester garrison lost their lives in Northern Ireland. In 1987, I spent three days with 3rd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment on duty in Belfast and was full of admiration for their courage and bravery, because they faced the prospect of being shot at by fellow British citizens. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will confirm that awful though Bloody Sunday clearly was, more than 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives during the years of the troubles?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right; over 1,000 people—from the security services, the Army, the police and other services—lost their lives. Also, 250,000 people served in the Army in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. Those of us who have not served in the Army cannot possibly know how tough it must be to be on duty on the streets, faced with violence and the threats of violence. It is worth remembering what service those people all gave and what restraint, in almost every case, they showed.
I was speaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who served in Londonderry, in Derry, a year after Bloody Sunday. He rightly made the point to me that the pressures that we put on our often very young soldiers were huge, and we should pay tribute to all those who served for what they did. But it is not in their interests, and nor is it in our interests, to try to gloss over what happened on that dreadful day. The report enables us to face up to what happened and to accept what happened, and that is the best way of moving on and accounting for the past.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
First of all, I thank the Prime Minister for bringing forward the very welcome statement on the Saville report today. I thank the members of the Opposition who brought the report to this point today.
Given the very personal tragedy of Bloody Sunday for the families of the bereaved and wounded and the major political implications that this serious incident had for the people of Derry, the wider community of Northern Ireland over the last 38 years and the wider island of Ireland, could the Prime Minister tell us about the parameters and context of the debate and the possible time scale of the assessment and report from the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland? Will he also give consideration to possible measures of redress for the families in Derry following the exoneration of the victims by the Saville report? In that debate, could wider consideration be given to the Ballymurphy families, who also experienced a lot of distress and pain because the Parachute Regiment, some five months earlier, was involved in those incidents, which resulted in the wounding, but above all the killing, of 10 people?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and congratulate her on becoming leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party and on her election as Member of Parliament for South Down. She asked several questions. First, on how long the Government’s assessment will take, the report is very long and detailed, and we want to take the summer to consider it and come back to the debate in the autumn, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can answer questions more fully and make announcements, if appropriate.
On redress, I do not think that today is the day to talk about such matters; today is the day to consider the report and take it all in. As the hon. Lady knows, perhaps better than anyone, the families have been involved in a search for the truth rather than for recompense or redress. However, all those issues need to be examined.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has meetings with the Ballymurphy families. The first port of call should be the historical inquiries team. It is doing good work, going through all the issues of the past and trying to settle them as best it can. We want to avoid other such open-ended, highly costly inquiries. We cannot rule out for ever that there will be no other form of inquiry, but let us allow the Historical Enquiries Team to do its very good work.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the balance that he has achieved in the statement. It is important to recognise not only the truths of the Saville inquiry, but the sacrifice and the grief of the forces, who played such an important part in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. May I suggest that if the inquiry and the report are to be a true marker in helping the healing process and the peace process to move forward, it is terribly important to keep that balance in one’s remarks and perspective about the sacrifice on both sides?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I tried to say in my statement, we should pay tribute—I do so again—to the 250,000 of our fellow countrymen who served in Northern Ireland with great distinction, often in great personal danger. We should pay tribute to all those who were injured, who suffered and who lost their lives. It was incredibly tough and difficult work but necessary not just to maintain the rule of law, but to make possible what we have now: the peace process. It would not have happened without that service. However, we do the forces no service if we try to gloss over the dreadful events set out in the report. I am sure that serving and retired members of the armed forces, as well as people on the Benches behind me or, indeed, in front of me, who served in the armed forces, want the truth about the events to be out there. That is the right thing to do. We honour the British Army—we should put it at the front and centre of our national life and celebrate what it does—but we do it no service if we do not look properly and in detail at things when they go wrong.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the previous Government for having the courage to establish the inquiry in the first place. Will he acknowledge that the inquiry came about only because of very brave campaigning for many years by Irish people, throughout Ireland and over here, who often got much press opprobrium for doing so? I am unclear about what happens next and whether there are to be further investigations or prosecutions of those who committed those acts of murder on the streets of Derry, or whether that will be left to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I realise that it is difficult for the Prime Minister to answer all that today, but does he expect to be able to give us clearer guidance in the debate in the autumn?
The Prime Minister
Let me try to answer the hon. Gentleman as clearly as I can. Prosecutions are a matter for the DPP, and that is right. We cannot have inquiry judges or politicians trying to order prosecutions. Indeed, we must be careful about what we say so that we do not prejudice any potential prosecutions. If it would help, I can repeat the Attorney-General’s clear advice about people not prejudicing their own potential proceedings.
On the campaign, yes, I pay tribute to people who campaigned because the report in some ways justifies itself to those who wanted a clear, truthful and accurate answer. In the report, they have something very clear and accurate that cannot be quibbled with.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Having read the summary report of Saville, the Prime Minister talks about it bringing out the truth, but is not the difficulty that we have the truth on one side but not the truth on the other? Of Martin McGuinness, the report states:
“The question remains as to what Martin McGuinness was doing”
that day. We do not know the truth about what Martin McGuinness and the IRA were doing that day, and the problem is that while we regret every death in Northern Ireland—they are all personal tragedies—we must not lose sight of the need for balance, as other hon. Members have said. I can well remember hearing the two explosions at Narrow Water close to my home in South Down when I was a child, when 18 members of the Parachute Regiment were cut down in cold blood by the Provisional IRA. No one was ever convicted of their murders. If we are to have the truth and a quest for justice, it should apply right across the board, and not just in a small nub.
The Prime Minister
Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I absolutely want us to get to the truth on all of those dreadful murders. As I said, ought former paramilitaries to come forward and give information so that we can clear up murders and so that people can bury their loved ones properly? Yes, they should—absolutely. I can see members of the SDLP nodding at that.
As for Martin McGuinness, he must answer for himself on the evidence he gave to the inquiry. Let me read the relevant paragraph:
“In the end we were left in some doubt as to his movements on the day. Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire.”
The right hon. Gentleman is right that in the end, we want the truth to come out about all the murders, and we want to know all the information, but in respect of the Government’s responsibility for bringing clarity on Bloody Sunday, I think Lord Saville has done us a service. I think people from all parts of Northern Ireland, from all parts of all communities, should welcome the fact that although we might not have clarity on everything that happened, we have clarity on one bad thing that did happen. Let us not make that a reason for not welcoming the clarity of what has been said today.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the clarity with which he has set out, in his words today, the Government view on the publication of the Saville report. Does he agree that as this report is digested and looked at in great detail—difficult though that may be—across all communities in Northern Ireland, what really matters for the future of Northern Ireland and all its people in all its communities, is reconciliation, leaving the past behind and moving to a new and brighter future for Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right that what we really want is reconciliation and working for a shared future, and everyone working across all communities to put the past behind them, but I think we all know that there is still some work to be done on the past, because loved ones remain unburied and murders remain unsolved. That is what the Historical Enquiries Team is there to do. We have to try to do those things at the same time. We must uncover and come to terms with what happened in the past in a way that can allow families to move on, but at the same time we must recognise that Northern Ireland’s shared future will be about economic growth and people working together, whatever tradition they come from.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I am sure the Prime Minister would not like to support a hierarchy of victimhood. On 17 January 1992, eight innocent civilian construction workers at Teebane were murdered by the Provisional IRA, and six others were seriously injured. On 9 April 1991, my cousin Derek was gunned down and his child was left to put his fingers into the holes where the blood was coming out to try to stop his father dying. On 7 February 1976, my two cousins were brutally murdered—one boy, 16, and his sister, 21, on the day she was engaged to be married. Therefore I say this to the Prime Minister: no one has ever been charged for any of those murders, and there have been no inquiries. Countless others, including 211 Royal Ulster Constabulary members, were also murdered. Saville says:
“None”
of the casualties
“was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury”,
but that could be said of Teebane, of Derek, of Robert and of Rachel. How do we get closure, how do we get justice, and how do we get the truth?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman rightly speaks with great power and emotion about how people on all sides in Northern Ireland have suffered, and people in the community that he represents have suffered particularly badly. Some horrific things have happened to people completely unconnected with politics—people who are innocent on every single level—and there is nothing that you can do to explain to someone who lost a loved one in that way that there is any logic, fairness or sense in that loss. The hon. Gentleman asks how we try to achieve closure on such matters. There is no easy way, but we have the Historical Enquiries Team, which goes through case after case, and if it finds the evidence, prosecutions can take place.
I hope that the inquiry report published today will give some closure to those families from Londonderry, but one way for families who have suffered to gain more closure about the past is for terrorists or former terrorists to come forward and give information about those crimes. However, in the end, we have to move forward and we have to accept that dreadful things happened. We do not want to return to those days, and that sometimes means—as he and I know—burying very painful memories about the past so that we can try to build a future.
David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister recall that in the last Stormont elections the single biggest issue by a long way for both sides of the community was water charges and rates? Does not that demonstrate that in many ways the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have already moved on from the troubles that dominated so much of the past? Is it not important that on a day like today, when emotions will understandably run high, we do not lose sight of the fact that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are today concerned about the same issues about which his constituents and my constituents are concerned? That is a good thing and it represents progress.
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the great prizes of the peace process would be for Northern Ireland to experience politics in the same way as the rest of us in the United Kingdom where it is about knocking on doors and talking about the health service, schools and water rates. That is what politics should be about, and there is a chance of that happening. It was great to go to Northern Ireland as Prime Minister without the normal security paraphernalia that previous visits involved, so we are making progress. That is what politics in Northern Ireland should become. The more that happens, the more people will find it unthinkable to go back to the days that came before.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Thirty-eight years is too long for any bereaved family to wait for justice and today’s report is a historic step on the long road to permanent peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s report will be welcomed by the families who have campaigned for so long for justice for the 13 men and boys who died on that day?
The Prime Minister
I hope that the families will welcome the report, and I know that they are gathered in Derry today. I know that they will have been watching our proceedings and will have read the report—they had access to it in advance of its publication. As I have said, nothing that anyone can write or say will bring back those who were killed, but I was very struck by a remark by one of the relatives, quoted in a newspaper this morning, that the truth can help to set you free. If you have been living with something for 38 years without any answers, the answers do not end the grief, but they do give you a chance to learn what happened and therefore bring some closure to those dreadful events.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Following the eloquent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), one wishes that on a day such as today the House had time to hear the names of everybody who died in tragic circumstances in Northern Ireland. It has been said that this report could lead to closure and cleansing, but it is difficult to see how that could happen if this report is used as a springboard for more years of agitation about prosecutions over events that happened 38 years ago. If there are prosecutions, presumably they might include prosecution for the possession of illegal firearms, for example.
Would it not be a true testament to all this if the Prime Minister were to announce today that the HET, which he has mentioned on several occasions, will be given anything like the same level of funding given to this inquiry? The HET has been grossly underfunded compared to this inquiry. The thousands of other victims who demand justice are looking to the HET and other such forums to achieve it. Will he today guarantee that the same emphasis will be given to those victims as has been given to innocent people otherwise?
The Prime Minister
I hope that the report will not be used as a springboard for further inquiries or action. It is supposed to help by delivering the truth and helping to achieve closure—that is what it should be about. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Historical Enquiries Team, the funding of which, as he knows, is about £34 million—much less than the cost of the Saville inquiry. However, I think that everyone accepts that the cost of that inquiry was huge—£100 million was spent on lawyers alone. While acknowledging, as I have done, that it is a full, clear and unequivocal—and, in that respect, a good—report, I am sure that even the former Government would have recognised that lessons needed to be learned about cost control. That is why there was the Inquiries Act 2005 to replace the 1921 arrangements. The issue of the HET is now a devolved issue, and I would add that in opposition we supported the generous funding settlement for the devolved Administration to cover such areas.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Speaking as someone of Northern Irish heritage and representing a constituency with large numbers of the Irish diaspora, I welcome the publication—finally—and clarity of the Saville report. I also thank the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for the moving way in which they addressed the House today. However, although the report has clarity, does the Prime Minister agree that there are times when truth and justice do not necessarily go together?
The Prime Minister
I echo what the hon. Lady said about the Members who have spoken today. On truth and justice going together, without wanting to write a whole essay, it seems to me that a very important part of the justice that people in Northern Ireland seek is having the truth about what happened out in the open. People in the city of Londonderry want that transparency and accountability, and many Democratic Unionist Members want the same for their constituents who have suffered in the same way. Having the truth out about what happened does not bring back relatives and loved-ones, but it at least enables people to understand what happened; and it enables prosecutions to be brought forward, if that is the right thing to do. However, I repeat that it must be for independent prosecuting authorities to take those decisions—we must not get into a situation where politicians nudge the prosecuting authorities in one direction or another in that sort of way.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), I hope that this is the end of a matter that has bedevilled and poisoned Northern Ireland’s politics for so long. However, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity and dismiss completely, from the Dispatch Box, claims by commentators that this inquiry has been a war crimes tribunal, and that the people in the dock have been the British citizens of Northern Ireland? Such a shameful slur on us citizens is intolerable and wrong, and serves only to perpetuate that poison through the veins of the body politic in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, can the Prime Minister be less ambiguous on the matter of future inquiries? He said in his statement that there will be no more costly inquiries, but in answer to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), he said that he cannot rule out all inquiries. Which is it to be? If we cannot rule out all inquiries, there are 211 RUC officers who have been murdered and their killers have never been brought to justice, and there has been no inquiry into those murders. Indeed, more than 3,000 people killed in Northern Ireland have not yet had justice. What is it going to be?
The Prime Minister
First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place in the House. He is right: this is not, as he said, a war crimes tribunal—that would be an appalling thing to say—but an inquiry into what happened. It is an inquiry to get to the truth of the events of that day and the events surrounding it. I meant what I said about no more costly open-minded inquiries. We should not have more open-ended and costly inquiries. I want to support the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. That is the right way to go about things. Of course, we can never say never about any other form of inquiry, however big or small, but my strong intention is to use the Historical Enquiries Team process to get to the bottom of the events of the past. That is the right way to go about things.
I know that this is probably unparliamentary, but may I welcome the other Ian Paisley, who is in the Gallery and whom we remember so fondly sitting in this House? Let me just say this. Everyone has had to take big risks for peace in Northern Ireland, and no more so than the Big Man, as they like to call him. We should all recognise that people in this process have known so many victims of terrorism and so much suffering, and everyone has had to take risks and make movements in order to bring the peace process about, and that will continue to be true. Even today, as we remember the painful memories of the past, we still have to say, “Yes, I remember those things—I don’t forget them for a second—but that doesn’t mean we don’t work together for a shared future for Northern Ireland.”
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I wish particularly to thank the Prime Minister for his frank apology on behalf of the Government and the people of this country. I think that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will accept that that will in some way be a salve for the people in the Bloody Sunday incident and the families of the dead. However, does the Prime Minister accept that unless people can see the names and know the people who carried out the acts, for many of the families there may not be a way of putting the incident behind them, as I found out from my contact with the families of those who were killed in McGurk’s bar? I hope that he will consider that, not in terms of what will happen with the prosecutions or anything else, but because people must know who carried out those acts.
Finally, will the Prime Minister look in the longer term at the role of the intelligence forces in possibly preconditioning people in the armed forces for what happened on Bloody Sunday? Those dark forces are clearly at work in the British Army, and we must not allow them to hide.
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s description of “dark forces” in the armed forces. The report is clear that there was no conspiracy—there was no premeditation, there was no plan, and it is not right to say that there was. He should read the summary of the report and what it says about not just the politicians, but the senior officers who were involved. That is important.
Let me address the hon. Gentleman’s other point. As for the anonymity of the soldiers, that was part of the Saville process and what was agreed in order that the evidence should be given and the truth should be got at. Let me say this about apologies, because I know that some people are—in some ways, I think, rightly—cynical about politicians standing up and apologising for things that happened when they were five years old. I do not do so in any way lightly; it just seems to me that it is clear that what happened was wrong—that what the soldiers did was wrong—and that the Government should take responsibility. The Government of that day are no longer around, so it falls to the Government of this day to make that apology. I do not believe in casting back into history and endlessly doing that, but on this occasion it is absolutely clear that it is the right thing to do.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
As a former soldier who served in Northern Ireland, I found today’s statement a difficult one to listen to. Listening to it was nearly as difficult as watching mass murderers leave prison free or watching some very interesting people come to power in Northern Ireland, but those are all things that we did to facilitate peace and reconciliation. There is a possibility of revenge taking over from justice in this case, so we must ensure that we get the balance right and continue to pursue peace and reconciliation.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. Today’s statement is a difficult statement: it was a difficult statement to make and a difficult statement to listen to, because it contains some uncomfortable truths for people who, like me, are deeply patriotic, love the British Army, love what it stands for, revere what it has done down the ages and have seen what it does in Afghanistan. It is incredibly painful to say what has been said today, but we do not serve the Army if we do not say it.
I mentioned Ian Gow, who was the first MP I ever worked for. I also think of Airey Neave, the first MP to represent me, who was blown up in the precincts of this Palace by Irish terrorists. This is incredibly painful, but my hon. Friend is right: we have to make these leaps in order to make the peace process work. I think that former soldiers will understand that the service they gave in Northern Ireland is worth more now that they can see peace and peaceful progress. In a way, that is what it was all about, difficult as it was. I had Martin McGuinness sitting opposite me at the Cabinet table in No. 10 Downing street; it was difficult, but it was right, because peace is so much better than the alternatives.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the statements that they have made today and, indeed, for the apologies that they have given on behalf of the present Government and of the Opposition? The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that there cannot be costly inquiries of this kind in the future, but does he also agree that there can be no more whitewashes such as Widgery, when inquiries into these incidents take place? Finally, does he agree that it is essential for all of us, as politicians and leaders, in responding to the inquiry, to pursue truth and reconciliation rather than blame and recrimination?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right about the inquiries. Standing back from it all, however, I would say that we can take some pride—as can the former Government—in the fact that, in the end, the British state has gone to huge lengths to get to the truth about what happened on Bloody Sunday, and that an earlier report from an earlier inquiry has effectively been laid aside and replaced by a much fuller and clearer one. Not many states in the world would do that, and I think that we should see it as a sign of strength that we have done it.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
May I also thank the Prime Minister for the painful honesty of his statement? I salute him for that. In respect of the families, he is absolutely right to talk about issues of redress being for another time. However, this is a very raw day for the families. Will he assure the House that he, his Government and the Northern Ireland Office are doing everything possible to provide advice, assistance and access to those friends, families and neighbours who have never forgotten what happened in 1972 but who are today being reminded almost unbearably of it?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It has been a difficult day for the families; it has been a difficult 38 years for them. We thought very carefully about this, and we wanted to build on the arrangements that were put in place by the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) when he was Northern Ireland Secretary to ensure that the families could see the report some hours in advance of its publication today, and in a way in which all their needs would properly be met, because this is an incredibly stressful document for them to read. I pay tribute to the former Northern Ireland Secretary for what he did to put those arrangements in place, and to my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what he has done to build on them, as well as for meeting the families, as he has done, and for offering to meet them again in the future, which he will also do.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and, particularly, his commitment to a day’s debate on the report in the autumn. May I urge him and his Cabinet colleagues, between now and the autumn, to encourage everyone to consider the report, and the issues that it raises for all communities, reflectively and with maturity, so that we can get the benefit of all the efforts that have gone into producing it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can do that. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which is that people will want to study the report in detail. The scale of it is enormous. I have brought in only one of the eight or ten volumes—
The Prime Minister
This is just one of the 10 volumes that have been published today. People will want to take time to read them. In a way, I am sorry that the debate is not until the autumn, but it is probably right to give the Government, the families and others time to assess what is in the report and to come back with sensible proposals, where necessary, on how to deal with them.
Points of Order
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you aware that the report that we have just discussed is not available to Members of the House? Would it not be appropriate, if we are to have a proper debate on the matter, to have full copies of the report distributed to us?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for airing the concern that he and others might feel on this matter. I think that the House is aware of the special conditions that have obtained in relation to this report and of the arrangements made for advance sight under controlled conditions for it to be read. I certainly think it important—I hope this helps the hon. Gentleman—that all Members should have sufficient time to study the report fully before a debate takes place. Even though the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, he has taken the opportunity to raise this point of order in a very timely way in the presence of senior people who, I feel sure, will have taken note of what he has said.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate and only tentatively raise this point of order with you, but it has previously been the practice in the House that where a statement is made, hon. Members wishing to ask questions about it should be present at the beginning and rising throughout that statement, and preference is then usually given to those who are. Has there been any change to existing practice on that?
Mr Speaker
There has been no change, and I would want to say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to travel down that route. If I were an uncharitable and ungenerous fellow and of an unusually suspicious frame of mind, none of which things is true, I would think that the hon. Gentleman was challenging the judgment of the Chair as to whom to call.
Mr Speaker
As I am none of those things, however, and because the hon. Gentleman shakes his head in disavowal, I am happy to accept that that is not so. I look very carefully to see who is trying to contribute, and, as I think the record shows, I try, subject to limitations of time, to accommodate everybody who wishes to do so. It is probably worth saying that this statement ran longer than I would ordinarily allow a statement to run, but I think that colleagues will appreciate that there were very special reasons for doing so today.
Business of the House
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 198 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That, at today’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Sir George Young relating to Backbench Business Committee, Election of Backbench Business Committee, Backbench Business (Amendment of Standing Orders), Westminster Hall (Amendment of Standing Orders), Topical Debates (Amendments of Standing Orders), Pay for Chairs of Select Committees, Backbench Business Committee (Review), September Sittings, Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills), Deferred Divisions (Timing), Select Committees (Membership), Select Committees (Machinery of Government Change) and Sittings of the House not later than 9.30 pm; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
It is important that we facilitate finally reaching decisions on the large number of matters before us in the motions on the Order Paper today. That is the purpose of the motion—to enable us not to defer matters to another day, not to have matters continuing into the future.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are in a position today where we are discussing motions that will effectively exclude Plaid Cymru Members from being a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee and Scottish National party Members from being on the Scottish Affairs Committee. Additionally, there will be no room for those parties’ Back-Bench Members to sit on the Back-Bench business committee. What kind of motions are these? What is the point behind them? I urge the Minister to take them away and think them through, as these motions will not stand the test of time, and the people in Wales and Scotland will be furious when they find out.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Mr Llwyd for his point of order, which is not a point of order. Sufficient amendments have been selected to allow him to make his points.
Mr Heath
Of course, the sooner we can dispose of the business of the House motion, the sooner we can move on to the important debates on the membership of Select Committees.
I should like to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I do not think I have had the opportunity to do so previously. The point I was making is that the motion will enable us to reach decisions on these matters tonight rather than at some time in the future. It seeks to balance the time we need for debate and the time we need to take decisions on some 14 motions on the Order Paper—and, of course, on the amendments to them that Mr Speaker has selected. It would be foolish of us to take up a great deal of time debating the business of the House motion at the expense of the important debates that I know the House is eager to move on to at the first opportunity.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that north-west England is now very well represented in the Chair, which is a very good thing.
I am astonished that the Leader of the House has tabled a programme motion relating to important changes in the business of the House, given that Conservative Members argued against programme motions on many occasions when in opposition. It seems that things change.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend noticed that many of the Members who used to stand up and say how awful such motions were do not appear to be taking part in today’s debate?
Barbara Keeley
That is an interesting observation.
It was right that today we were given a considerable amount of time on the Floor of the House to discuss the statement on the Saville inquiry, but it also important for us now to have adequate time in which to debate changes in the business of the House. We have already heard a point of order indicating the seriousness with which one Member takes the issue.
During business questions last week the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), drew attention to the lack of consultation with the Opposition on the details of the changes before the motions were tabled. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House is aware that it has been customary for the Opposition to be given advance sight of proposals on House business. That happened throughout all the discussions on reform of the House and the Wright Committee, but it is a courtesy that the coalition Government seem now to have abandoned, and I regret that.
We want to move on. A large number of amendments have been tabled to the motions, and it is only right for us to have time to debate them fully.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
During the nine years that I have been in the House, I have listened to Conservative Members objecting to programme motions and guillotines as though they were the wicked invention of a terrible Labour Government. The business of the House motion lists the motions on today’s Order Paper:
“Backbench Business Committee, Election of Backbench Business Committee, Backbench Business (Amendment of Standing Orders),Westminster Hall (Amendment of Standing Orders), Topical Debates (Amendments of Standing Orders), Pay for Chairs of Select Committees, Backbench Business Committee (Review), September Sittings, Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills), Deferred Divisions (Timing), Select Committees (Membership), Select Committees (Machinery of Government Change) and Sittings of the House”.
I shall say more about the motion on September sittings later.
The changes that we are to debate will make a fundamental difference to the way in which the House operates not only in terms of the role of Back Benchers, but in terms of the representation of the minor parties in the House, and we should be given sufficient time in which to discuss these extensive motions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) that it was wrong to tag such important House business on to a major statement about the Saville inquiry—on which, rightly, many Members wished to comment, in an emotive debate that showed the House at its best—and to try to rush it through.
Many of us have recently been on the receiving end of ill-thought-out and ill-informed reform. I am sure that if we had had more time to debate the proposals of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in detail, we would not have signed up to some of the craziness as a result of which all Members in all parts of the House are suffering.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s arguments—I think that I sometimes advanced them from that side of the House myself—but is he suggesting that he would like the House to sit through the night to make the necessary decisions in the early hours of the morning?
Mr Jones
No. As one who can remember all-night sittings, I have to say that they were conducive neither to the health of individual Members nor to the scrutiny of legislation. Let us be honest, however: the coalition has hit the ground running with reviews, commissions and study groups. The programme for the period between now and the summer recess is not exactly packed with legislation that would take up time. Unless all the various reviews, study groups and commissions are to report instantaneously, we should find more time in which to discuss the important changes that we are discussing, which will have an effect on the way in which the House operates.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Notwithstanding the genuine issues raised by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) in a point of order, which have to be discussed, would the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) at least concede that many of the motions on today’s Order Paper merely put into effect what the House has already discussed at length in the previous Parliament, on 4 March and 18 March, in respect of the Wright Committee?
Mr Jones
I am sorry that the hon. Lady wants to disfranchise up to a third of this House, who were not here in the previous Parliament. It is important that those Members be allowed to look at the proposed reforms and have their say on them. I know that, along with her colleagues, she has signed up to the Conservative party. I thought that the Liberals were not in favour of an authoritarian approach. We see the two sides of the Liberal party.
It is important that we have debates. I served for seven and a half years on a Select Committee and am a keen supporter of the scrutiny role that Select Committees play. There are issues about, for example, the size of such Committees and the representation of the minor parties. If this is steamrollered through on a Conservative-Liberal Democrat guillotine, many people in both Scotland and Wales will rightly be annoyed.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the House have made a very quick conversion on a short road to Damascus. In the previous Parliament, when we talked about modernisation, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
“At the moment, there is a nod and a wink between the usual channels, and then a programme motion is plonked before the House, which can take it or leave it—the answer is that we take it, because there is a Government majority in favour of the programme motion. That is not a good enough way of doing business, and it does not do justice to hon. Members.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2006; Vol. 451, c. 335.]
In the new coalition Government and in the new spirit of co-operation, or conversion, that has taken place in the past few weeks, the Parliamentary Secretary has clearly changed his mind on programme motions. It is bad enough to have programme motions, which he used to argue vociferously against in the previous Parliament, for legislation that is being introduced, but to have them for something that affects individual Members of the House is wrong.
Mr Jones
That is not surprising, because the Parliamentary Secretary is a Liberal Democrat and they say one thing in one place and another in another. We are increasingly seeing—we certainly saw it at Justice questions—the push me-pull me coalition, where some Members think that they can say anything in one sphere and say something else in another.
The Leader of the House, who has been in the House a lot longer than I have, clearly was against programme motions and spoke vigorously about them. I looked up his speech to the last Conservative party conference, which took place on 5 October 2009. It was revealing. He needs to explain to the House why tonight he is a great convert to guillotine motions. He said that
“one of Labour’s worst reforms has been to introduce a guillotine motion before a bill gets a second reading, automatically cutting short the time available, before we even know how complex or contentious the issues are or by how much the government will amend them. Harriet is always there, with her knitting needles.”
No doubt he will be getting the knitting out later. I can visualise the Parliamentary Secretary knitting. I find it hard to visualise the Leader of the House doing so.
I am sorry to say that there is more. The Leader of the House went on to say in his speech:
“As a result, we send huge amounts of poor quality legislation through to the Lords. We don’t have time to do what we tell you to do—read the small print.”
I agree with the Leader of the House in that we need to read the small print of the measures we will be deciding on tonight.
Mr Jones
Actually, I agree with programme motions, because any idiot in opposition who argues that Government legislation can somehow be got through without programme motions should be taken out to the nearest lunatic asylum. What we are talking about here, however, is House business, which is a different issue.
I find the situation facing us a little bit galling. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, if we divide on the programme motion he may well join me in the No Lobby, and if so it will not be the first time he has voted against his party because he is an independent soul; and I am sure he will cause havoc to his party on many more occasions in the coming months and years. The important point here is that insufficient time is available to us tonight to examine in detail the complex measures that have been proposed.
It appears that we are being asked to agree to measures that raise questions as to whether we will be able to debate the issues involved again. For instance, motion 10 on the Order Paper, in the name of the Leader of the House, is on September sittings and it states:
“That this House reaffirms the importance of its function of holding the Government to account: and accordingly asks the Government to put to this House specific proposals for sitting periods in September 2010.”
Some of us were Members when the House last had September sittings, and they were a complete disaster in that there was never any business to debate. Frankly, it was just a public relations stunt, which might have made some people feel good—[Interruption.] There is no need to worry, as I am not going to debate September sittings; I shall return to the subject under discussion shortly.
There is a question to be asked, however. If we agree to this motion tonight, will the Government then allow another debate on what is being proposed, because the motion seems to give them carte blanche to impose September sittings? If we agree to the motion tonight, we will need to have a debate on September sittings in Government time. If that is not allowed, we will be denying something that is stated in the motion, in that we will not be reaffirming the importance of the
“function of holding the Government to account”.
Instead, we will in effect tonight be giving the Government a blank cheque to do exactly what they want in September, and that cannot be right.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recall the business statement of, I think, the week before last, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said he would propose the first two weeks in September this year as September sittings for this House, and that he would bring forward a motion to that effect for the House to vote on? Motion 10 does not seem quite to do what was suggested on that occasion.
Mr Jones
No, I think that first of all we need to have a debate on whether we should have September sittings at all, because some of us think they are a complete waste of time. Last time, they descended into farce, in that we had two weeks of basically Opposition day after Opposition day and endless pointless debates.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman does now seem to be going quite wide of the mark, and to be addressing the substantive debate. I therefore ask him to restrict himself to the particular motion under discussion.
Mr Jones
I will do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the important point is whether or not we have a debate and vote in Government time on the Floor of the House, and what the constraints on that will be. Will we be able to propose alternative September dates, because no doubt some new Members and others will have fixed holidays? What will the motion actually mean, therefore?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. That is way outside what we are talking about now. I ask hon. Members to restrict themselves to discussing the motion before the House.
Mr Jones
I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has tried to lead me down a path that I do not want to go down. I would shudder to incur your ire so early on in your time in the Chair. If we are to have a situation where the reforms that have been proposed actually will give Back Benchers and all the Opposition parties the chance to provide scrutiny and will give the power that the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) supported when he was in opposition, we need more than the debate and time that we will have tonight. Therefore, I will oppose this motion. Ample time will be available to us between now and July, unless the plethora of commissions, working groups and others report back and bring back legislation, and it is important that we do not rush through these things tonight and that we can address the serious issues that have clearly been raised by the minor parties in this House tonight.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I was listening with great agreement to the Deputy Leader of the House’s comments about the need for this programme motion in order for us to be able to come to a decision. We do need to come to a decision tonight and we do not need to defer any questions. What troubles me is that the points made by the minority parties are not being addressed today, so it is clear to me that on those issues we will be deferring a decision. It seems absolutely wrong that the minority parties should not have appropriate representation on the Regional Committees. They should also be entitled, as appropriate and in appropriate numbers, to representation on an appropriate number of non-regional Committees. So I hope that we will be able, at some stage, to come to a decision on that too. Irrespective of whether it happens today, we need to give all parties in this House an appropriate degree of fairness.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The point that has just been made is extremely important. It is richly ironic that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was parading in front of us today expressing concern that there is a guillotine on House business. This was, of course, a long-echoed and genuine call made by many Conservative Members in the previous Parliament, and one that I have made in respect of not only House business, but all business for 25 years. So consistency is certainly not behind the hon. Gentleman, but he did make some fine points. I feel strongly that the way of these guillotine motions, which I had hoped would not be in the locker of the coalition in this way, on House business, is wrong. One of the constant irritations in having so many motions grouped together in this way and then having a vote at the end is it results in our having a general debate that has no coherency in the thread of what we are debating. This is a poor business motion because as each of the motions comes to be voted on after 9.30 pm we will have lost where we stood in the arguments—this is a muddle. A typical trick of past judgments was to muddle all this up, so that no theme and no argument is consistent, necessarily, with the business as we vote upon it.
Barbara Keeley
That is part of the point that I was making. A discourtesy was shown to the Opposition because the motion was not shared with us. I would have expected our main debate to be segmented. In the past, if we were considering several House business motions, we would have given an hour on one, and perhaps taken two motions for an hour and half—[Hon. Members: “No.”] That is the case; I remember it happening. If there had been any discussions with us, we could have suggested such an approach.
Mr Shepherd
Of course the hon. Lady could have held discussions. I know that those on the Government Front Bench are open to discussions, and if the hon. Lady had thought that her point was genuine—I accept that it must be, given that it is the point that I am arguing—she could no doubt have spoken to them. She represents a significant party in this country.
Mr Kevan Jones
I would not refer to the hon. Gentleman as a constant irritant; his approach on such matters is obviously consistent. However, if the motion is pressed to a Division, will he vote against it? Will he also consistently speak against programming, as he has done since I have been a Member?
Mr Shepherd
I will vote as I have always voted on these matters. However, given the temper of new Labour’s opposition, as on identity cards, I rather suspect that there will not be a vote, but I am prepared to toss a coin and do my duty.
The Deputy Leader of the House has made all the arguments that I am setting out on previous occasions, so I am surprised that he has acceded to the motion. I am making an important point about the segmentation of debate. The approach proposed in the motion causes confusion. Many Members with a terrific interest in a particular motion that we will consider will be drifting around. The approach makes it easy for people to desert the Chamber to go off across London, and to return only at 9.30 pm to become part of the machine that will roll the proposals through.
The hon. Member for North Durham has a point in that we rarely discuss such matters and the House has a record of constantly using the power of a majority to get this sort of proposal through. He made the good point that about a third of hon. Members—certainly more than 100—are new Members who have never been party to such discussions. The changes that we will consider are important. I support almost all of them, although my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) made a point that must be addressed. If our debate was segmented, his well-made point would command our attention and we would see how wrong it is to exclude properly elected Members of Parliament for distinctive parts of the United Kingdom from having representation on Committees that are of importance to the House, and whose importance is intended to be reinforced by the very measures that we will consider.
This business of the House motion is poor, so if it is pressed to a Division, I shall think carefully about what to do.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) did the House a great service by raising his points, although I am not sure whether he intended to. He set out one of the strongest arguments that I have heard for a Back-Bench business committee. We on the Back Benches—he now joins us there—should elect our own people to decide how our time is carved up. The argument about segmentation made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) is right, but if we had a Back-Bench business committee, we would be able to discuss such considerations sensibly. It is always the Government who impose such rigidity on us, and that is why we are talking about creating that committee.
Mr Jones
That might be the case, but several hon. Members will remember that when my hon. Friend was a Whip, he took quite a hard line on such issues. Given the limited time that is being allocated to the main debate, does he agree that there is a danger that some of the motions will not even be debated?
Mr Allen
It is very unfair of my hon. Friend to raise my history. I am a recovering Whip; I am taking one day at a time. I think that I am doing pretty well so far, and with his encouragement, I will continue to try to do so.
The important and serious point raised by this exchange is one that every Member in this House must confront: there is a limit on time in this House and this Chamber. How do we dispose of that time effectively? We can guillotine. That is a pejorative term for a stop on debate, regardless of what has been debated, and what important issues have not been debated at all.
Programming was introduced in 1997; I was instrumental in that, so perhaps I was not quite as barbaric a Whip as my hon. Friend tried to paint me. We tried to introduce a system whereby we had agreement across the Floor, and with the minority parties, on how we would divide business, so that it could be sensibly debated, and so that no serious issue was ever left undebated. Unfortunately, that fell apart—this may be a useful history lesson for the newer Members—when a number of Opposition Members wanted to extend and play around with the rules of the House. A number of senior Government Members said, “Okay, we’re not going to play. We’re just going back to the old system of imposing a timetable.”
I hope that we will have a sensible debate on timetabling, and if the Government will not allow us to have one, I hope that the Back-Bench business committee will create one at the very first opportunity. It is outrageous that while vast amounts of time are expended on clause 1, line 1, we never reach serious issues in the midst of Report stage. Those are really important matters. In a sense, that is the elephant in the room, and the issue that we need to confront. I hope that, some day soon—at an early day, perhaps, if early-day motions are tidied up—we can have a debate on how we ensure effective timetabling. If the Government do not ensure that, the Back-Bench business committee probably will. I hope that it will. In order to do that, we need to make progress this evening. We have to ensure that the business of the House motion is put to the vote speedily and move on, so that we can get that long-awaited Back-Bench business committee, which was voted for by the House unanimously before the general election.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I should like to make two or three brief points, because I, too, want the business of the House motion to be dealt with quickly.
I served on the Wright Committee with a completely open mind, and I hope that I did an honest job of work. The point was to try to ensure that everybody in the Chamber was properly represented on Committees. I have been a member of one or two Select Committees, and I am a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee. We Plaid Cymru Members are prepared to pull our weight as parliamentarians, but I was alarmed to discover late last night that the likelihood is that if the motion on Select Committee membership is passed unamended, we shall find ourselves not represented on the Welsh Affairs Committee. It is not just that that is offensive; it is more important than that.
The Welsh Affairs Committee plays a central, pivotal role in the legislative process in Wales, because it carries out pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills from the National Assembly for Wales. We are in government in Wales. Are the Government saying that we, as members of a governing party, cannot be represented on the Committee performing that important function? I understand that my friends in the Scottish National party will be excluded in a similar way. It is quite outrageous if that is to happen.
Mr Llwyd
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene and clarify matters? [Interruption.] I shall speak to my colleagues. If motion 13 is not to be moved, I shall move on to the issue of the Back-Bench business committee. When I was on the Wright Committee, I made the point several times that the minority parties must be represented on the Back-Bench business committee as well, because we play a full part in what goes on in this place. I am in my 19th year here, and if I did not pull my weight, I would not still be here.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I know the hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but it is not one that should be made in the debate on the motion before the House, which is a programme motion. Will he please confine himself to the motion before us?
Mr Llwyd
We should have more time to discuss all these issues. One of the evils that we are now confronting is the fact that there has been no discussion. Chairs of Select Committees are not being brought into the discussion, and least of all are the minority parties. I speak for my colleagues and friends in the Scottish National party and, I believe, the Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party as well.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) raised the point that the new Back-Bench business committee will have supernatural powers to unpick decisions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even if time is found in a future debate to discuss the issues that he mentions, we may have a debate in the House that wafts over many subjects, but does not change what has happened?
Mr Llwyd
That is a rather pessimistic view. I thought the purpose of the Wright Committee was to make changes. I believed that when the motions came before the House a few months ago, we were on the way to making proper changes. We fell short—we did not get it all—but at least we moved forward. From the perspective of the minority parties, we are now moving backwards. I shall say no more at this stage, except that if the motions go in the way that they will, it is because of a lack of consultation. There has been no proper discussion, and I am disappointed because I have great respect for the Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr Heath
With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the excellent debate on the business motion.
I shall deal first with the important point made by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), which touched on the point of order from the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). It is essential that we find a way of allowing the minority parties to play their part properly in the Select Committee system. It may be helpful to the House to indicate that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not move motion 13 this evening, because we need to talk further about this.
Unfortunately, the proposition and the amendments that have been tabled are not helpful to the hon. Gentleman in securing what he wants. Indeed, the amendment to which he put his name would have prevented the minority parties from having a member on the Select Committees that he wanted. That shows that it is important that we discuss the matter further, and make sure that we get the right result.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Has the hon. Gentleman any explanation whatsoever for how we got ourselves into such a mess?
Mr Heath
No. I think we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) spoke about our position on programme motions. I say gently to her that there may be a world of difference between a programme motion intended to prevent Members reaching a conclusion or even debating important matters of legislation, and one intended to help the House reach a conclusion on a matter that we have been debating for a very long time. That is a real difference, which she ought to appreciate. I hope that that partially answers the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd).
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made an extremely important point—that if we secure the agreement of the House this afternoon to the changes, never again will it be for a Minister to determine these matters. It will be for the Back-Bench business committee to decide its own business, and that is as it should be.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the point about the lack of consultation. The mess that Government Members have got themselves into this afternoon could have been avoided if there had been more consultation with the Opposition and the minority parties.
Mr Heath
I do not accept that there has not been consultation, that the motions were not tabled at an early stage, or that we have not been talking about this subject for months and months and months, nay, years. I note that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Kevan Jones) says that today is not appropriate for discussing the matter, but I note also that the previous Government never found a day when it was right to take a decision on these essential reforms. Today, we are going to put that right. Today, we are actually going to reach some decisions and open up the business of this House to the control of Back Benchers, where it belongs. I hope that we will now proceed with that.
Question put.
Backbench Business Committee
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 100 / Noes: 331 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 263 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Speaker has published his provisional selection of amendments. Those selected can be debated as part of the joint debate on the motions on the Order Paper. At the end of the debate, and in the light of what has been said, Mr Speaker will decide which of the provisionally selected amendments should be called formally and, if necessary, pressed to a Division.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I beg to move,
That the following new Standing Order be made:—
(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Backbench Business Committee, to determine the backbench business to be taken in the House and in Westminster Hall on days, or parts of days, allotted for backbench business.
(2) The committee shall consist of a chair and seven other Members, of whom four shall be a quorum.
(3) The chair and other members of the committee shall continue as members of the committee for the remainder of the Session in which they are elected unless replaced under the provisions of Standing Order No. (Election of Backbench Business Committee).
(4) The chair and members of the committee shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. (Election of Backbench Business Committee).
(5) No Member who is a Minister of the Crown or parliamentary private secretary or a principal opposition front-bench spokesperson shall be eligible to be the chair or a member of the committee: the Speaker’s decision shall be final on such matters.
(6) The committee shall have power to invite Government officials to attend all or part of any of its meetings.
(7) The committee shall determine the backbench business to be taken—
(a) in the House on any day, or any part of any day, allotted under paragraph (3A) of Standing Order No. 14, and
(b) in Westminster Hall, in accordance with paragraph (3A) of Standing Order No. 10, and shall report its determinations to the House.
(8) At the commencement of any business in the House or in Westminster Hall which has been determined by the committee, a member of the committee shall make a brief statement of no more than five minutes explaining the committee’s reasons for its determination.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss motions 3 to 15 inclusive.
Sir George Young
This is the first time I have spoken with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I welcome you. As the Deputy Leader of the House said in the final stages of the debate that has just ended, we will not be moving motion 13, and I shall explain why not in a moment.
Today we are presenting the House with an opportunity to seize back some of the powers that have been taken away by the Government. We want to restore to Back-Bench Members greater control over the business of the House than they have had for not only a generation, but more than a century. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said earlier, in future, how long debates such as this last and whether they should be segmented into their component parts will be a matter for the House and the Back-Bench business committee, and no one will be more pleased about that than the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House.
In tabling the motions on the Order Paper, we are pressing ahead with the implementation of the Wright Committee’s proposals by setting up the Back-Bench business committee that was endorsed so emphatically by the House in the previous Parliament, and delivering the first of the Government’s commitments on parliamentary reform from the coalition agreement. Although many members of the Wright Committee are no longer in the House, I pay tribute to them, and to those who remain, for a ground-breaking report produced in record time. I similarly commend the work of Parliament First, which is continuing to set the pace on reform.
Although many useful reforms were introduced in the last 13 years—debates in Westminster Hall, better sitting hours and the replacement of Standing Committees with Public Bill Committees—on some occasions the momentum was frustrated by the previous Government. If one looks at the delays and prevarications in setting up the Wright Committee and debating its report—and, indeed, reaching a conclusion on its central recommendation of a Back-Bench committee—they make the case more eloquently than anything else for the Government to relinquish their iron grip on the procedures and agenda of the House. Now we are finally giving the House a chance to debate and vote on that issue.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In the context of the iron grip to which my right hon. Friend refers, is there any reason why we cannot have the committee for an entire Parliament?
Sir George Young
I will come in a moment to the question of whether the committee should be established for one year or five years.
I turn now to Standing Order No. 14. It is just over 107 years—in fact it was on 1 December 1902—since the House first passed a Standing Order governing the precedence of business at different sittings. That was the predecessor of today’s Standing Order No. 14, which provides for Government business to have precedence at every sitting, with certain exceptions. The motions before the House today will change that proposition radically. For the first time in over a century, the House will be given control over significant parts of its own agenda.
The new committee will give Back Benchers the power and time to schedule debates on issues that matter to them and to their constituents, and allow the House to become more responsive to the world outside. Motions 2 to 5 establish the committee, make arrangements for its election by secret ballot of the whole House and set out its powers and role. Much of what we propose is self-explanatory and, in the interests of brevity, I will direct my remarks towards those points that I feel need some further explanation, and on which Members have tabled amendments.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Does the Leader of the House agree that to be effective the Back-Bench committee must include Back Benchers from every part of this House, including the minority parties?
Sir George Young
The Wright Committee is specific about the size of the committee, which it said should have between seven and nine members. We have proposed that it should have eight members. The chair will be elected by the same process as other elected Select Committee Chairs, but with no prior party allocation—so the hon. Gentleman would be free to stand. There will be total freedom to choose a chair from either side of the House. The remaining members will then be elected by another secret ballot, using the same system as for the Deputy Speakers in order to ensure overall party and gender balance. We propose that, in the first instance, the committee should be re-elected every Session.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is surely not possible to reflect the balance in the House with so few members.
Sir George Young
We are implementing the recommendations of the Wright Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member. The Wright Committee said that the committee should have between seven and nine members, and we are proposing that it should have eight members—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may not have been able to persuade other members of the Wright Committee to recommend a larger business committee that would have greater opportunity to include minority parties, but the proposition—
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
May I attempt to help the Leader of the House?
Sir George Young
If the hon. Gentleman will help me, I will of course give way.
Mr Allen
I cannot remember an occasion on which I did anything other than help the Leader of the House. I even attempted to help previous Leaders of the House. I shall try to elaborate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). The Back-Bench committee is the culmination of a process. When it meets and puts its report to the House, that will be the summit of a process that will involve much wider and deeper consultations with all parties and any Back Bencher who wishes to participate. So we do not need to have a vast, all-encompassing committee that would be too bulky to work properly. The members of the Wright Committee felt that that was an appropriate approach and we had no intention of trying to freeze anyone out.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I may give way to him later if I feel that he can elucidate my points as well as he has just elucidated that one.
I turn now to the question of why the committee should be elected every year. The committee will have power to schedule business in the House and Westminster Hall. Given the significance of this, we believe that members of the committee should be accountable to their peers for the decisions they take in scheduling debates. This will not affect the eligibility of the chair and members, who will still be able to offer themselves for re-election. This will be by secret ballot, so there is no question of Members coming under the malign influence of the usual channels in making their choices. As well as providing accountability, it will, I hope, also provide a way of bringing new blood on to the committee from time to time, to keep its thinking fresh.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I concur with the point made by hon. Members from the minority parties, because it is important that the whole House has the opportunity to be represented on the committee. However, motion 3(1)(c) states that
“no fewer than ten”
of the nominators
“shall be members of the candidate’s party”.
That may be an oversight, but perhaps the Leader of the House can explain how it would be possible for Members from the minority parties or independent Members to be nominated. I am sure that the intention is not to exclude them, but that wording might need Mr Speaker to interpret it flexibly when it came to nominations.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing out those restrictions which might preclude the nomination of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for chair of the committee, unless he was minded to join a larger party for a day.
If colleagues believe that the committee should be accountable to the House, they might wish to resist the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North, which would have the committee elected for the whole Parliament.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has tabled an amendment to increase the size of the committee, and I have already dealt with that point. Although I understand the reason behind his amendment, the review may also be able to consider it.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is involved in a historic shift of power to this House that is extremely welcome, but will he consider the balance that needs to be struck between accountability and independence? Members of the Back-Bench business committee may be able to act more courageously and independently if they do not feel under threat of defeat at an election.
Sir George Young
I am not sure that I buy that point. The object of the Back-Bench business committee is to reflect the views of the House in selecting the agenda for discussion. I am not sure that a display of heroic independence—to an extent that led the committee away from the centre of gravity of the House—is what the committee should be about.
Motion 4 defines Back-Bench business and provides for the committee to have 35 days at its disposal in the House and in Westminster Hall. This is one of the central recommendations of the report, but it is important to remember the bigger picture. The Wright Committee noted:
“The single greatest cause of dissatisfaction…with current scheduling of legislative business in the House arises from the handling of the report stage of government bills.”
In implementing one part of the Wright report, it is important not to undermine what another part of the same report says. In addition, the Back-Bench business committee is only half of the picture, and we must not lose sight of the progress that we want to see made in the third year of this Parliament on a House business committee. The creation of a House committee—looking at both the scheduling of Government and Back-Bench time as a single entity—will be better able to balance the time more effectively between debates and scrutiny.
I shall explain briefly how the proposals will work. The committee will have a total of 35 days at its disposal, which equates, as the Wright Committee recommended, to about one day per sitting week. The time will be divided between the House and Westminster Hall. The Liaison Committee will have 20 Thursday sittings in Westminster Hall for debates on Select Committee reports, and all other Thursdays will be for business determined by the Back-Bench business committee. Each of these Thursdays will count as half a day towards the total allocation of 35. In a typical Session of about 35 sitting weeks, therefore, the committee will use seven or eight days of its allocation in Westminster Hall debates, and the remainder—about 27 or 28 days—will be taken in the Chamber. Some of that time may be taken in the form of 90-minute topical debates, under Standing Order No. 24A, which will count as a quarter of a day; and I am happy to say that I see no difficulty in accepting amendment (a) to motion 4, which encapsulates the 27 days in the form I just outlined.
It may also be helpful if I say to the House that it is my intention to invite the Procedure Committee to consider whether the sittings in Westminster Hall could be extended to allow for sittings on Monday afternoons. That would provide the Back-Bench business committee with even more flexibility in how it schedules business. In future, it will also be for the Back-Bench business committee, not the Government, to schedule debates on pre-recess Adjournments, on set-piece debates on defence, Welsh affairs and international women’s day, and on topical debates. These decisions will rest entirely in its hands, and just as I am accountable to the House for Government business, so it will be so accountable for Back-Bench business.
Finally on the Wright Committee recommendations, we propose that the operation of the new system should be reviewed at the beginning of the next Session, in late 2011. I recognise that there is concern about the reasoning behind this review, but the object of the review is to enable the House to move forwards, rather than, as some have said, to wind back. There is absolutely no intention to shut down the Back-Bench committee after the first Session. We are committed to establishing a House business committee, dealing with both Government and Back-Bench business, by the third year of this Parliament, so a review of the Back-Bench business committee any later than that would make no sense. I would therefore urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North not to press his amendment deferring the review until the beginning of the next Parliament, which, as I said, will be after the House business committee has been set up.
I shall now deal briefly in turn with each of the remaining motions on the Order Paper.
Mr Allen
If having a review every year is such a good system, will it be extended to decisions on Select Committees, the occupant of the Chair and perhaps even to Government Ministers? If it is so good to review everybody and put everything up in the air annually, does the Leader of the House intend to extend the practice?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the Wright Committee, which said that its recommendations needed to be implemented in stages. To that extent, the proposals before the House are different from those that govern other Select Committees, which are well established and do not need to be subject to review to make progress. For example, I have just outlined that we have not gone the whole way on the 35 days—they will not all be allocated to the Chamber—but I hope to make progress, and the review that I have outlined will enable the Government and the Back-Bench committee to see what progress has been made and how the momentum might be driven further forward.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My experience in the Leader of the House’s office was that one was not necessarily in charge of one’s destiny in these matters, and that the relationship with Whips tended to be difficult when it came to allowing things to go forward—
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr John Randall)
indicated dissent.
Chris Bryant
I see there is a charming Whip saying the whole world has changed, but I do not think that is true. The Leader of the House is asking the House to take it on trust that at some stage he will come forward with further proposals. That means we have a long way to go.
Sir George Young
At the end of the day, it is of course up to the House to deal with the matter. The Chief Whip is as my brother on these matters. If the hon. Gentleman reads the coalition agreement, he will see a clear commitment to implementing the Wright Committee recommendations in full. That is in the coalition agreement and that is why we want the review—to make further progress towards full implementation.
In February, the previous Parliament resolved that the new Parliament should have an early opportunity to decide on the issue of September sittings—indeed, sufficiently early to be able to decide on them this year. Motion 10 gives effect to that decision.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has made a great argument on the importance of increasing the powers of the House as against the Executive. Does he not consider it ironic, therefore, that he is proposing, in motion 10, that in order to reaffirm
“the importance of its function of holding the Government to account”
the House should ask
“the Government to put to this House specific proposals for sitting periods in September 2010.”?
Should the Back-Bench business committee not have been invited to consider whether September sittings are appropriate, and if so, to come forward with proposals for how they should be organised?
Sir George Young
The Back-Bench committee does not yet exist, and the recommendation of the Wright Committee was that the House should have an early opportunity to decide on it. The House can only do that if we give it the opportunity today. So we are implementing the Wright Committee recommendations in full by giving the House the opportunity to decide whether it wants to sit in September.
The House already sits for longer than almost any other comparative legislature in the democratic world, but it is obvious that the public do not easily understand why MPs are effectively unable to scrutinise the Government over the lengthy summer recesses, some of which have stretched out over a fairly long period of 82 days. I have already announced that, subject to the will of the House tonight, the House will sit for two weeks from 6 September. Unlike in previous September sittings that the House has experimented with, I fully expect there to be substantive business for the House to consider during that period. This is not a cosmetic change, but a declaration of intent.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I just want my right hon. Friend to know that some of us think that this is a huge advance. We want a Parliament that is serious, and able to dictate more of its own agenda and to hold the Government to account. It is remarkable that a Government are keeping their word and offering just that.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his robust support for the propositions before the House.
The Government have set out the dates of the 13 Fridays provided for in Standing Orders to allow consideration of private Members’ Bills. Amendment (a) to motion 11 would provide extra days for the consideration of such Bills in this Session. Private Members who have been successful in this year’s ballot will be advantaged by the fact that the longer Session allows for more time between the Fridays provided for consideration of their Bills on the Floor of the House. That will allow more time for Members to progress their Bills outside the Chamber, in Committee or the other place. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), when we debated this matter in the last Session, that I would not
“commit any future Administration to an increase in the pro rata number”—[Official Report, 6 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 228.]
of private Members’ Fridays in the first Session of this Parliament, and that, I am afraid, is what I will do.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Fridays several times. As one who has been fortunate enough to steer two private Members’ Bills through both Houses, in very difficult circumstances and on Fridays, I would like to know whether we are stuck with Fridays? Are private Members not to be given the same rights as Government spokespersons?
Sir George Young
The Wright report recognised deep dissatisfaction with the current system for private Members’ Bills, which was last considered by the Procedure Committee in 2002-03, so I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s anxiety. My view is that the House might feel it is time, once again, to give this issue proper consideration. The Procedure Committee ought to consider it in one of its first inquiries and look at the procedures and scheduling in the round. That, rather than addressing concerns in a piecemeal way—as provided for in some of the amendments—is the right way to do it.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend referred accurately to our exchange in the last Parliament. During that debate, he was very sympathetic to the argument that, if we have a Session lasting 18 months, there should be more private Members’ time than in a Session lasting for only one year. Surely his argument that private Members will be advantaged by the gap between the Fridays is a bit disingenuous because whether a private Member can get legislation through depends on the time available at Report, which is why we need more private Members’ Fridays.
Sir George Young
My response to my hon. Friend is the one that I have just given. Rather than just look at the question of how many Fridays a private Member’s Bill has, one ought to stand back and look at the whole procedure for private Members’ Bills, and ask whether Friday is the right day, whether the pathway through the House is the right one and whether it is too easy to impede progress. That is the right way to approach private Members’ Bills: through a proper consideration by the Procedure Committee, rather than a one-off amendment this afternoon.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
As a member of the Procedure Committee in 2002, I can say that the most fundamental change to have taken place over this period is the reduction in our hours on Wednesday and Thursday. Perhaps the Procedure Committee could look into extending our hours on Wednesday and Thursday nights, so that private Members’ Bills could be considered then.
Sir George Young
That is a helpful suggestion that I am sure the Procedure Committee would like to take on board.
Sir George Young
No, I am going to move on, as I am conscious that a large number of Members want to speak.
Motion 12 extends the time allowed for voting on deferred Divisions by one hour, by starting the voting time at 11.30 am instead of 12.30 pm. That means that Members can vote before Prime Minister’s questions, which should ease the number of Members trying to vote directly after questions. I hope that Members will support this small but helpful innovation.
There are two motions on the Order Paper relating to Select Committees. On Select Committee sizes, let me explain the reason for originally tabling those motions. The previous Parliament agreed in February to a reduction in the standard size of Select Committees, from 14 to 11, which was introduced for most Committees at the start of this Session. The Wright report expressed concern about the number of places to be filled on Select Committees, which had doubled since 1979. As well as reducing the standard membership to 11, the Government have eased the strain by abolishing the Regional Select Committees, which has reduced the number of places to be filled by 81, and by abolishing the Modernisation Committee.
However, the Wright report recognised that
“Members in individual cases can be added to specific committees to accommodate the legitimate demands of the smaller parties”.
The demography of the House has undergone a major change since then. For the first time since 1974, a general election has returned a House with no overall majority. It was the Government’s intention to allow representation in the Select Committee system for the minority parties, which have an important role to play in holding the Government to account in this new-look Parliament. Our intention was to make swift progress on setting up Select Committees, in line with the six weeks that Wright recommended. However, having looked at the Order Paper, I recognise that a large number of colleagues, many of whom are distinguished Chairs of Select Committees, have concerns about the course of action that we have proposed. In line with this Government’s desire for a more collaborative relationship with the House than a confrontational one, it is not our intention to move that motion at the end of today, but to come back to the House soon, after further consultation with the interested parties.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Let me express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for taking that matter away. I should be delighted to have the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on the Justice Committee, but not if he has to be attended by an army of four other extra members. I hope that the Leader of the House can initiate a discussion to find a more satisfactory way of dealing with that matter.
Sir George Young
It is just such consultation that I want to promote. Let me put it on record that it is our intention to ensure that minority parties continue to have representation on Select Committees, just as they did in the previous Parliament, as is proper in a United Kingdom Parliament.
Sir George Young
I will give way once more, but then I really must make progress.
Mr Arbuthnot
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that in finding a solution to that problem, he will remember that on 22 February he said:
“Having been the Chairman of a Select Committee, I have long thought that the size of membership should be no more than 11 to allow for a more focused discussion and a more manageable meeting.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 49.]
I am delighted that he is showing both good sense and consistency.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One of the members of the small Committee that I chaired was from a minority party, so it is possible to have representation, even on a reduced size, from Members from the smaller parties.
Joan Walley
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of what he has said about the possibility of there not being a vote on the issue today, let me flag up an issue that I have flagged up previously, about the Environmental Audit Committee. Just for the record, it was originally set up along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee, which has 16 members, on account of there being a Finance Minister and shadow Ministers among its members. However, in practice, it has not been easy on some occasions to achieve a quorum on the Environmental Audit Committee from among its 16 members. I would therefore be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give some consideration to the numbers on the Environmental Audit Committee and come back to the House at an appropriate time.
Sir George Young
I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Lady. I should be happy to engage in that discussion and see whether we can reduce the numbers in line with those in the other Select Committees.
If agreed, motion 14 on the Order Paper would change the name of one of the departmental Select Committees from the Children, Schools and Families Committee to the Education Committee. That will align the Committee to the Department that it scrutinises, the name of which changed following the election. Finally, motion 15 would change the sitting times on Tuesday 22 June, so that the House would sit at 11.30 am, instead of the normal start time of 2.30 pm. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that 22 June is Budget day. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the earlier start time will be for the convenience of the whole House.
This Government believe in a strong Parliament—one that is fearless in holding the Executive to account, effective at scrutinising legislation, responsive to the demands of its constituents and relevant to the national interest. I believe that the decisions that the House will make today will be remembered long into the future, as a defining moment of parliamentary reform. I commend the motion to the House.
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Let me welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulate you on your election and say how much we are looking forward to your chairmanship over the years. I also thank the Leader of the House for setting out the Government’s motion on changes to the business of the House.
I want to start by reiterating the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) made, which is that it would have been genuinely helpful if there had been more consultation on the motions before they were placed on the Order Paper. If there are further proposals in future, I hope that we will be able to have such consultation.
The creation of the Back-Bench business committee is another important step in the implementation of the recommendations of the cross-party Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, which was chaired by Tony Wright, as the Leader of the House said. It is also thanks to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), that we are now having this debate, as it was he who agreed to the setting up of that Committee. We have already elected our Select Committee Chairs by secret ballot, which was another step forward, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who were successful in that election.
Chris Bryant
Perhaps we should add Robin Cook to the list of people who should be thanked for the election of Select Committee Chairs, because it was he who brought the idea to the House. Unfortunately the Whips at the time conspired to ensure that it did not happen, but now we have finally got it. However, the one Committee that we have not yet elected a Chair for is the European Scrutiny Committee. Does my right hon. Friend hope that that Committee will be set up soon? Europe is moving on apace, but at the moment we have no means of scrutinising it at all.
Ms Winterton
My hon. Friend is right on both counts. It is important that we pay tribute to Robin Cook for everything that he did to make many of the reforms happen. He is also right that we should set up the European Scrutiny Committee, which performs an extremely important task.
There is no doubt that we need the proposed reforms to give more power to Back Benchers. I am sure that there will be a lively debate on the proposals today—indeed, it has already started. I will be brief, as I know that many Back Benchers want to contribute, but I want to raise a few issues. Obviously it is important that the Back-Bench committee timetables as much non-governmental business as possible. However, I seek an assurance from the Deputy Leader of the House when he replies to this debate that the operation of the Back-Bench business committee will not impact on either the number or the timetabling of Opposition days.
I was pleased that the Leader of the House was able to assure us that there would indeed be Government business to debate during the September sittings.
Mr David Hamilton
Would my right hon. Friend also consider allowing the House to rise in June? The children of Scottish Members are on holiday in July, and that is already causing great difficulty for us.
Ms Winterton
Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to raise that point during the debate tonight.
At the moment, the new Government legislation is not ready to be debated in September, but I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to assure us that we shall not have a repeat of the situation that we have at the moment, in which about three out of every four days are allocated for general debates. The public rightly expect value for money from Parliament, and it is important that we should be able to debate as much Government business as possible, in the form of Second Readings, at that time.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
With regard to value for money, I am really glad that there is to be a programme of work in September. Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be helpful, however, if the austerity Government could tell us the cost of the cancellation of the contracts for the work that normally takes place on this estate during the summer recess, as well as the cost of any penalty clauses that might be invoked in relation to work that cannot be completed because of the September recall? In that way, we could evaluate the costs and benefits of meeting in Birmingham in September, rather than meeting on a building site.
Ms Winterton
I know that my hon. Friend is keen for the House to consider seriously his suggestion of meeting in Birmingham. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to tell us what estimates have been made of the additional cost to the taxpayer of meeting in September, perhaps taking into account my hon. Friend’s point about possible breaks in contracts.
I recall that the last time we debated and voted on September sittings—I think it was in 2006—the current Leader of the House voted against them, but the Deputy Leader of the House voted for them. I hope, therefore, that we shall not have just half a Government sitting here in September, and that we shall get the full double act—the full Monty, if I can put it that way. Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us that assurance when he winds up the debate? The proposal for extra time for voting on deferred Divisions is also a sensible one, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by all Members.
It is important that Back Benchers have as much time as possible to debate these proposals, so I shall leave it at that, but I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to answer some of these points later.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is surprising and novel for me to be called to speak so early in a debate. My speaking note says: “I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for X, who made a powerful and thoughtful speech.” Well, the shadow Leader of the House did just that.
This is an historic moment. These are radical reforms of Parliament and we are lucky to have two outstanding parliamentarians in the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, both of whom believe in the House. If any of my remarks are critical, it is only because I want to improve matters. Some of my concerns revolve around the fact that there is to be a review in a year’s time, and we are not assured that the same Leader of the House and Deputy Leader of the House will still be sitting at the Dispatch Box then.
We are leaving behind a decade in which Parliament and the role of Parliament were diminished year by year. Back Benchers’ powers were reduced each year, there was more centralisation, and debate in Parliament was either extensively curtailed or, in some cases, non-existent. Parts of some Bills went through without even being debated in this House, and we had to rely on the other place. The media were routinely told in advance about new policy before statements were made in the House, and attempts were made by the Whips to crush the thoughts of independent Back Benchers. Parliament was seen as a rubber stamp for whatever the Prime Minister wanted. The number of sitting days was reduced, and the amount of time allowed for private Members’ Bills was savagely cut. People outside Parliament recognised that that was happening, and they wanted not only to see changes to the expenses system but to have a Government—of whatever political persuasion—who could be subject to serious scrutiny and held to account.
Things are changing, however. We have a new Speaker who is determined to protect the role of Parliament and, particularly, the power of Back-Bench MPs. We have only to look at the speed with which questions are dealt with, the restriction on Front-Bench speakers, and the number of urgent questions that are granted to see that improvements have already been made.
We also have a new coalition Government who—this next bit is very important—have abandoned the automatic programming of Bills. I have to say that I do not support the Government’s position on the programming of tonight’s business, because I believe that this debate could have gone through the night. I was not prepared to support the Opposition, however, because I felt that their stance represented pure opportunism, given that they had constantly voted for programme motions in the past.
We have also seen the Government overseeing the election of Deputy Speakers and Select Committee Chairmen. Real progress has already been made—
Mr Bone
The hon. Gentleman says that that was put in place by the previous Government, and that is true. Tonight, however, we are taking a huge leap forward with this raft of radical proposals. The establishment of a business committee, the introduction of September sittings and the speedy announcement of private Members’ Bill days are all signs that the Government have hit the ground running and are really keen on major reforms. But certain things could be improved, and many of the amendments that have been tabled need to be discussed, because they could improve on what are already important, radical proposals.
In the short time available to me, I want to speak to amendment (a), which stands in my name, relating to the number of days allocated to private Members’ Bills. In the Executive’s haste to bring this matter to the House, they have failed to appreciate that the number of days allowed for private Members’ Bills needs to be increased to compensate for the curtailing of private Members’ Bills in the previous Parliamentary Session. The amendment states:
“Line 1, leave out from ‘That’ to end and add—
‘(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
In paragraph (4) the word ‘eighteen’ shall be substituted for the word ‘thirteen’ in line 42; and
(2) Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 10 and 17 September, 15 and 22 October, 12 and 19 November and 3 December 2010 and 21 January, 4 and 11 February, 4 and 18 March, 1 April, 13 May, 10, 17 and 24 June and 1 July 2011.’”
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am tempted to support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, so I wonder whether he could address this particular point. The Leader of the House said that having the same number of days for private Members’ Bills, but extending them over a longer period, would make it easier for those Bills to go through. I did not understand that; I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could explain it.
Mr Bone
I am grateful for that intervention; I have to say that I thought there was a little bit of smoke and mirrors there. We have already heard the comments that the Leader of the House made during the previous debate on this topic, but some other comments—from both the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House—perhaps express a slightly different view.
Chris Bryant
I wholeheartedly support the amendment that the hon. Gentleman has tabled on private Members’ Bills, but I hope he is going to go on to say that the real problem with such Bills is not the number of days we devote to them, but the shenanigans that go on on a Friday morning. Either enough people cannot be got together for a quorum or Bills are talked out, and all the rest of it. Surely what we need is a system that treats Back-Bench Members with respect because they might have very good ideas that they want to get on to the statute book, so we should not be playing these sorts of silly games.
Mr Bone
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but because of the way in which the business has been set out today, I have not touched on that matter, as it might have been ruled out of order. I have sought to amend the motion in the best way I could.
Early attempts to increase the time allotted for private Members’ Bills under the previous Labour Administration sadly fell by the wayside. I very much hope that our new leadership will be taking an altogether happier approach towards something that it is at the heart of ensuring a more balanced and free legislative process. How the leadership responds will to a certain extent be a litmus test of the Government’s commitment to the new type of politics.
This is not the first time that I have proposed such an amendment. The last time I did so was on 6 January 2010, when I and several other hon. Members challenged the Government on why they were cutting the days available for debate on private Members’ Bills from 13, as required by the Standing Orders, to a mere eight. The then Government’s answer was that because the parliamentary Session was a particularly short one, there should be fewer days pro rata for private Members’ Bills. I pointed out then that nowhere did the Standing Orders mention any exemption for unusually short or long parliamentary Sessions, but the Government won the vote that day.
I note that, on that day, the Deputy Leader of the House voted for my amendment. In fact, on 6 January 2010, he stated:
“I agree with an interesting point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made… Perhaps there should be a provision in Standing Orders relating the number of days devoted to private Members’ business to the length of the Session. That would be perfectly logical and is probably a view shared by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. There is logic in saying that there should be more days for a long Session and fewer for a short Session, and I do not think that any of us would disagree with that.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 230.]
I could not have put it better myself.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I fully recognise that the hon. Gentleman wants to move the issue of private Members’ Bills forward, but I am sure that he heard the words of my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) about using the spare time that exists on a Wednesday evening, for example, so that private Members’ business could be dealt with at that stage. Does the hon. Gentleman believe he is in a position to convince his Whips that they should take that issue on board?
Mr Bone
I am grateful for that intervention, which deals with a very important point that I will briefly touch on. There is a problem with the way Fridays are run, but because of how the motions were laid before the House by the Executive, as I said before, I am rather limited in what I can say on that particular point.
Mr Allen
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am sorry that he has had to delve into the internecine conflict between the Conservatives and Liberals who now occupy the Front Bench, so I will try to help him back to the core of the issue. Does he accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, this is not about quantity, but about quality? If we had fewer private Members’ Bills, perhaps even only six, but they were brought to a conclusion, that would be much to the credit of this House. On this more than any other issue, people outside this House look to us. Interest groups, charities and others invest immense amounts of time in the process, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who incredibly managed to get two such Bills through. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could do better by focusing on that area?
Mr Bone
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who shows great interest in these matters. I am aware that I am in danger of getting somewhat out of order here, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would say that the hon. Gentleman is both right and wrong. Yes, we want quality, but we also want the same number of days, so I do not accept that it is an either/or choice. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to speak of an alleged dispute between the two parties on the Front Bench. I have an interesting quote from the Leader of the House, who was most helpful in the January debate. He was quite right to say he could give no commitment, but let us look at what he did say on 6 January 2010:
“It is important that the House jealously protects private Members’ time… Of course, I sympathise with my hon. Friend’s desire to maximise the number of days for private Members’ Bills.”
He went on to say that one of my
“more compelling points was that in a shorter Session, the number of days decreases, but in a longer Session, the number does not increase. The House may want to revert to that in the context of the Wright debate and allocating the future business of the House.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 227.]
Of course, that is exactly what tonight’s debate is about. I do not think that there is a division among the Front Benchers on that. Furthermore, when the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House were in opposition, they were supportive, and I am sure that nothing has changed just because they are now sitting on the Government side and have red boxes. I genuinely mean that.
I would like to explain to new Members that the issue here is about parliamentary Sessions, most of which run from the beginning of November to the next November. Because of the election in May, however, this Session will run from May until November 2011, which makes it particularly long. All my amendment would do is restore the five days for private Members’ Bills that were lost in the last Session to this unusually long Session.
Any member of the public reading this debate in Hansard might wonder why we should spend parliamentary time on such a seemingly arcane matter. However, private Members’ Bills are vital for democracy, and every individual in the country should have been worried about the growing power of the Executive over the last 10 years. Private Members’ Bills are important because they provide one of the few chances for Members of Parliament who are not part of the Executive to initiate, debate and ultimately create legislation, thus giving power and influence to Parliament and Back-Bench Members—outside the direct control of the Government.
There are many issues that Governments fail to recognise as important, but individual Members might see them as a priority. For example, in my view there should be an Act of Parliament requiring children to wear cycle helmets when they are riding on the public highway, but the Government will not necessarily want to bring such legislation forward. Equally, and perhaps more worryingly, because Government and Opposition Front Benchers take the same view on some important issues, they might not get aired in Parliament or be made subject to a substantive motion in the House. An example might be a referendum on our membership of the European Union. That is clearly an important issue, but the two Front-Bench teams can collude so that it never gets debated, whereas a Back-Bench Member could introduce such a Bill. Indeed, some issues might have no hope of ever getting passed into law, but they are so important that they should be discussed and drawn to the public’s attention.
There has been a great deal of upheaval in politics over the past year. We have a coalition Government and Liberal Ministers. Just a few weeks ago such a situation would have been unthinkable, but I have to say that the addition of Liberal Ministers to the Government has been remarkably successful so far as they have seemed to turn themselves into neo-Conservatives.
Let me make a more serious point. We have a remarkably large intake of new Members of Parliament in all parties, who have shown themselves to be very impressive and independent-minded. I have sat here and been amazed at the style and substance of maiden speeches. Surely that proves to everyone that the public are hungry for change, and if we are to deliver that change—which means more than just setting up reviews on transparency, or creating an unworkable expenses system—we must ensure that Back Benchers can hold this Government to account, and that the House is truly a place for debate. As the Speaker said recently, MPs must become citizens of the Chamber, and as I look around the Chamber tonight, I see a very good example of that. I think that there are more Members in the Chamber now than we saw at almost any time in the last Parliament.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Although a number of issues that have been raised tonight are outwith my hon. Friend’s amendment, which relates to private Members’ Bills, I can assure him—as Chairman of the Procedure Committee—that we will examine the points that have been made.
Mr Cash
In the light of what has just been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight)—the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—and in the light of the important points made by my hon. Friend, does my hon. Friend accept that any restriction on the number of days will exert pressure on private Members’ Bills? For example, a Bill may need more time, particularly on Report. In my 26 years in the House, I have so often seen Bills fall at that point because they needed Government time to reach their final stages and that was not possible. My hon. Friend is entirely right to insist that the maximum possible number of days should be available.
Mr Bone
I thank my hon. Friend. I was intending to deal with that issue shortly.
I suggested five additional days to balance the Sessions, but I have not moved the trigger forward. That means that after the eighth private Members’ Friday progress can be made on Bills, which will make it easier for Members taking part in the ballot to ensure that their Bills are heard and passed into law. I thought that there was a bit of smoke and mirrors in the statement by the Leader of the House.
I have not much more to say, but I want to tell the House where I think the five extra days should go. I was going to say something about Wednesdays, but that point has already been dealt with. I propose—this touches on a point made earlier about September sittings—that two of the extra days should be in September, so that the September weeks become even more important. I was not here on the last occasion when the House sat in September, but I understand that there was a feeling that the House was almost “going through the motions”. If two of those Fridays were devoted to private Members’ Bills, the sittings would become even more important. I have also proposed adding one day in October this year, one day in June, and one day in July next year. Sittings on those days would inconvenience no one, and would add dramatically to parliamentary democracy.
Another of the last Government’s objections to more sitting Fridays was that they would somehow prevent Members from carrying out constituency business. As my staff members have reminded me today, constituency business continues throughout the week, and is certainly not restricted to Fridays. Moreover—new Members may not know this—Members do not come to the House on days when private Members’ Bills are debated unless they are interested in those Bills. Normally there is no Whip to ensure that Members attend, so there would be no requirement for a full House.
In proposing the five additional days, I am merely suggesting that the number should be returned to what would be expected in a normal two-year cycle. In a two-year period, we would expect 26 Fridays for private Members’ Bills. Given that there were only eight in the last Session, an additional 18 in the current Session would produce the 26 that would normally have occurred. I am not proposing to increase the number of days for private Members’ Bills; I am proposing to keep it in line with the spirit of Standing Orders and the House.
The public are still clamouring for change in the way in which politics is conducted, and for a check on the power of the Executive. Parliament must be allowed to fulfil its role, and Members of Parliament must be allowed freedom to express their opinions and those of their constituents. How the Government respond to this issue will be an important public indication of their commitment to real openness. I am pleased to have received a pledge from them that this will be a free vote, and that there will be no guidance from the Whips. This is a genuine House matter, and it could lead to a huge leap forward. Tonight, Members will have a chance to express their opinions about private Members’ Bills without any influence.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Can he confirm, in his peroration, that there is no reason why any Back Bencher should vote against his amendment? If a Back Bencher were so to do, they would be voting against the interests of other Back Benchers, and the only people who can possibly lose out if his amendment is carried are members of the Government.
Mr Bone
I agree and disagree with my hon. Friend. I agree with his remark about Back Benchers, but I also believe that it is very much in the interests of the Government and Front Benchers to support my amendment, because that would show that the Executive are open to scrutiny and new ideas.
We are experiencing the dawn of a new age. We have a coalition Government who are charging forward with reform. If I have an opportunity to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall press my amendment to a vote.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not had the opportunity to congratulate you since your election.
Before I deal with the main issue, I want to reflect a little on the time when we all served on the Wright Committee.
Natascha Engel
They were indeed happy days, and very interesting. I am sorry that Tony Wright is not here to take part in the debate. I also want, especially, to say a big thank you to Mark Fisher, who did so much work with Parliament First, and to Evan Harris. He, too, is no longer with us. The Chamber misses him greatly, and I hate to think how he feels about not being in the Chamber any more; indeed, it does not bear thinking about.
I may not have agreed with the conclusions reached by the people whom I have mentioned, but I certainly agreed with much of the analysis of the problem that we had here in Parliament—in the context of scrutiny of the Executive, what we did as Back Benchers, and our control over our time. When I was on the Wright Committee I produced a minority report, but I consistently supported the establishment of a Back-Bench business Committee. I have always thought that, if established in the right way and for the right reasons, it could not just make debates livelier, but give Members much more control and a greater feeling of ownership of debates. Moreover, if we, as Back Benchers, could decide what issue to debate, by definition they would become more topical.
Many members of the Wright Committee are present today. I believe that our motivation was the same: we wanted to make proceedings in Parliament far more open and transparent. The detail is being discussed today, but the principle of the proposal was transparency. What people really objected to was not having an input, and not being able to see what was decided behind closed doors. The purpose of the Wright Committee was to begin re-establishing trust between not just the House, but us—its Members—and those who have elected us to represent and serve them. If we are to do justice to that intention, we must be much more open and transparent about what we do here. Without openness and transparency, people outside cannot have any say about what we do, far less have any influence on what we do.
In supporting the establishment of a Back-Bench committee, I think that we need to guard against a few things. We need to ask ourselves whether we are making a change for change’s sake. In the case of the Back-Bench committee, that is absolutely not the case—it is a necessary, good change. We also need to guard against unforeseen consequences. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) spoke earlier about the membership of Select Committees and said that the proposals on nominating Chairs and members excluded some of the minor parties. Those are all examples of unforeseen consequences. We need to take our time and to be careful to ensure that this is as open, transparent and fair as possible, so that we do not have unforeseen consequences—or even foreseen consequences.
My greatest concern—the thing that we most need to guard against, which I mentioned again and again when I was on the Select Committee and afterwards—is in relation to the transfer of power from one elite to another. The way that the Back-Bench committee is to be formulated and the way that its membership is to be elected means there is a danger of transferring power from the Whips Office, where deals are done behind closed doors and we learn what deal has been done when it is announced here by Front Benchers, to another back room where seven members and the Chair of the Back-Bench committee make the decision. I am not convinced that a member of that committee making an announcement of five minutes or less about its deliberations, or laying a report before the House about those deliberations, is enough. I would much rather see all the proceedings—every meeting—held in public. That is the only way in which we can ensure absolute openness and transparency. Not only that—it will engage people outside in what Back Benchers do in dealing with business here. It will engage them in a way that we have never engaged the public before. That would be a massive leap forward.
All of us would like to see an end to the current system of power and patronage held by the Whips, but we would be naive to think that, just by moving the power away from the Whips and giving it to a small group of Back Benchers, we will get rid of the patronage. We will not. If meetings of the Back-Bench committee are held behind closed doors, there will just be a direct transfer of patronage from the Whips Office to the Back-Bench committee.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about the transfer of power from one Westminster elite to another Westminster elite. Does she therefore not see some merit in the amendment that I have tabled to increase the membership of the committee to 16 to ensure that we get a bigger range of people on it? In that way, there will be a minority party member on it, as well Back-Benchers from all sides of the House.
Natascha Engel
That is something that we should look at. Smaller memberships are not beneficial—we should look at having a much wider membership.
I want to look at the ways in which we can participate better, not just as Members, but by engaging people who have an interest in this matter. Many democracy organisations and members of the public have a deep interest in what we do. The instinct to restrict the size of things is a bad one—I would much rather see it broadened out.
Mr Allen
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s strong, clear and valuable contributions in the Wright Committee. I must, however, perhaps test her on one thing. If we had a business committee that always met in public, would there not be a danger that some of the necessary decisions that have to be taken on a give-and-take, wheeler-dealer basis, where someone does one thing and another person does another and where things are postponed, would go into the undergrowth? We might be no better off. Although I agree that some of the sittings should be in public, other sittings would benefit from being in private.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I say to the hon. Lady that the amendment that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is encouraging her to discuss has not been selected? May I also say that I am letting the debate run, but the interventions are getting a little long now, so could we keep them sharply related to the debate?
Natascha Engel
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amendment was not selected, and that is a great shame. However, it will at least be a marker, and something to campaign on in future. I will discuss that with my hon. Friend later.
On the reason that we seek to establish a Back-Bench business committee, the idea that we should bring things out into the open, and whether those meetings should be in public or in private, the first motion states that the Back-Bench committee
“shall be a select committee”.
On the whole, Select Committees—I think that this is mentioned in “Erskine May”—have public meetings. That is part of the point of Select Committees. They are not just bodies of scrutiny; they are also bodies of public engagement. Although deals will be done, our starting point has to be that we want to be open, transparent and accessible to the public. I take my hon. Friend’s point but our starting point has to be openness.
I want to ask a few specific questions about the way in which the Back-Bench committee will work. I have written them down. I will read them out and pass them over behind the Speaker’s Chair so that the Minister does not have to take copious notes. Given that the Back-Bench business committee is going to be a Select Committee, does that mean that members of the public will not be excluded from the meetings? It is not mentioned either way in the motions. Does it mean that members of the public can attend those meetings, or are they excluded from the meetings of the committee?
The same goes for MPs who are not members of the Back-Bench committee. Will they be allowed to attend even the private meetings of the committee? Will they be there during its deliberations? What will the committee’s party political make-up be? Has there been an arrangement that we do not know about yet on the allocation of the different memberships? If so, what will they be? How many of the seats will be allocated to the smaller parties and to Independents?
Can a chair of another Select Committee stand to be elected either as the chair of the Back-Bench committee or as one of its members? Whatever the answer to that is, I would love to know who made the decision, because the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) was not selected. I will pass those questions over via the back of the Chair. I thank hon. Members for their attention.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
As this is the first time I have spoken while you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your new position. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who made a powerful and convincing case in favour of transparency in relation to the Back-Bench business committee, which I wholeheartedly endorse. I endorse also what she said about three former Members: Tony Wright, Evan Harris and Mark Fisher, who did so much to campaign for the committee and to bring it to fruition.
I am somewhat disappointed that we are discussing this today. The reason for my disappointment is that, in the previous Parliament, on 4 March, the House passed a motion saying that it looked forward to the House being offered the opportunity
“to establish, in time for the start of the next Parliament, a backbench business committee”.
We are several weeks into the new Parliament. Unfortunately, that was not done in time for the start of this Parliament. That was despite assurances from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who said:
“I can assure the House that we will bring forward the Standing Orders, and there will be an opportunity for the House to endorse them before the next election.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 433.]
She also said:
“I am under a duty and a responsibility to ensure that this happens before the next Parliament”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 986.]
Unfortunately, that did not happen, which is a great tragedy, but perhaps it should also serve as a salutary lesson for those of us in this House who are keen to see reforms progress in general—I suspect that that is most of the Members present in the Chamber—that there is not always an easy path to reform. It is therefore important that those of us who are reform-minded make sure we continue to campaign, rather than assume that everything will be fine just because the House has agreed to a motion on something or other.
I am, however, absolutely delighted that the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House have introduced these motions so speedily in the new Parliament, and I think that goes some way towards making amends for the House’s inability to get things done before Dissolution. I am especially pleased to see my hon. Friend in his new post; he was made for it, as he has always been a staunch defender of Parliament, and, indeed, of Back Benchers. I know that all of us who are eager for reform to happen take great comfort from knowing that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House are also very much reform-minded.
In terms of control of the business of the House, the proposals are indeed an historic transfer of power from the Government to Back Benchers. The new Government are passionate about decentralisation, and perhaps that decentralisation is starting at home. My comments will be highly supportive of the Leader and Deputy Leader’s efforts to make progress with reform, but I also want to tease out some issues that could be improved upon still further.
It is clearly excellent that the Back-Bench business committee will now be set up as a result of the motions laid before the House today, but there is still a slight concern about the number of days allocated, as I raised in business questions last week. The Wright report suggested 35 days for Back-Bench business. I understand that the Leader and Deputy Leader’s motivation for splitting the 35 days between this House and Westminster Hall is to enable proper scrutiny of legislation by allocating additional days to the Report stages of Bills. It has been a valid criticism of how Bills have progressed that they have not received proper scrutiny on Report and entire swathes of Bills have been left undiscussed on the Floor of the House. I understand the motivation, therefore, but I very much hope that at least amendment (a) to motion 4, which would insert a reference to 27 days into Standing Order No. 14, will be accepted. That would certainly go some way towards giving reassurance. [Interruption.] I am very pleased that that is the case.
There is another issue I wish to raise, and which I hope my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader will be able to address in his winding-up speech. I appreciate that these measures are about moving towards Wright rather than about the Wright reforms being implemented all in one go, so in respect of this agreement that there will be 27 days of Back-Bench business in the Chamber, will there also be a move towards increasing the number of days from 27 in the future? I hope my hon. Friend will be able to say something positive about that, as that would be very helpful.
Obviously, we are at the very beginning of a new Parliament with a new Government so the legislative programme is heavy, but perhaps as the Parliament continues there might be additional time on the Floor of the House for Back-Bench business. It is also worth looking at the innovative use of time to create room for Back-Bench business. For instance, Tuesday mornings and Wednesday evenings have already been mentioned in reference to private Member business.
The next issue I want to raise in respect of the Back-Bench business committee is to do with permanence. It has been suggested that its members should be re-elected every year, and that there should be a review of its progress and how well it is working in a year’s time. In some ways, that sounds very good. As a democrat, I like elections; and as somebody who likes to learn how we can do things better, a review might sound like a good idea. Taken together, however, these proposals cause a certain amount of concern, and there is a genuine danger that such a review might be used to try to get rid of the Back-Bench business committee, and that if the committee were seen as being too effective, annual elections might be used as an opportunity for the Whips to remove a particularly effective Chair.
One issue of pertinence in that regard is who will vote for the committee members. If the Government in effect have a block vote of more than 100 MPs, it will become very difficult for any candidate who is not supported by the Government to become the Chair of the committee. We recently elected the Chairs of Select Committees and the convention as originally recommended by the Procedure Committee was that Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries of the relevant Department would not vote in the election of the departmental Select Committee Chair. Although this was not made explicit in the Wright report, I wonder whether it may be possible for the Government to take the same self-denying ordinance in voting for members of the Back-Bench business committee and its Chair. It does not seem unreasonable for the Back-Bench business committee, which represents Back Benchers, to be elected by Back Benchers. If that can be done, it might assuage some of the concerns about annual elections.
I also want to press my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader about the same issue on which I intervened on the Leader of the House: motion 3(1)(c). That is not only about the Chair of the Back-Bench business committee; it is about any candidate to become a member of the Committee. It clearly states that of the candidate’s nominations,
“no fewer than ten shall be members of the candidate’s party”.
That would exclude members of the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the other minority parties and, indeed, independent candidates.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend as she has, I think, spotted a defect in the proposals, but I have to say that it is not a defect in the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and myself; it is, rather, a defect in the proposals from the Wright Committee, which, unfortunately, was not spotted in the motion drafted by the Committee. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the unfortunate effects of that, and I think we may want to look at it again. I hope, however, that she will accept our defence, which is that here we have religiously stuck to the recommendation and, indeed, the draft motion of the Wright Committee.
Jo Swinson
I greatly appreciate that intervention from my hon. Friend, and that reassurance. I am sure that this can be solved. The Speaker certainly seems to be given a lot of power in these elections as almost a de facto returning officer, so I suspect a solution can be found.
I shall now turn to the issue of private Members’ Bills and the two amendments in my name: amendment (d) to motion 2 and amendment (b) to motion 4. I want to share with the House why I think this is an important issue, although I also appreciate that some new Members are present and I do not wish to scare them or put them off. I just want to describe my experience of the horror of Friday sittings.
One of the first Friday sittings I attended dealt with a private Member’s Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). His Bill was on climate change and I was keen to support it, and many of my constituents were also keen for me to do so. The second Bill on the Order Paper was about the management of energy in buildings, and we thought that because there would be five hours of business in the Chamber, we might be able to get one Second Reading finished and have another one well under way. We had not counted, however, on a two-hour speech from one Member, and then another Member standing up to try to make a speech of a similar length.
In order to get a private Member’s Bill passed, there need to be 100 MPs for the closure vote, so there were dozens of MPs in the Chamber who had come along to support this private Member’s Bill. Indeed, some of them wanted to make some comments on the record, perhaps through an intervention, but had we all done that, the Bill would have been talked out, and all because one or two Members were being, frankly, quite rude about using up time to talk it out.
I remember sitting in the Chamber and thinking that if I wanted the Bill to go through, I would just have to be quiet and say nothing—and not even say that I supported the Bill. I accepted that but, along with many other new Members at the time, I left the Chamber appalled and furious that this was the way we did our business, and I thought that it absolutely had to change.
I also remember that when I spoke to Members who had been in the House for longer than me, it was clear that they had got used to things as they said, “Well, that’s the way it is.” I thought to myself that I never wanted to accept that such a ridiculous way of working is the way it had to be. I suspect that current new MPs would be equally appalled if that happened, but I am sure that there will be an opportunity to make a change, because there needs to be one.
Mark Lazarowicz
I well remember the progress of that particular private Member’s Bill, and I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support on that occasion. She will also recall that that Bill came back not only on one Friday, but that it had to come back a total of three Fridays precisely because some Members chose to use their right to speak at length. Does she agree that that underlines that until such time as there is a more fundamental reform of procedure for private Member’s Bills, we do not want to lose any days for private Member’s Bill discussion on Friday, which is why we support the amendment of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)?
Jo Swinson
I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman, and I think that the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough is sensible. As he outlined, it just deals with the fair allocation of the equivalent of 13 days per year—or 26 days over two years. My amendments would also allow the Back-Bench business committee to programme the remaining stages of private Members’ Bills, so that once a Bill had received its Second Reading a timetabling motion could be tabled and, thus, the ability of Members to talk out the Bill would be removed at that stage. Although I think that that ability should be gone from the beginning of proceedings on such Bills, and that people who wish to defeat them should do so on the merits of the argument and through a vote of this House, my amendments would be a good step in the right direction. Making a change on the ability to programme private Members’ Bills would be helpful.
I was pleased to hear the Chair of the Procedure Committee say that his Committee will examine this issue more widely, because I accept that my amendment and that of the hon. Member for Wellingborough deal only with small parts of the problem and that the issue of private Members’ Bills and Friday sittings needs to be examined much more in the round and more generally. I urge that such a report should be conducted quickly and acted on soon, so that we do not lose the momentum for reform. We do not want there to be an excuse to kick these issues into the long grass. I hope that if we do get some good recommendations, the demoralising and soul-destroying experience that many MPs have sat through on frustrating Fridays will be a thing of the past.
I was pleased to hear that motion 13 is not going to be moved this evening, because that motion is one of the best arguments against leaving things to the usual channels that I have come across in a long time. Expanding three Select Committees to 16 members was a very inelegant solution, and the fact that it was cooked up by the Whips without even consulting the Chairs of those Committees beggars belief. The Wright report made it clear that 11 should be the maximum number of members on a Select Committee, but we face a genuine problem in ensuring that the minority parties are represented.
There are different ways of solving that difficulty. In the previous Parliament, when the Liberal Democrats were in opposition, we made sure that some of the places that we were allocated went to the minority parties. I know that that certainly happened from time to time on Committees such as those discussing statutory instruments. One solution might, thus, be for Labour to be similarly generous. Another solution might be to add one minority party representative to these Committees, rather than for them to have an additional four members also. If necessary, in order to maintain the Government-Opposition balance, perhaps we could add a Government Member, but the arguments for adding five extra people to Select Committees do not stand up. I am pleased that the Government have listened on this issue and are going away to find a better solution—it is important that a solution is found.
In conclusion, when we examine the issues in the spirit of the Wright report we also need not to forget that further reform is required; radical and exciting as today’s reforms are, this process should not stop here. The “Involving the public” section of the Wright report contained a lot of good ideas, but much further work needed to be done, particularly on petitioning and the online engagement of this place. Good ideas come from, and reformers can be found in, all parts of this House, and on issues such as these we have been practising the new politics for a very long time in our cross-party working. With the Leader and the Deputy Leader both being so positively disposed to reform, I, for one, am optimistic that most of the motions on today’s Order Paper will constitute an important next step in the vital reform of this House.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as other Members have rightly done. First, I wish to reflect on how pleasing it is that we are discussing not whether the procedures of this House should be reformed, but how that should be done. We have taken the debate forward from the Wright report, and it is pleasing that the House has chosen to do so.
I wish to concentrate particularly on one aspect that has not been mentioned very much, if at all, and about which the Wright Committee had some discussions; feelings were equally divided about September sittings, but clearly the Government have chosen that we should resume the practice of having them, at least for this parliamentary year. We held an experiment about seven or eight years ago, when we came back in two successive Septembers, without having particularly glorious results. On one occasion, we managed two votes in a fortnight, and we encountered certain problems with the hunt supporters getting into the Chamber because of security issues resulting from the amount of construction work being carried out on the site while the House was sitting.
It is often made out that supporters of September sittings are reformers and those who do not support them have their heads in the sand and are looking backwards. In fact, there can be a genuine division of view on how Members would most productively spend their time in September—whether that is in the House or in their constituencies—and on how much time this Parliament sits for compared with other Parliaments around the world. However, I wish to raise a more boring, domestic issue relating to the functioning of this place.
I wish to discuss maintenance and the building’s being fit for the purpose of enabling meetings to take place at which the Government are held to account. It is no use passing motions that say that the job of this House is to hold the Government to account—of course, that is its job—if we do not have a building in which that can properly be done. Having lots of construction work going on around us as we carry out that function was not a happy experience when we tried it before.
When we consider Government Bills, Government legislation or private Members’ Bills, we try to inform ourselves of all the issues involved. However, this House has a terrible habit when we discuss this sort of domestic issue. Things seem like a good idea, we vote one way or the other—if we are allowed a vote on such matters—and then we pass on without any proper advice and information having been made available to Members.
When I saw the September sittings motion on the Order Paper, I was pleased that it referred to this parliamentary year only. I took the opportunity to go to the chief executive’s office, where Philippa Helme is always very helpful, and I then spoke to John Borley, who is the Officer in Parliament responsible for all our building and maintenance works, along with Mel Barlex. I meet them regularly because I was a member of the Finance and Services Committee in the previous Parliament and a member of the Administration Estimate Audit Committee too. The meetings were not always terribly exciting, but they were crucial.
John Borley told me that they had rightly anticipated that the House might want to sit in September. With a new Government perhaps coming in they could not guarantee that, but the thought was that it could happen and that at a beginning of a Parliament, because business might not happen quite so early, there would be a need for legislation to come through then. As Officers, they rightly predicted that September sittings might be held and they set their maintenance programmes up accordingly. Therefore, there will not be any dramatic effect this year in terms of altering what was already in train and what was already being planned.
My concern is that on these sorts of issues we do not bother to take account of the people who have to do the detailed professional work in building up maintenance programmes that keep this building functioning, not merely as a place of work, but as one of the most important historic buildings in this country—that is important too. We have seen the work that has been done on the cast-iron roofs, which has been crucial in keeping the fabric of this building going.
I know that in the past there has been an awful lot of criticism of how we have managed the parliamentary estate. We encountered major difficulties with Portcullis House and problems with the visitor reception area, and they created major problems for the budget of Parliament. We have run over budget and over time on the visitor reception area, which was an unhappy experience from which we have had to learn the lessons. With the appointment of these new Officers to manage our parliamentary estate, I have seen a much higher degree of professionalism, and a much greater willingness to plan ahead, to look at the options, difficulties and costs involved, and to see how we can develop a forward programme for budgeting, which is crucial. I have also seen the work of the Administration Estimate Audit Committee and how internal auditors now work with it to try to ensure that we have best practice in procurement.
Officers will say two things to us. First, they will say that they need a degree of stability and of advance warning, because it is not sufficient simply to try to pick, on a whim, when Parliament will sit on a year-by-year basis. We need significant and serious forward planning so that Parliament looks, as quickly as possible, at the longer-term arrangements over a number of years and gives the Officers advice about when it will be sitting and when time will be free to carry out essential maintenance work. The second thing that those people will say is that if, having examined the situation, Parliament is bent on having simply a five-week recess year on year, it will not be possible to keep the building in which we work—and that we treasure and have grow to love over the years—in a proper state of repair.
If hon. Members have any doubts about the situation, they should take a trip down to the underground passages under the House to look at the state of the mechanical, engineering and electrical systems, because they are very bad indeed. We know that a massive work programme will be needed. That will need planning, organising and funding, and it must be cost-effective. If we can shut down the building for only five weeks at a time, it will probably not be possible to carry out the programme.
It is not sufficient that I report these concerns to hon. Members second hand, so it is important that proper reports are made to the Commission and the Finance and Services Committee, with the audit Committee having a look, so that there can be a report to the whole House to inform Members’ decisions. We should try to plan our sittings for a whole Parliament, which would also help Members to organise their activities outside the House. If we could achieve all that, we could better approach these issues that are crucial to our working, even though they are quite dry and sometimes turgid matters that might not excite people politically. It is also important that we send a message to the public that if we have to make cuts to the services that they receive—we might disagree about where the cuts should fall and how great they should be—we will take proper account of the money that we have for the House and ensure that we spend it cost-effectively. Unless we carry out proper planning, however, that simply will not happen.
It is absolutely right that, if the Government wish, we should come back in September on the basis of the motion. However, if we are looking at future sittings, planning will be required, as will proper advice from the Officers who run the Palace of Westminster for us. All Members should have access to that advice before voting on such sittings in the future.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate you on your election.
The fact that motion 13 has been pulled makes my life a lot easier, and my main intention now is put down a marker to ensure that we do not get something that is almost as bad next week.
Before I talk about the size of Select Committees, however, I should say that we are fortunate to have such an enlightened Leader of the House—I am glad that he has just returned to the Chamber. If it were not for him, in his role as shadow Leader of the House and now as Leader of the House, we would not have made anything like as much progress on a business committee or the strengthening of Select Committees. A less enlightened Leader of the House would have found a reason to kick much of this into the long grass for the convenience of his ministerial colleagues, not least his blood brother, the Chief Whip—I cannot help wondering whether that is a sort a Jacob-Esau relationship.
I am, of course, very glad that the Leader of the House has pulled the motion that would have increased the membership of three Committees from 11 to 16, the ostensive reason for which was that we needed to provide better representation on Select Committees for minority parties. I strongly agree that those parties need appropriate representation, but the argument that an increase in the size of Select Committees is required to achieve that is completely bogus.
The minority parties must have adequate representation on the territorial Committees—I am appalled that they do not—and they should have three Chairs on the other Committees. [Hon. Members: “Seats, not Chairs.”] I am sorry—we would have Chairs sprouting everywhere. Those parties should have at least three members of the other Committees, and those places should come out of the Opposition quota. I know that this might be controversial among Labour Members but, by my reckoning, the Labour quota provides for 4.39 people on each Committee. When that number is rounded down, as it should be, it implies four members, although we will all have noticed that the Labour party is getting five members per Committee. The obvious solution is to provide the three Committees cited in motion 13 with a combined quota for the Opposition parties. There are 23 Members representing “others”, so their quota comes out as 0.39. When 4.39 is added to 0.39, the result is a figure of just under five, so that is reasonable justification for adopting such an approach.
Pete Wishart
I thank the new Chair of the Treasury Committee for giving way. I totally agree with his powerful point that the minority parties should get three Chairs. However, does he agree that we should be over-representing minority parties to ensure that their voices are adequately heard? Such parties get more seats than they are entitled to in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, so surely we should follow that example here.
Mr Tyrie
As someone who comes from a large party, I will not rush to argue that the smaller parties should be over-represented, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I can make common cause that they should be adequately represented. I advise him not to over-egg things but to take the support that he is getting at the moment to justify increasing their membership—not Chairs—by three across the 24 Committees, albeit without wrecking those Committees by increasing their membership by too much.
The increase in the membership of some Committees to 16 must have been proposed by people who were determined to ensure that those Committees could not operate effectively. Anyone who has worked on a large Select Committee will know that that can be difficult. It is not easy to achieve cross-party consensus on such a Committee, and its members come together less and are less cohesive. I have served on the Treasury Committee twice. The first time was when it was a Committee of 11 and it worked very well. When I returned to the Committee a little under a couple of years ago, however, its membership had increased to 14, which led to several difficulties. Many of its members were unable to participate in the questioning of particular witnesses, and several hearings during which everyone wanted to participate were extremely long. It was impossible to hold a short hearing, and although we got by, it was with difficulty. That was why the Liaison Committee proposed limiting the membership of Select Committees to 11 and why the Wright Committee suggested limiting the membership to nine, although it said that it could live with 11. It was also why the Leader of the House concluded much the same, as we heard from the quotation that was cited earlier.
I note that the coalition agreement of 20 May states:
“We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full”.
If that means anything, it must be that a Select Committee’s membership will be nine or 11, but not more. I am sure that I speak for all the newly elected Select Committee Chairs when I say that we should stick with nine or 11, but not more, and I hope that Front Benchers are listening.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are the last of the new Deputy Speakers whom I am able to congratulate on your election and elevation. It is always good to leave the best till last—if that does not get me called early in debates, I do not know what will.
Is it not unfortunate that we have heard no maiden speeches today? I am really missing the kaleidoscope tours of UK constituencies that we have become used to hearing each day, but perhaps a new Member can run to the Chamber and get in.
Although I am probably alone in this, I cannot share the enthusiasm for the Back-Bench business committee and the great reforming zeal of the Wright proposals. There are serious problems for the minority parties. We have already recognised some of the problems that have inadvertently been created, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House and his deputy for trying to address our concerns and for speedily withdrawing motion 13. I, like all my colleagues, am grateful to both of them for ensuring that the question of whether minority party Members can be considered for Select Committees will be addressed.
The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) —unfortunately, she is no longer in the Chamber—made a pertinent point about the quota for securing a place on the Back-Bench committee. We just cannot do it. We have only six Members. Plaid Cymru has only three. The Democratic Unionist party is the largest of the minority parties, and the fourth largest party in the House, but it cannot do it. I am glad that there is a genuine attempt to address the matter. Hopefully, we can make sure that we are in the race to get a place if we can increase membership of the Committee to a reasonable size that will allow us the opportunity to participate in the House.
This has not been a good few weeks for the minority parties; things have been really poor. I do not know what is going on. I came back to the House expecting that we would secure more input into the House and better representation, but since coming back we have experienced further entrenched exclusion. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister got to his feet in the House and announced a new Committee on reform of the House of Lords. There was no consultation with the minority parties—or much consultation with the rest of the parties. We found that there would be no place for minority parties on that Committee. There is now a Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Constitutional reform is what our parties are about; it is our reason for being here, but there is no place on the Committee for the minority parties.
There is still no resolution on the issue of the Liaison Committee. Fair enough, we do not have a Chair of a Select Committee, but the Liaison Committee is a Select Committee of the House, and arithmetically, we are entitled to a place on it. That was conceded by the former Government, and I hope that it is conceded by those on the Government Front Bench. We need that opportunity to question the Prime Minister on a monthly basis. That opportunity should not be confined to the three main parties of the House. The minority parties have to get on the Liaison Committee.
Then there is the biggest disappointment of all: the Wright proposals. We are to be excluded for all the “good” reasons. We are excluded in the name of democratic reform and making the House accountable—things that we agree with. There will be no place for us on the Back-Bench business committee. It is just not possible that there will be, given that it has eight members; it is not going to happen. I just wish that the Wrightinistas, as I call them—those pioneers of reform, those champions making sure that this place is much more accountable, out there fighting the good fight against the dark forces of the Government Whips—would concede that, and acknowledge that on a Committee of eight, there is absolutely no way of that happening.
Mr Allen
When the hon. Gentleman got to his feet, he had a great deal of sympathy from all parts of the House, but now that he is flailing around, blaming absolutely everybody, he is in danger of losing his friends as rapidly as he made them on this issue. The Wright Committee proposed that on every Committee of the House there be one reserve place for the Speaker to allocate—a Speaker’s pick—so that justice could be done. That place might be for the minority parties or, indeed, those with minority opinions within larger parties. That proposal was not brought forward, but that was the doing of not the Wrightinistas, or whatever pejorative term the hon. Gentleman wishes to make up, but the Government and the Front Benchers of the day.
Pete Wishart
I thought “the Wrightinistas” was quite an endearing term. If the hon. Gentleman takes offence, I am sorry about it, but he is being a tad sensitive. He is possibly right that what was suggested by Wright was probably okay, but there have been inadvertent mistakes, such as the 10-Member quota; that was a result of the Wright Committee, and there is a problem with that. Thank goodness that the Front Benchers have decided that they will address that. The hon. Gentleman cannot in all honesty say that the Wright proposals were bulletproof, soundproof and correct in every instance, because they were proven to be wrong in that instance.
The hon. Gentleman is right, but it seems to us that we are caught in the middle of a fight between the Wrightinistas—I apologise to him—and the Whips. It is a fight between the two big boys in the playground. They are battering lumps out of each other, trying to gain ascendency, and all of a sudden they see the little boy sitting eating his piece in the bike shed. That is us—the minority parties. It is we on whom they have decided to take out all their frustrations, we who are losing places on Committees, and we who are being excluded in this House. It just is not right or fair. We should be on Select Committees, and we should be making sure that we make our contribution.
Where we have served on Select Committees, we have made a constructive, useful contribution, as has been recognised by several Members from across the House tonight. We have played a part on cross-party Committees of the House, trying to ensure positive reforms, particularly with regard to expenses. My hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) served on the Wright Committee, and pointed out some of the inconsistencies and difficulties that emerged. Unfortunately, he was not listened to on those issues.
Mr Cash
I feel strongly that the case that the hon. Gentleman puts is entirely justified. It is incredibly important to remember that according to “Erskine May”, the first duty of the Speaker is to protect minorities. That is absolutely fundamental. There is no reason whatever that I can think of why any Member from a minority party, be they an independent, or a member of Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party, or the Democratic Unionist party, should ever be excluded from full participation in the House.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is right. As I said to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), minorities should be respected. If anything, we should be over-represented to ensure that differing voices are heard. What is wrong with hearing diverse voices in this House? What are people afraid of? Of course we should be on Select Committees and should be part of them. The Government should be listening to this, because our party is not just a minority party, but the party of government in Scotland. Our party is in a minority Government in Scotland, and the party of my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd is in a coalition Government in Wales. Why do the Government not want to hear those diverse voices in all the workings of this House?
I will tell the House how bad things were. It was not just that we did not have a place on the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee; when we turned up at the House for our customary little chit-chat with the usual channels, we were told that there were no places for us on any Select Committees, because that is what the Wright proposals suggested. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) gets on his high horse, let me say that that was how the usual channels interpreted the Wright proposals—no places for us on Select Committees, and effective exclusion from scrutiny of Government Departments. That is what was offered to us.
Pete Wishart
I will, because the hon. Gentleman made such a good intervention last time.
Mr Cash
Sometimes, it is from minorities that major parties develop. That has to do with what is called freedom of speech. When people hear the minority view, they have the opportunity to get that view across to the public. To be excluded is a complete derogation from freedom of speech.
Pete Wishart
I am pleased that I gave way again to the hon. Gentleman, because he is spot on. That is what the issue is about. I hope that the House hears tonight that we have a meaningful contribution to make. My modest little amendment (e) is an attempt to address the issue. It aims to make sure that the minority voice is heard, as the hon. Gentleman says. It is about saying, “Let’s see what we can do to get the smaller parties of the House involved and on board.”
As I have said, there is no way that we would ever be considered for a place on the Back-Bench business committee; that is just not going to happen, and I hope that that will be conceded. We do not yet know how its members will be determined. I know that it will be through an election, but there will be some sort of mechanism or procedure to ensure that Labour, Liberal and Conservative Members are on it. That is 100% certain; I bet you any money, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there will be one Member from each of those three parties on the Committee. It is also almost entirely certain—again, I bet you any money—that there will be no Member from the minority parties on it. We have to change that; we have to ensure that that does not come to pass.
My amendment suggests that we increase the number of members of the Back-Bench business committee from eight to 16. Why 16, you ask, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is because that always seems to be the magic number at which we start to come into play.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; he may want to intervene. Sixteen is always the number at which there is at least a chance that we will be included. That is why I seek in my amendment to increase the number to 16.
It is good to get more Members involved. What is wrong with that? Why restrict the number to eight? I know that the Committee might get more business done that way, but the term “Backbench business committee” suggests that it should be full of Back Benchers. There should be lots of them involved, from Labour, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the DUP and the SNP. What is wrong with having a reasonable-sized Back-Bench business committee? Restricting membership to eight just does not make sense and I cannot see the reason for it. Surely there are loads of Back Benchers who want to be part of what could be a very exciting and promising Committee.
Mark Lazarowicz
The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case, but does he not accept that a smaller Committee is important to allow business to be conducted efficaciously? As he knows, although there were a large number of Green and Scottish Socialist party Members in the previous Scottish Parliament, they were not members of the Business Committee by right. It is difficult to strike a balance, but I accept that the hon. Gentleman has some powerful arguments.
Pete Wishart
I am not so sure about the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. There is a good case to be made for the business committee to be larger and more open, to ensure that we hear a different chorus of voices on the Back-Bench agenda. I see nothing wrong with a bigger committee, and I hope the House supports us this evening.
We went along with Wright—as I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd served on the Committee—but we believed it was a good thing to do. As the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) mentioned in her speech, it seemed to be starting from the right premise, taking on the powers of the Whips, making the House more accountable, and making sure that there is a proper Back-Bench voice in the House. We accepted that that was an agenda that needed to be addressed and we went along with it in the hope that we would get some sort of change.
We even accepted in good faith the assurances given by Wright Committee members. I remember intervening, as did several of my hon. Friends, on Tony Wright when these matters were being debated, and he would say, “Don’t worry, it will be okay. Don’t worry about the fact that it is not specifically mentioned that you will get a place on Select Committees. It will be all right.” It was not all right. It has been a disaster. We were given no places at all on Select Committees initially. We have no place on the Back-Bench business committee as it is currently to be constituted. That must be addressed.
We accepted those assurances in good faith, and I ask those who are the fervent champions of the reforms to get out there and make sure that the issue is addressed. They should approach it with the same enthusiasm as those on the Government Front Bench seem to be approaching it, and make sure that it is resolved. We must fix it. It is not good enough that we are excluded. We have to find a mechanism to ensure that minority parties will have a place on the Back-Bench business committee. It is important that the committee is seen to be legitimate, and that it is representative of the House as a whole. As the hon. Lady said, there is no point substituting one Westminster elite for another.
As the committee is currently to be constituted, it will not be representative. The only way that we can change that and make the committee truly representative, to give everybody an opportunity to serve on it, the only way that we will get minority party members on it, is to increase the size. I hope the House supports us this evening in increasing the committee’s size. I cannot see any other solution to ensure that we have a place. If any Member has any other suggestions, I may consider not pressing my amendment to a Division, but as far as I can see, I have no alternative but to ask the House to determine the matter on a vote this evening. We need those numbers to ensure that we have a Back-Bench business committee that is representative of the whole House.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election to that important post.
I begin with the constitutional background to the role of Members of Parliament in general and Ministers in particular. I have said on several occasions over the past few years that one of the reasons why the importance of the House in the public mind has been so reduced is Members’ lack of involvement and attendance in the Chamber, which has not been the case during this debate or since the new Parliament commenced. The use of procedural devices such as the guillotine, and the manner in which the previous Government handled Government business over the past 10 years, have been a disgrace. Indifference on the part of Members of Parliament has increased to an extent that I did not think was possible when I entered the House 26 years ago.
However—I say this as one who has a certain scepticism about coalitions—I congratulate the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader on the speed with which they tabled the motion. I say that with feeling, because if used properly, it has the capacity to improve greatly the involvement of the House and the quality of debates.
People often imagine that we do next to nothing in the Chamber. That is partly because of the failure of parliamentary reporting of what goes on in the House. For those who do not have the parliamentary channel, for example, and who are reliant on the few minutes that are given to “Today in Parliament”, it is difficult to have any concept of what goes on here. That is partly due to the fact that Back Benchers have been largely excluded from the briefing processes now available to the media and the machinery that is available to enable Members to be heard by the public outside.
I say that with feeling as one who, if not a serial rebel, has consistently held strong views, if I may say so—for example, on a debate that took place in Westminster Hall this morning on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Union. I would be extremely surprised if that makes the “Today” programme, “Yesterday in Parliament” or “Today in Parliament”.
The way in which the House is perceived is profoundly affected by the sucking away of the deliberations of the House from the Chamber at a time when the whole of Europe is imploding, the German Government is in a state of implosion, the Greeks are in a state of implosion, unemployment is rampant and the impact of immigration is flowing all over the continent. It is astonishing that, as heard from the outside, matters of such importance cannot get the coverage in Parliament that they deserve.
We heard yet again from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Wright Committee proposals will be accepted in full. If I have slightly misunderstood, I am happy to be corrected, but I see that paragraph 177 states:
“On some business there needs to be an explicit partnership between Ministerial and backbench scheduling: this includes the length of debates on the Budget and Queen’s Speech, the timing of Estimates Days and the handling of secondary legislation and European documents on the floor.”
One of the things that I noted was excluded from the province of the Back-Bench committee is European documents. If the Wright Committee proposals are to be accepted in full, I cannot see why European documents should be excluded.
I say that for good reason. I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 26 years. I doubt whether many other Members have served on a Select Committee for anything like that length of time. As I said in the debate this morning in Westminster Hall, not once, at any time in those 26 years, has any vote ever been passed on the Floor of the House or in a European Committee to overturn a decision in the Council of Ministers, bar one that I can recall, and that was immediately overturned on the Floor of the House. In other words, the very fact that we are committed to the European Communities Act 1972 has meant that we are not allowed to pass any legislation inconsistent with it. So I am puzzled as to why that partnership arrangement, which was described in paragraph 177, has not been included, as far I can judge, in the proposals before us.
However, on the extent of the committee’s terms, I again have considerable sympathy with those who have tabled amendments to the proposals to restrict the period for which the chairman and committee members can be elected. Indeed, that is why I have put my name to a variety of them. Despite the responses of the Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the House to interventions, I cannot understand the real reason behind restricting the chairman and members to election merely for one year—until, perhaps, we consider the review of the committee’s operational arrangements. Despite the sophistry that I heard from the Deputy Leader of the House and, indeed, the Leader of the House regarding the length of time, I am still extremely unhappy about the idea that the chairmanship, the membership and the length of time for which the committee is to be given a full opportunity to be seen to operate should be temporary arrangements. The operational restriction to one Session is a very suspicious business.
I know my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House quite well; I have watched him over many years and I would not normally regard him with suspicion. He is very shrewd and intelligent, and he tells me that he can justify a review after one year, but I am not impressed by the answers that we have received so far. The measure just does not stand up, and I know that many other hon. Members feel the same way. It has—to use another expression—a bit of a pong about it.
Some people might use the Back-Bench business committee to advance causes, and that, after all, is what Back Benchers are supposed to do. Members do not just react to Government business; they might want to promote ideas. I do not agree with all the arguments that the minority parties have presented on, for example, aspects of devolution, and there are many arguments on the Barnett formula and all sorts of things where we might have serious differences, but they and Back Benchers generally have a right to be heard.
As I have said on previous occasions, what we need more than anything else in this House is Back Benchers with backbone. During my 26 years in the House, I have been involved in quite a few controversies and I have seen some serious ones develop. Ultimately some Members have seen them through and some have not. I hope that the Back-Bench business committee will not just represent a vague opportunity for people to have their say but that they will actually do something, and that the committee will therefore be used effectively in relation to causes as well as Government business.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I would never suggest that the hon. Gentleman lacked backbone, and I doubt whether any Member would. Some might accuse him of being a little rigid, but lacking backbone—never. I agree very strongly that if someone were elected for one Session only, they might be put under pressure by all manner of people, and that would deny the committee an independently minded chairman who would fight for the rights of Back Benchers. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point.
Mr Cash
By way of tribute to the hon. Gentleman, I note how strongly he feels about matters relating to Africa, for example, as I do. We have shared many arguments and discussions on that subject. The question is whether, in that sphere or any other, a person’s cause might be affected via a behind-the-curtain attempt by the Whips to undermine them and thereby get them away. I remember the late Gwyneth Dunwoody, who was removed from the Transport Committee, and Sir Nicholas Winterton, who was removed from the Health Committee. Let us not for a minute imagine that the machinations of the Whips’ magical powers would not get to work if somebody stepped into the arena and started to make use of the Back-Bench business committee.
However, I really do pay tribute to the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House and, indeed, the coalition Government, because they have stepped into the arena and, with those proposals, allowed Parliament to become an arena where risk is part of Government business. That is a tremendous step in the right direction, but it will be fulfilled only if the ingredients are allowed to develop and evolve. The termination point on the committee’s chairmanship, membership and operation puts square brackets around it, as if the Government are saying, “We think it’s a good idea and we do want to give power back to Parliament, but we don’t want to give them too much, because we want to put them on notice, and when we put them on notice the Whips get to work.”
I say that with respect, because I see my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and Whip sitting on the Front Bench. We get on well together and have got on in the past at a personal level. The issue is nothing to do with personalities; it is to do with the operation of the Whips Office, which is driven by what the Prime Minister and No. 10 want, and by senior Ministers and Secretaries of State. That involves the interplay of personalities and principles, and questions of compromise and how business is to be put through. Do people who really believe in something, even within their own party, have the opportunity to express their views and to carry them through? That is why European business is constantly before the House, but on the basis of “take note”, rather than a vote. In other words, one is allowed to discuss such business and one is tolerated but, even having been right over an extended period—for which one must not of course try to make any claims—one is not allowed to vote on it or to obtain other people’s support, because that is beyond the pale.
Natascha Engel
Before the hon. Gentleman is diverted too far down the European track, may I bring him back to his point about the Back-Bench business committee and the influence of the Whips? Does he not fear, as I do sometimes, that the committee could itself become a powerful elite of senior Back Benchers? How can we best guard against that?
Mr Cash
We cannot guard against it at all. The Government have all the powers that they need, and Parliament is sovereign and omnipotent—we are told so. Ministers are appointed by the Crown, and they have the patronage, the salaries, the prestige and the opportunities to direct business and make policy. They are chosen—they are appointed. They are certainly elected to the House, and that is where they get their true reason for existence, because they are elected by the people. As I have said so many times, it is not our Parliament, it is the Parliament of the people, so a Minister is no more important in the sense of election, and that is one of the great virtues of our parliamentary system. It is not like the American system, in which there is an elected President and the separation of powers.
Members of Parliament and members of the Government who are Members of Parliament are in this House; there is no distinction between them in respect of their position as Members of Parliament. If Back Benchers are part of the aggregate of those who are elected, they must be given the opportunity to participate in the making of policy—that is why I mentioned the word “causes”—and in taking decisions relevant to Back Benchers’ business. That is why I applaud these proposals so much.
I understand why ministerial business is excluded in this context, because such business is the job of the Government. We are often told that this Parliament is one of parliamentary government. I do not like that phrase; our Parliament is a Parliament made up of people who are elected, some of whom are appointed by the Crown and some of whom are given the opportunity, through the leaderships of their respective parties and the Whip system, to have the right to promote their ideas and policies and turn them into legislation.
I simply say to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) that it is wrong to imagine that too much power can be vested in Back Benchers. Back Benchers are no more or less important than Ministers in terms of their parliamentary engagement and involvement. Ministers are, of course, important, because they have the right to make decisions on behalf of the Crown. However, their importance does not extend beyond that in parliamentary terms.
My feeling about all the proposals is that they are a thoroughly good step in the right direction. Given the sense of uncertainty resulting from their being confined to merely one Session, I hope that their tentative nature will not be sustained. I shall be voting for the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), whom I greatly respect. I am delighted that he is now Chair of the Constitutional Reform and Political Committee—or is it the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee? Whichever way round the name is, I am absolutely certain that he will do a very good job. Other than that, I am delighted that the Leader of the House and Deputy Leader of the House have agreed not to press the last of the proposed motions.
Finally, I turn to Westminster Hall. I have heard from the Leader of the House about the number of days allocated to the Floor of the House as compared with Westminster Hall; it is a mathematical thing, I suppose. If only seven days are to be involved, perhaps the issue will not matter quite as much. However, I am concerned about one aspect. There are no votes in Westminster Hall, but there are on the Floor of the House. I leave the House with this thought. I would not want days on which there should be votes on big issues to end up, by some means that I cannot envisage at the moment, being Westminster Hall days on which there is no vote. Westminster Hall is a good innovation, but some matters need votes on the Floor of the House and we do not want Westminster Hall to be used as some kind of cul de sac into which matters arising from Back-Bench business could be driven when a vote would be inconvenient.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on being the first woman elected to the senior position of the deputy speakership. It is symptomatic of what is a really exciting time. I envy the new Members, whether they are from Beckenham, Sherwood or Brighton, Pavilion. They are entering the House of Commons at a fantastically exciting time. There has, of course, been a change of Government and there is a sense of new politics, if only because of the need for a coalition. Furthermore, we are seeing a number of very significant and serious changes in Parliament. The election of our Deputy Speakers has been one.
Last week, for the first time ever, there was an election by secret ballot of all the Chairs of Select Committees. This week, individual parties will be selecting the Members whom they wish to put on to those Select Committees. In 1832 and subsequently, our forebears kicked off with the liberating effect of the ballot box. The ability of Members to make decisions as their consciences see fit is having remarkable impacts on the House of Commons.
I hope that this burst of activity will not be confined to the first week or so; I hope that we sustain it. In particular, I hope that the new Members take it for granted that the House is their base. I do not mean that they should think that we have done well in the first week and that we can relax—instead, they should say, “No, we’ve got to go further.” Whichever party they come from, I hope that they will seize this opportunity to move things forward. The past week or so has been exciting for Members, and I use the word advisedly.
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent election to the chairmanship of his important Select Committee. Does he agree that the momentum for change, of which we are clearly a part this evening, must be maintained and that an important part of maintaining it is the setting of a clear timetable, to go on from what we are doing this evening towards the establishment of a House business committee? That would ensure not only that the Government had the opportunity to get their business on to the statute book, but that we as a House had an opportunity properly to scrutinise it as it went through our processes.
Mr Allen
Left to their own devices, Governments and Front Benchers never become more radical. They start with ideas and radicalism, and it is the role of Back Benchers not only to hold them to account but to stimulate them into maintaining their reforming and radical instincts. I do not want this to develop into too much of a love-in, but if we—certainly those on the Opposition Benches—had been able to select a Leader of the House from the Conservative party, it would have been the current Leader of the House. Similarly, had we been able to select someone from the Liberal Democrats to be the Deputy Leader of the House, it would have been the current incumbent.
We have a conjunction of remarkable, coincidental fortune that means that we can take the issue on now—and we should. Now is not the time to be timid. We have free votes on the motions from 9.30 onwards. I hope that Members—above all, new Members—will seize that opportunity. Obviously, I want them to vote with me in my Lobby tonight, but if they do not, they must please vote according to what they feel is important rather than because they are trying to figure out the main chance of getting on to the slippery slope and getting that red box one day. They will be respected more if they use this unique opportunity to take our Parliament further than if they merely look around to see which Whip—unofficially, of course—is twitching in the leftwards or rightwards direction.
There is a fundamental balance—imbalance, perhaps—between Parliament and the Executive. It has been evident throughout my political life, but newcomers particularly may be able to taste a rebalancing through which, for once, the parliamentary midget is growing and taking on the 800-pound gorilla of the Executive. I hope that the midget has been working out over the past couple of weeks and building muscles, although it should not challenge or frighten the Executive. Governments should welcome a strong Parliament. A strong Parliament is not a threat; it helps to produce better law and better value for money. It makes life better for our citizens. It complements and is a partner to Government, occasionally drawing attention to their defects. Are not we stronger when our defects are remedied? Perhaps I am too optimistic, but in my political lifetime, the moment has come when there is a sense that we can push on and have a Parliament worthy of the name.
Although the subject of business is the Back-Bench business committee, the occasion is far more important than the particular internal committee that we will set up. It is important because, in the past two or three years, not one Member who is not new has not felt pressure and shame about the way in which we have been portrayed—occasionally deservedly so. Now we have a chance to show that Members of Parliament are not as they are described day after day in The Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mail, but that they bring genuine value to our political life, that they are an asset to our politics and can make a real contribution through Select Committees, on the Floor of the House, through questioning or in Westminster Hall. We need to have the passion returned to our Chamber so that we can do such work. If we can do that openly and honestly, we will win people over. They will say that we are once again worthy of being the British people’s forum—not a nice little ancient backdrop to Government statements or simply leather Benches and ornate wood work, but fundamental to what people want to discuss in our democracy.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election as the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Hearing him speak makes me think that he is well chosen. He is giving voice to incredibly welcome ideas. As he says, it is an exciting time to be elected to this Parliament—there is a wind of change, and a real step forward in, for example, the election of Chairs and members of Select Committees. I welcome the amendments that would increase the House’s transparency and democracy—that is incredibly important—but hope that we can go further. I take comfort from his comments that we are the beginning, not the end of a process. I would like us to learn from other legislatures, too. That might be a radical suggestion, but there are many legislatures that do an interesting job from which we could learn. I therefore warmly commend that the hon. Gentleman consider other things, too.
Mr Allen
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and welcome her to the House. I am sure that she will contribute not only to environmental politics but to a broader sphere, particularly in the ideas that she has expressed about our democracy. We should have humility and learn from not only other nations but from the operation of the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where—dare I say it?—one can sometimes find a more real Parliament than we have here. Sometimes, one can find genuine debate and exchange, which has been so rare here. However, we can recapture it if we work at it.
The Back-Bench business committee will help us create such a Parliament here. It will help us revert to being the people’s forum. Rather than the debates in which we are all interested happening on the “Today” programme or “Newsnight”, those interactions and key conversations could take place here. When I woke up the other morning, I listened to “Today”, which was considering three main issues: a possible increase in student fees; a report about a possible 3 million unemployed; and a report about abused children and whether there is a way in which to sort out the problem much earlier in their lives. Those are three genuinely important issues, which we all want to discuss. I came to the House of Commons and the whole day went by without a single one of those items, which had been headline news that morning, being debated or discussed. It should be the other way round. If we recreate our Parliament, we will raise the issues and the media will follow behind us. We should all aspire to that sort of House of Commons. The Back-Bench business committee is a small flame that can move outwards and ensure that we do that job particularly well.
Like so many hon. Members, I must say that the Government have done a remarkable thing in introducing the proposals today. Within weeks of a general election, they have moved on the subject. I must be blunt—I do not wish to offend any Labour colleagues, but we dragged our feet. The Wright Committee made every possible effort to conclude the matter. We tried to engage with the most senior people in our party to show that we cared about that and if only for purely political and electoral reasons, demonstrate that we cared about the future of our political system. The new coalition Government deserve credit for, and should be congratulated on, tabling the proposals. That needs to be put on record.
Some 95% of the proposals are what the Wright Committee suggested, but there is a bit of slippage with some. That has happened because, when one gets into government, certain practicalities get in the way. There is a desire to ensure that other priorities are fulfilled, as well as the dead-weight, often of senior civil service bureaucracy, and sometimes of our colleagues in the various Whips Offices, who feel that things must stay exactly as they are because that is how they control things. It reflects the old joke, “How many MPs does it take to change a light bulb?” “Change? Change?!” Sometimes we get a sense from our colleagues of better safe than sorry. If there is a little risk-taking in the Chamber, I hope that Labour Members will make allowance for it and grant it leeway, particularly if people fall flat on their face when it happens. We need to advance our system so that our democracy can prosper.
In the past week or so, we have witnessed the beginning of a sensible conversation. In trying to create a Back-Bench business committee, the interaction between all the different people who are involved—certainly the minority parties, which have been sorely tested by the failure of the usual channels to give them a fair crack of the whip—has been important. Back Benchers have been involved, and Select Committee Chairs, within days of being elected, have shown their muscle and their desire to protect the rights of the House. Front Benchers have also played a positive role—I include my new Front-Bench colleague as well as other Front Benchers in that. I hope that, rather than proposals having to be withdrawn on the Floor of the House—for which I am grateful; I will deal with that later—the dialogue can take place a little more formally and a little earlier in future. If we can make progress with the conversation, perhaps we can address such matters by consensus rather than by withdrawing stuff on the Floor of the House. It is a difficult task, especially so for two new incumbents, but I wish them well in trying to get the conversation under way.
Let me deal with the amendments. Many are in my name and the names of 32 other Back-Bench colleagues. It could have been 232, and I claim no credit for the amendments, but my name appears first, so I am happy to speak about them. But first, I should like to give a little more perspective on what can be very dry, dusty stuff—the Back-Bench business committee, what is a quorum and how we elect the Chair—and say what the proposed committee is really about. The committee is about taking the chunk of business that all of us accept is the province, property and interest of Back-Benchers, pulling it together and taking a Back-Bench view on how best to use it. Rather than the Leader of the House deciding that we should have a general debate next week on something or other, there would be a process by which all of us, collectively, could decide what that debate should be about. We could decide that tomorrow’s debate will be about something that happened overnight or a Government announcement on widows’ pensions. The debate could be on the terrible murders in the north-west, how we respond to the BP crisis or whatever, but it should be on a cause that we feel, collectively, should be debated, and that our constituents would like us to debate. They might even want to turn the television on to see us talking about that subject live, rather than see a digest later with John Humphrys, Jeremy Paxman or somebody else.
However, we need to be clear that when we talk about a Back-Bench business committee—the Wright Committee made this absolutely plain—it is not a case of, “Tomorrow, the world!” Some distinguished colleagues on that Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who spoke about this tonight, made it very clear that the Government have a right to discuss their business. It is part of the House’s role to examine seriously legislation that the Government introduce, but at the end of the day, providing they have a majority, they should carry their business. We are talking about that bit of business that is non-legislative but which involves the keen interest of Members of Parliament.
Too often, we see Members of Parliament rattling through lists of things that they regard as important. If I may say, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are one of the greatest exponents of the early-day motion. With the proposed committee, we are almost turning the early-day motion into a motion that we can genuinely discuss at an early day. If there is so much interest in debating a particular topic, it could be on the agenda the next day or the day after that, even if we would need a further mechanism for that. The Government need not fear that their agenda will be taken over, but Parliament could for the first time say, “Our agenda, at least in part, is our possession,” and it will be able to decide, on a small number of days, what we will discuss. That is very important—it is one of the key things that the committee will do.
There is a group of amendments on the Order Paper that addresses a questionable aspect of the Government’s proposals; namely, the one-year termination. The Government proposal is that members of the Back-Bench business committee will be members for only one year, which is unlike tenures for other parliamentary offices and institutions, which last five years. Chairs and members of Select Committees—there can barely be a Member in the Chamber tonight who is not standing for membership of a Select Committee—will be in office for five years if they are successful, which gives a sense of continuity, and members and Chairs have the ability to learn a subject, and to grow as a Committee with their colleagues.
Let us imagine if we were on Select Committees for only one year. We would already be counting down the time, thinking, “There might be something else on the way. I might want to swap over. Somebody doesn’t like me and I don’t get on with so-and-so, and the chair is a bit of a pain.” The Chair, of course, would be saying, “I’ve only got a year, but I really want to do something long term with this Select Committee, so let’s pick up whatever is in the papers.”
There is a more insidious problem. If Members are really good as Back Benchers, they might just cross Front Benchers—the wrong people. They might be so good—they might expose something, or scrutinise and call their those on their Front Bench to account—that instead of being lauded and given plaudits, they go on a list. I have been in the Whips office, and I have had my lists. The vow of silence forbids me from going further on that, but I can tell the House that we were not lining up to give accolades to the Gwyneth Dunwoodys—precisely the opposite. Let us imagine the whispering campaigns that would take place if Select Committee members or Chairs had a one-year tenure, and the undermining that could go on. People would say, “You can get rid of that Chairman and have a go yourself,” or, “You’re not on a Select Committee. So-and-so is not very good. She or he always creates a problem, so why don’t you think about putting your name forward.”
I know that colleagues on the Government Bench—the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House—do not intend that. However, much as I wish them longevity, they might not be here this time next year, and some less benign people might be. The latter might propose a review not to strengthen the Back-Bench business committee, but to undermine it. If someone took that chance, we would all greatly regret it, because we have a historic opportunity. This is the one and only time in my long political lifetime in this place that such an opportunity has come to pass. The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have been incredibly flexible today, so I ask them, before the winding-up speeches, whether they wish to continue to oppose the amendments in my name and those of my colleagues by which we seek to provide the same sort of lifespan and stability that we expect as members or Chairs of Select Committees, so that this new bud can be protected should there be some stormy weather a year out that we cannot predict now.
Perhaps I am being too suspicious—it may be those years in the Whips Office and my brain is still a bit frazzled. We could pass the matter over if there were just one proposal to undermine the committee—the proposal to review the committee after one year. However, there is a second occasion when the committee might be undermined, because its members must be elected after a year. There is even a third occasion, because the Chair must be elected after a year. With those three proposals we are, as Sherlock Holmes said, starting to develop a pattern. With great respect, I say to Government Front Benchers that there is still a moment when they might ask themselves whether they want to perpetuate that pattern, or whether they could generously reconsider the matter and either allow the amendments to be made, or decide not to promote their proposals.
There is another, rather demeaning aspect, which I was surprised to see included. When the Back-Bench business committee meets, it will have arguments. I intervened, regretfully, on this point in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire, who otherwise made some very good points. If the meetings are wholly in public, decision-making will be driven underground, because sometimes it is dirty and messy. It can be a compromise, with promises made, so that something else is done in six months’ time when people will not know that it is the result of a deal already done. I would like as much of that as possible to take place openly in the business committee, but not necessarily in the full glare of publicity. If decision-making is totally open, people will behave differently, and we may end up with worse decisions.
Sir Peter Soulsby
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a distinction with which we are already familiar in other Select Committees? Evidence is heard in public, but the deliberations take place in private, for the good reason that that enables us to work collaboratively and informally, and we come to better conclusions as a result.
Mr Allen
We are trying to move to a better place, but we cannot do it all in one go. There is not only a Back-Bench business committee now, but other business committees—the usual channels, which get together in a cabal, and, semi-formally, the Committee of Selection. Let us not pretend that we do not already have a business committee. We do, and it is underground and tolerates no dissent. Furthermore, it allows no Back-Bench influence. We need to strike a balance—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire was trying to do that. She was not laying out one particular view—neither am I—but we need to try to ensure that the Back-Bench business committee works effectively. If it does not, we cannot get to stage 2, which is a fully fledged business committee, with Back Benchers, Whips and others represented.
Natascha Engel
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election as Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. In my speech, I was trying to say that our starting point should be that the Back-Bench business committee should be open and transparent to avoid what he—of all the members of the Wright Committee—most disliked, which is the murkiness of the usual channels. If that is our starting point, we can examine the question of meeting in private or public, but we need to establish how Back Benchers will make representations to the committee to have an influence on the business of the House. Those discussions should be held in public. The decisions that are then taken can be taken in private.
Mr Allen
With good will—and the only reason we are here tonight is because there is good will, and the Government have provided time on the Floor of the House tonight for this debate—we can overcome all those problems and ensure that the Back-Bench business committee works. The prize of making the committee responsible and practical is not just topical and sensible debates in the House, but the next stage, which will mean a fully fledged business committee. If new members can help to achieve that, over the next two to three years, it will be an irreversible step in parliamentary history.
I said that this process might be a little demeaning. When a subject for debate is chosen by the Government—as it always is at present—we do not say that someone must come and explain to us why it has been chosen. We do not, although perhaps we should, get the Chief Whip to the Dispatch Box to explain—
Mr Allen
Yes, but the Leader of the House explains the business on a Thursday. He does not have to get up before every debate and give a little reason or excuse for its subject matter. I accept that I am finding fault in a generally excellent set of proposals, but if I do not do so now, we could be stuck with the proposal that a member of the Back-Bench business committee must give an explanation before every topical debate, general debate and Adjournment debate. That is an onerous task. The Wright Committee expressed the view that every member of the Back-Bench business committee should play a part, so would the most junior member have to stand at the Dispatch Box to give a little trailer of what is to come? Would they be cross-examined by Members about why the committee did not pick an important constituency issue or why it neglected another vital issue? How silly! This is a piece of trivia that we should reject tonight. I hope that the Leader of the House, who has got so much right here, will not hang himself on a vote—whether he wins or loses it—on getting Back-Bench business committee members to explain why a particular subject was chosen, other than at business questions, as he does, where the committee chair would be available, as the Church Commissioner and others are during different question times, to chip in and answer questions, make sensible changes, and respond to requests. We would all like to see that.
Natascha Engel
I really do not understand. How then is the Back-Bench business committee accountable? How is it open and transparent, and how will other Back-Bench Members know how it has gone about selecting the business for the day?
Mr Allen
The Wright Committee went into this in detail. Essentially, we decided that the chair of the Back-Bench business committee would be seated in the House during business questions. The Leader of the House would give the normal business statement, and if someone had a specific question about Back-Bench business, the chair could answer it.
Mr Allen
It is very different from the usual channels, who do not say anything—in fact, are banned from saying anything—on the Floor of the House. So this would make it more open. However, to insist that that person appears three or four, five or even a dozen times a week to explain why one person’s topic, rather than those of 50 other people, was chosen would take it, in this case only, to a level of absurdity. That would fly in the face of all the other very sensible provisions in the Back-Bench business motions before us.
Sir Peter Soulsby
Would it not be even more absurd, because it would not be the same person every time? As I understand the proposals, it would be just a committee member making a brief statement, with no debate, no opportunity for questions and, frankly, no purpose.
Mr Allen
Indeed, but I do not want to labour the point, because it is just one piece of silliness in what is generally an excellent effort by Government Front-Bench Members. So I shall not continue on that.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for deciding to provide in Standing Orders for 27 days’ debate on the Floor of the House. It is not easy to come to the House and say, “Someone else has got it right, and I will take that on board.” That has always been the situation—in fact, he was quoted earlier saying it would always be the situation—but he, to his great credit, has taken that step forward and said that he will put it in the Standing Orders. I am sure that I speak for everyone who signed amendment (a) to motion 4 when I say that I am extremely grateful to him for doing that.
That is not all. On Select Committee membership, the response of the Leader and deputy Leader of the House to the newly elected Select Committee Chairs was excellent politics. I am sure that other colleagues will talk about this. Had they been involved a little earlier and been able to delve, holding their noses, into the usual channels, they could have helped much earlier. Instead, we have today’s late decision to pull motion 13, which would have driven a coach and horses through the idea that Select Committees should be nimble and have, as standard, 11 members. As the Wright Committee and the Liaison Committee said, there is an optimum number of members on a Select Committee. Having served on many Select Committees, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that they start to ramble on, and get frayed at the edges, cliquey and difficult to manage when they get to 13, 14, 15 or 16 members. That is why the Liaison Committee and the Wright Committee said, “Nine is optimum, 11 is maximum,” in order to try to put right what was, frankly, a cock-up by the usual channels, which resulted in Committees being bumped up to 16, thereby destroying their credibility and coherence. That is why there was such resistance from the Select Committee Chairs and why almost every newly elected Select Committee Chair signed the amendments requesting that the proposal not go ahead. It is to the great credit of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House that they listened to those representations, so that we now have a much better situation than we did earlier. Motion 13, which is about membership, will therefore not proceed.
I hope very much that over the next week or so, the difficulty that we were all trying to address—the representation of minority parties on Select Committees—will be addressed sensibly. I hope too that minority parties will have representation on the territorial Committees—the Scottish and Welsh Committees—as they should do and as they are entitled to expect, and that the numbers are brought back to the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] I know that the Leader of the House is listening, even though his colleague the Secretary of State for International Development is talking to him—he is listening with one ear, which is his important ear. He will understand that next week, when we bring the motions relating to Select Committees back to the Floor of the House, and particularly those relating to Scottish and Welsh Committees, there should be minority representation as of right. Of course that might require a small increase in the numbers to get through the current problems, but the other Select Committees should remain at no more than 11, so that they can be effective.
The people who devised the system whereby Select Committees are bumped up to get round particular difficulties are people who do not care what Select Committees do. They do not mind if they are rambling, if they do not produce coherent reports or if they have lots of members who do not show up. The job of those people is just to set Select Committees up and get them out of the way, so that they can get on with the other business. That is no longer acceptable in a Parliament that elects its Select Committee Chairs and members by secret ballot. Until other people are elected by secret ballot, those people have absolutely no right whatever to destroy the work of one of our key arms of accountability, the Select Committees in this House.
I congratulate those on the Government Front Bench on withdrawing those proposals to change Select Committee memberships without one word of consultation with the Chairs of the Treasury Committee, the Justice Committee or the Defence Committee. That shows a contempt and arrogance on the part of certain people who are not in the Chamber towards the conduct of the House, and I for one hope that we will never see that again. In putting on record what I hope is an important caveat about the role and rights of minorities in this House—rights that must always be defended, which is something that you said in one of your hustings speeches you were determined to do, Mr Deputy Speaker, and something that I know you will stick to—let me say that it is important that we should continue to ensure that balance.
Finally, I would like to add my thanks to those who have gone before us—we are, as the saying goes, standing on the shoulders of previous generations. First and foremost is Tony Wright, but there were also many other members of the Wright Committee, such as our colleagues Chris Mullin—we can refer to them by name, as they are no longer Members—David Howarth, David Drew and Nick Palmer. I am sure that other colleagues can think of those who also worked incredibly hard—Phyllis Starkey is another—over a short period to produce the Wright report. They were aided by people such as Meg Russell from the constitution unit and many others. We took evidence from the Chief Whips and from academic and media experts to produce the Wright report. However, there are many others who worked incredibly hard. Robin Cook has been mentioned, but there are lots of other colleagues, from all parts of the House, Front-Bench and Back, who would have given their right arms to be here today.
I finish where I started. These past couple of weeks have been some of the most exciting weeks in our recent parliamentary history. Incredible changes have been made: changes to elect Select Committee Chairs and members; changes to elect, for the first time ever, those who serve in your Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, with the first woman ever to be elected to that position. This is a moment when real change is possible—we have a new Government and, for the first time in our present political system, a coalition—but it is a moment that will not last long. It is a moment that needs to be sustained by our new Members, and a moment that we need to continue tonight by supporting the amendments tabled by myself and 32 Back-Bench colleagues. I hope that as many colleagues as possible will join us in the Lobby to maintain the momentum that the reform of our House of Commons needs if we are genuinely to win back the trust of the British people.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to your new post, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I wish to speak in support of amendment (a) to motion 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), on providing more days for the discussion of private Members’ Bills. There are all sorts of good democratic reasons for doing that. I had intended to expand on them a little tonight but, given the excellent, comprehensive and wide-ranging speeches that we have already heard, I shall merely say that I endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments, as well as those from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), on why there should be more days for the discussion of private Members’ Bills than the Government are currently proposing.
I have not heard any good arguments against the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. The Leader of the House of Commons put forward an argument that the hon. Member for Wellingborough described as consisting of “smoke and mirrors”. With respect, I am not sure that I would even dignify it with that description. The Leader of the House’s argument seemed to be that it was important to have more days between private Members’ Bill sittings to allow things to go on outside the main Chamber. I was not sure what was meant by that. I can only assume that it was felt that that arrangement would allow the Committee stages of private Members’ Bills to take place between the different Fridays, and that that would be easier to achieve if there were more time between the sittings allocated for private Members’ Bills. If that is the case, it reveals a misunderstanding of the way in which the private Members’ Bill system operates. If three successive Fridays were allocated for private Members’ Bills, with a Second Reading one week, the Committee stage the next, and Third Reading on the third Friday, the next private Member’s Bill in line would simply be debated on the subsequent Friday. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough has suggested, it is hard to see how allowing more days for private Members’ Bills would jeopardise the Government’s position.
It has been suggested that, if we were to adopt a private Members’ Bill system that worked more effectively, fewer days could be allocated for the purpose of dealing with them if a positive outcome could be achieved in the time allowed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said earlier, however, we all know that what matters on private Members’ Bill Fridays is not the quality of the measure, or even the number of Members present to support the Bill, but whether the proposer and those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches can find their way round the arcane procedures that are used on such Fridays—procedures that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda described as “shenanigans”. I have had the experience of taking three private Members’ Bills through the House over the past six years, so I certainly know how the system works. I know some of the ways of getting round it, but I also know that it is a very unsatisfactory procedure for all concerned.
Addressing the way in which private Members’ Bills are taken through Parliament will require a number of procedural changes, and I welcome the commitment from the new Chair of the Procedure Committee that his Committee will look at that at an early stage. One way of allowing private Members’ Bills proper time for debate would be to move them from Fridays to Wednesdays or to Tuesday evenings, which would give Members the opportunity to attend the debates in much greater numbers than they are able to do on Fridays.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Wellingborough—I otherwise agreed with much of what he said about private Members’ Bills—as it is not satisfactory to say that Members can decide whether or not to turn up on Fridays to consider those Bills. We all have to make such a decision at the moment, but because of our constituency commitments, it is difficult for us, with one or two exceptions, regularly to attend on Fridays—and the further away from London our constituencies are, the less easy it is for us to do so.
I would often like to participate in private Members’ Bills debates on Fridays, and they often relate to issues that are important to many of my constituents who understandably expect me to debate them. They are likely to find out, however, not only that I and many other Members are unlikely to be there, but that what they thought was going to be debated on a particular day—and hoped had a chance to get through—is likely to be talked out because of the use of some parliamentary procedure and never reach any further stages. Not surprisingly, members of the public get angry at Members of Parliament and at the political system that allows that to happen.
I believe that Fridays should be recognised and named as a constituency day, on which Members can allocate their time to their constituencies. It should be named as a constituency day so that those out there who want to condemn any absence from Westminster as equivalent to some form of extended holiday can, if they wish, carry out a study to ensure that we are indeed in our constituencies as opposed to sunning ourselves on a beach. Let us make it a regular commitment, with Fridays acknowledged as a constituency day. I hope that the Back-Bench business committee will discuss this proposal at an early stage of its considerations. It could look into the constituency issues more widely, and demonstrate that MPs spending some of their time in their constituencies is essential to our democracy. We cannot represent the views of our constituents in Parliament if we are not regularly in touch with them.
That brings me to the issue of September sittings. On the one hand, I support the proposal to come back in September, as I believe that Robin Cook’s initiative when he was Leader of the House was totally justified. It is hard—indeed, impossible—to justify to the public why we need this long 13 or 14-week gap in the summer, in which we are unable to hold the Government to account unless the House is brought back for a special Sitting. On the other, we have to recognise that we cannot keep adding days and days, weeks and weeks to the parliamentary Session without it having knock-on effects somewhere else in the system.
We have to recognise that Members need to be in their constituencies and we also need to recognise, bluntly, that Members have family commitments. I have an interest here in that I have four children in either primary or secondary schools in Scotland; my children are likely to be on holiday from the end of June and will be back at school in mid-August. I would like to have the same opportunity that colleagues in England have to be at home for a fair part of my children’s school holidays, but I will not have that opportunity. Anything that makes it harder for people to combine their role as Members of Parliament with a normal family life is not exactly going to encourage this place to be open and more representative of the public in the way that we all want. I hope that, in addition to considering the procedures for private Members’ Bills, the Leader of the House will look at ways to recognise our constituency commitments as an important aspect of all MPs’ work and reflect them in the sitting days of the House.
I invite the Deputy Leader of the House to clarify in his closing remarks the Government attitude towards an early proposal to move away from Friday sittings for private Members’ Bills and replace them with Wednesday sittings. I certainly gained the impression that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House were sympathetic to the idea of moving to Wednesdays for private Members’ Bills. There was quite strong support for this across the House, so I hope that the Government will be able to give that proposal at least a favourable and general welcome today. I believe that such a proposal would be welcomed not just by individual Members, but by all those who want to see private Members’ business getting the status it deserves.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I think we have had a good and thoughtful debate, although it had a rather rickety start. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who, in an eloquent and comprehensive speech, spelt out how exciting and important this period is in Parliament’s history; and, like others, I pay tribute to the Government for the promptness with which they introduced Standing Orders to allow the establishment of a Back-Bench business committee. There is no doubt that that reflects the good will, commitment and supportiveness of the Leader of the House and his deputy, and I thank them for all that they did in preparing the orders.
The debate marks the culmination of a long struggle that stretches back many years to the formation of the cross-party Parliament First group, which has consistently and effectively campaigned for parliamentary democratic reform under the chairmanship of the former Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, my very good friend Mark Fisher. We will, of course, continue to owe a great and continuing debt of gratitude to the Wright Committee, chaired so admirably by my former hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase.
Having issued those plaudits—with great sincerity—I have to say that I think the Government’s initial ardour seems to have cooled just a tad. A number of modifications have crept in, which, in my view, have undermined some of the original commitment. It is because the combined effect of those slippages has clearly been to weaken the position of Back Benchers that, along with many of my hon. Friends, I have tabled a number of amendments designed to ensure that the Government’s initial commitment survives.
The most important amendment relates to a question that has been raised a number of times, and because of its importance I make no apology for raising it again. It concerns the term of membership of the Chair. The order proposes that members and the Chair should serve for only one year after election, but we strongly reject that proposal on the ground that no other parliamentary Committee—including Select Committees —is being treated in that way. The elections to Select Committees, which, admirably, are taking place at this time—for the Chairs, who have been chosen, and the members, who are about to be chosen—are for a full Parliament of five years, and there seems to be no valid reason for diverging from that principle.
The Leader of the House was questioned about the issue, and I noted what he said. He spoke of the importance of accountability—of course we all agree with that—and of the need for new blood to refresh the Committee. Of course I understand that too, but it applies to Select Committees as well. I do not think that the Leader of the House took on board adequately the point made behind him about the question of independence. We believe that members, once elected, should be fully independent. We do not think that they should have continually to look over their shoulders, or feel liable to the Whips or Front-Bench pressure in order to secure repeat elections year after year.
Annual elections give too much power to the Whips and the establishment, allowing them to exert influence on the Chair not because he or she is inadequate or incompetent, but precisely because he or she is too effective. Let me suggest to the Leader of the House, in all friendliness, that annual elections will profoundly undercut the impact of reforms that are excellent in so many other ways.
Another issue—I was not going to mention it until my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North did so and I think he was right—is that the Government are proposing that, before any business starts that has been decided on by the Back-Bench business committee, a member of the committee must make a brief statement of up to five minutes to explain why the committee made that decision. Again—it hardly needs repeating—no one else does that in any other part of the House. No Minister is ever required to do that. If for any reason either the chair or any member of the committee wishes, with permission, to make such a statement, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. However, to require that to happen in every case, when in most circumstances Members will be well aware of the thinking behind the decision, seems unnecessary, a waste of time or even obstructive.
The Leader of the House will know perfectly well that Members will want to get quickly on to the debate. They will not want to be diverted by what they will perceive as superfluous formality. I hope that he will consider whether that proposal should just be quietly dropped.
I recognise that, when the Leader of the House was questioned last Thursday, he went as far as he could, leaning in our direction, by offering an allocation of 27 days. He has now gone further still by agreeing to accept our amendment. I thank him warmly for that. However, always wanting to go a bit further, I think that 35 days would be even better, not least because it is only on the Floor of this House that the votes will take place. The Leader of the House pointed out that the implication of that, to which he is probably quite sympathetic, is that the House might have to sit into August. However, I hope that he will reconsider and be prepared to consult about various alternatives that could achieve the objective of 35 days on the Floor of the House without encroaching into August.
One of those options is the use of more Fridays. In previous years—indeed in previous decades—the House has sat on Fridays to a far greater degree than it does today. I am well aware that, whatever one suggests, it will not please everyone, but I hope that the Leader of the House will genuinely consult to find a way forward that is acceptable and desirable to the majority. The important point is that 27 Back-Bench business committee days in this House should be the bottom line, consolidated by the Standing Order and not dependent on discretion. That is why I am grateful—I am sure that we all are—that he has accepted the amendment.
By and large, this is an excellent set of Standing Orders, for which the Government are to be congratulated. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that the amendments that we have had to table are not in any way designed to oppose what he is trying to do; they are designed to improve that. I hope that he and other hon. Members will look upon them in that spirit.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
We have had an extremely good debate. We have teased out a lot of the issues that relate to the establishment of the Back-Bench business committee and to the various proposals that we have put forward, which are in line with the Wright Committee proposals. There are some areas where the House will wish to take a view. There are others where there is a clear preponderance of voices, at least in the debate, in favour of what we have proposed.
I want to take a little time to deal with the issues that have been raised because they will repay further consideration. I will deal first with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton). I am grateful for her general welcome for what we are doing. She asked some specific questions and she deserves specific answers. She asked whether there would be any impact on Opposition days. The answer is categorically no. The Standing Orders that relate to Opposition days are not to be changed, so there is no change to the present position. She asked me to confirm whether there will be substantive business to address in September and pointed out that we have recently had several general debates—which, in fact, I think the House has welcomed. I think it is equally fair to say to her that we are in the immediate aftermath of the Queen’s Speech and it is necessary to get legislation right. One of the commitments we have made as a Government is not to present to the House legislation that is not in a fit state to be considered by it, because we felt that that was one of the failings of the previous Government. Very often there were subsequent amendments at later stages in a Bill’s progress simply because the preparatory work was not done. I repeat again, however, that it is our intention to bring substantive business before the House in September, if the House agrees to meet in September, which is subject to a decision this evening.
The right hon. Lady was intervened on by her party colleague the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), who made the valuable point that we need to get the entire parliamentary calendar right. In respect of this evening’s motions, we are talking about what we will do in September this year, but I am perfectly well aware that there are Members on both sides of the House who will want not only a degree of certainty about the future calendar of the House, but to express their views and concerns about their family circumstances, such as Scottish school holidays not coinciding with English school holidays. It is right for the House to consider that, and I hope we will be able to consult widely on what ought to be the future shape of the parliamentary calendar and bring back proposals that try as far as possible to accommodate the various different interests of Members of all parties.
The right hon. Lady asked about the costs of bringing the House back in September, and that point was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). He has expertise in this area, and I am grateful to him for his comments because he perfectly sensibly set out possible difficulties with a September sitting. I remember the last time we tried September sittings, and I do not think the arrangements behind the scenes lived up to the expectations of the House. In fact, I would go further and say that there was a suspicion that in some cases the maintenance that took place was planned to cause the maximum disruption to Members during that September sitting, rather than the minimum; that was certainly the way it seemed. I accept, however, that this is a difficult and complex building, and that it has to be maintained properly. We must take careful note of the hon. Gentleman’s quite proper warnings that if we are going to meet regularly in September, we have to organise House maintenance and other works around that, and that we need proper forward planning to achieve that and we need to do so on the basis of proper advice. Those are perfectly sensible points.
On the specific point about the maintenance contracts, the right hon. Lady will recall that Mr Speaker wrote to all the parties following the decisions in February and March indicating that the House may wish to sit in September and saying that the possibility of September sittings would be taken into account in the organisation of contracts. I hope that that will be the case and that any disruption to those contracts will be kept to a minimum.
On the costs of a September sitting, I should point out that of course it costs the same for Members to sit regardless of the time of year. The total number of days that we are sitting is the relevant factor, not the dates on which we sit.
Mr Betts
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, cost is an important issue, particularly with regard to maintenance and forward planning. When he looks further into this for future years, will he ensure that the Officers are allowed to produce their advice independently and that it goes to the appropriate Committees, and also that all Members of the House have access to the advice that is given about the costs and the advisability of postponing maintenance programmes and not carrying them out properly as Officers advise that they should be carried out?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am not a member of the House of Commons Commission and I do not wish to tread on its toes, but what he says makes perfect sense to me and I shall ensure that that is communicated to members of the Commission.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that radical and far-reaching repairs need to take place in the basement of this place, where high pressure steam calorifiers are located right next door to very high voltage electrical cables? That is so much the case that I understand that in the previous Parliament the House of Commons Commission even considered whether there would be a need to move out of this building. Has he taken that into consideration in these proposals?
Mr Heath
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I can say only that the House of Commons Commission is considering this. As I say, I am not a member of that body, but I would not be putting forward this proposal today—I should remind hon. Members that it is one of the things that the Wright Committee asked us to put before the House— if we felt that there were impossible hurdles to cross this year. However, this matter may be something that we need to consider in future years.
I wish now to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—they were also reflected in the comments made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz)—about the important matter of private Members’ Bills. The hon. Member for Wellingborough rightly drew attention to what I had said on a previous occasion when he tabled a similar amendment. He quoted me, so may I quote myself? That is always an invidious thing to do but as he quoted me, I shall quote myself. He said that I had said that “perhaps there should” be a change in Standing Orders. I stand by that comment—perhaps such a change should be made—because I want us to do a much better job of dealing with private Members’ Bills.
We do not do a good job on these Bills at the moment and the process contains procedural hurdles that are absurd, and are seen as such by our constituents. Far too often, excellent measures that are introduced by individual Members do not make it to the statute book, despite substantial support in the House, simply because of the way the system works. I am therefore delighted that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), has volunteered that his Committee will examine this as an early matter of priority. It is essential that the Committee does so and I hope that it will make proposals. I also hope that the issue of how many Fridays are made available will become redundant because we will have so improved the way we manage private Members’ legislation that Fridays are not the crucial factor in deciding whether we make progress.
Mr Bone
Given the comments that the Deputy Leader of the House has just made and those made by Opposition Members, I accept that this is not about the number of Fridays, but about the quality of debate on private Members’ Bills and how we put them through this House. Given what the Deputy Leader of the House said, and given this happy frame of mind that we are in tonight, I shall not press my amendment to the vote.
Mr Heath
I am delighted to have satisfied the hon. Gentleman in his quest; we are making progress.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for her comments. She has made it perfectly clear throughout that she was a member of the Wright Committee who did not agree with all its proposals. She has taken a proper position. She had a minority view, she has expressed it and she has been consistent in her position. She amplified that a little by raising specific issues in tonight’s debate, so I shall deal with them. She asked whether members of the public will be excluded from the meetings of the Back-Bench business committee and indeed whether Members of Parliament who are not members of that committee will be allowed into the meetings to hear the deliberations. The rules that will apply will be the same as those for any Select Committee. I genuinely think that it is not for a Minister of the Crown to tell the Back-Bench business committee how it should undertake its role. However, I hope that it will consider, carefully and early on, how it will manage its business, and in what circumstances it will have open meetings and in what circumstances it will not, in the same way as Select Committees across the House do. She has raised an important issue, and it is a matter that the Back-Bench business committee—if we constitute it—will need to consider.
The hon. Lady asked about the party political make-up of the committee and whether seats would be allocated in the same way as for normal Select Committees or whether the system would be entirely open. As she knows, a formula reflecting the composition of the House is generally used, and it is intended that that formula will be used to determine the make-up of this committee. However, there is an issue of how we accommodate the minority parties in the Select Committee process, and I shall come later to the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
The hon. Lady also asked whether a Chair of another Select Committee could stand for election as chair of the Back-Bench business committee or one of its members. Nothing in the proposed Standing Orders would preclude that, but she raises an important point. It would be extraordinarily bad practice if a Chair of another Select Committee stood for election to the Back-Bench committee because their membership would inevitably raise the suspicion that that Member’s Select Committee had enhanced access to the business of the House. I would hope that that would not happen, so I strenuously urge those hon. Members who were lucky enough to be elected as Select Committee Chairs not to put themselves forward for the Back-Bench business committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made an excellent contribution to the debate. She emphasised the frustration that we did not get the committee up and running before the general election. The previous Government failed to give us the opportunity to make the necessary changes to the Standing Orders, so I am proud of the fact that, in the first week following the conclusion of the Queen’s Speech debate, the House is determining the matter—that represents excellent progress.
My hon. Friend emphasised the need for a minimum of 27 days’ Back-Bench business in the Chamber and, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, we are happy to accept amendment (a) to motion 4 because that was always our intention. She also asked whether further progress could be made, including on the innovative use of time. I hope that we can find innovative ways of using time more effectively, and of course we firmly intend to move to a House business committee within three years. That will mean that we have a totally different way of managing the House’s business, which will be a good thing.
I think I have already dealt with my hon. Friend’s point about private Members’ Bills. She also said that the Wright Committee had further ideas that she would like to see progressed, such as some about public engagement. I agree that the Committee made further excellent suggestions. We have not lost sight of them and hope to come back to them in the future.
Jo Swinson
Given the assurances about private Members’ Bills that we have heard from my hon. Friend and from the Chair of the Procedure Committee, I will not press amendment (b) to motion 4 to a Division. However, my hon. Friend has not answered my question about whether Ministers will vote on the membership of the Back-Bench business committee, or whether they will follow the self-denying ordinance that applies to elections for Select Committee Chairs.
Mr Heath
My hon. Friend is right that I did not respond to that question. I will take her points back to my colleagues in government because there is clearly an argument that, as she says, it should not be for the Government to elect those who serve on the Back-Bench committee. That issue is not specifically addressed in the motions, but we ought to listen carefully to her point.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) on his election as Chair of the Treasury Committee. He was absolutely right to say that we are lucky to have such an enlightened Leader of the House. He likened the relationship between the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip to that between Esau and Jacob, although I am not quite sure who is in possession of the mess of pottage. He is right to say that the Government’s attitude is to bring forward proposals for modernisation and then to take them forward. It is about not just paying lip service to an idea, but actually making it happen, which is what we are doing this evening.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the representation of minority parties, and of course that was the main thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. Wright has something to say on the subject. The Wright Committee report says:
“Members in individual cases can be added to specific committees to accommodate the legitimate demands of the smaller parties.”
I repeat to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I are absolutely determined to find ways to make sure that the minority parties are properly represented in the Select Committee system. I have to say to him that enlarging the Committees beyond the size that Wright recommended and that the Liaison Committee wanted is probably not the way to do it. We have to find an alternative way of accommodating his request, but my door is certainly always open to him and his colleagues, so that we can discuss the matter further and make sure—with, I think, a degree of dispatch—that something happens.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made the point that the Wright Committee suggested having an added Speaker’s Member on Select Committees. Unfortunately, the Committee did not make that a recommendation; I wish that it had, because it would have made our life a little easier when dealing with this difficult problem.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) raised the issue of European business—no surprise there, perhaps—but it is specifically mentioned in the motions as “government business”. Indeed, in the second report of the Wright Committee, the draft Standing Order changes specify that that should be the case. Of course, when we have the House committee, we will be able to enter into the sort of partnership arrangement suggested, and we will be able to make sure that those matters are dealt with properly. I have to say that I was a little put off by the hon. Gentleman accusing me of sophistry in my approach to annual elections; I had not said a word on the subject. I must have given him a sophistical look at some stage. I will deal with the issue of annual elections in just a moment.
Mr Allen
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on the committee’s annual nature, given that every other Committee runs for five years. We started off with the possibility of 10 Divisions tonight, but because of the generosity of Members in all parts of the Chamber, and because of the strength of the replies from the Front-Bench team, we are now down to five Divisions, virtually all of which refer to the question: why should the committee not have a life of more than one year? Why is it on probation? If the hon. Gentleman can give us some satisfaction by saying that he will take the issue away and look at it seriously, and not press the proposal tonight, we may all get home a lot quicker than we would if there were five Divisions.
Mr Heath
I was about to say what a huge contribution the hon. Gentleman had made to the debate not just this evening, but over the past few years in which he has pressed the case for reform. That is appreciated. He, among others, has been making sure that we are true to our word on many of these subjects. We have already agreed that we will accept his amendment (a) to motion 4 on the issue of the 27 days. I will go further: having listened to what he and the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, we are prepared not to press forward this evening with the proposal for the introductory statement. We hear what they say, and we will accept the relevant amendment on that basis.
As far as the one-year election is concerned, that is a suggestion that puts the Back-Bench business committee into the hands of Back-Bench Members, making it accountable to them. It may be that Members do not want to have the committee in their hands; they may wish to have a one-off election and not review the matter, but it is right that the House has the decision. That is not a matter for the Government and Ministers; it is for the House to decide whether it believes that the proposal is a useful introduction. I am happy for the House to have its say on the matter.
To recap, we will not move motion 13. We will accept amendment (a) on 27 days tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North and the amendments on the introductory statement. Annual election is a matter for the House to decide. On private Members’ Bills, I hope we will make rapid progress in improving the situation. We need to address the representation of minorities as a matter of urgency. September sittings are, again, a matter for the House.
We have not in any way resiled from the spirit of the Wright Committee recommendations, but we cannot treat them as holy writ because, as in so much of holy writ, there are occasionally internal contradictions. There are competing pressures. The House would not thank us if we made sure that there were no end of general debates on the Floor of the House, but we had no time, for instance, for Report stage of important Bills. We have tried to be practical about it, and I hope we have succeeded in that intention.
Mr Tom Clarke
I very much welcome the tone of the Deputy Leader of the House and the progress that we have made tonight on private Members’ Bills, but given that some of the impediments have come not from here but from another place, can we assume that discussions are taking place?
Mr Heath
I am happy to give that assurance. We need to look at the matter in the round.
It has been a frustrating pathway to reform. Sometimes there has seemed to be little movement, but we have an opportunity this evening, and I am particularly pleased that so many new Members will have the opportunity to participate in the decision. Usually, when we talk about historic days in the House of Commons, the expression is overblown, but I genuinely believe that this evening is an opportunity to change the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. If right hon. and hon. Members believe in Parliament and in a strong legislature, if they believe that a strong Parliament leads to stronger government, they will support the proposals on the table this evening. I commend them to the House.
Mr Speaker
I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions 2 to 15 and selected amendments which may then be moved. I will go through the motions in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper, dealing first with selected amendments to each such motion.
Amendment proposed to motion 2: (e), in paragraph (2), leave out from “and” to end of line and insert
“fifteen other Members, of whom eight”.—(Pete Wishart.)
Mr Speaker
Far be it for me to suggest that any hon. Member—still less right hon. Member—is behaving vexatiously. I cannot believe it for a moment.
Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)
Ordered,
That Private Members’s Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 22 October, 12 and 19 November and 3 December 2010 and 21 January, 4 and 11 February, 4 and 18 March, 1 April, 13 May and 10 and 17 June 2011.—(Sir George Young.
Deferred Divisions (Timing)
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) be amended as follows:—
(1) in line 37, leave out ‘half-past twelve o’clock’ and insert ‘half-past eleven o’clock’; and
(2) in line 44, by leaving out ‘one and a half hours after half-past twelve o’clock’ and inserting ‘two and a half hours after half-past eleven o’clock’.—(Sir George Young.)
Select Committees (Machinery of Government Change)
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the table in paragraph (2), by leaving out item 2 (Children, Schools and Families) and inserting in the appropriate place:
‘Education | Department for Education | 11’ |
—(Sir George Young.)
Sittings of the House
Ordered,
That, on Tuesday 22 June, the House shall meet at 11.30 am and references to specific times in the Standing Orders of this House shall apply as if that day were a Wednesday.—(Sir George Young.)
Private Wheel-Clamping Companies
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) starts her speech—[Interruption.] Order. Can I please ask right hon. and hon. Members to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, and to grant the right hon. Lady the same courtesy that they would want if they had the Adjournment debate?
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
I very much welcome the opportunity to debate the activities of private wheel-clamping companies, particularly in Doncaster Central. I also very much welcome the fact that this is, as I understand it, the Minister’s first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I am utterly confident that when she hears my arguments, she will make it one of her missions as a Minister to take up the ideas that I am about to put forward.
I first became involved in the issue 14 years ago, when I realised the extent of the misery and distress that rogue wheel-clamping companies were causing, not only in Doncaster Central, but in other parts of Yorkshire—and, for that matter, in hot spots around the country. Just how appalling some of those companies behave has been highlighted by both the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club, which have received literally thousands of complaints from their members. I would like to thank Edmund King—now at the AA—for all the help that he has given me and other Members of the House in our campaign to outlaw unacceptable practices.
The media have also recognised how outraged the public are about the problem. There are countless stories of truly unacceptable practices by some companies. I want to thank the Doncaster Free Press for the campaign that it has been running with me to highlight how vulnerable elderly people, young mothers with children and, frankly, people who can least afford it are being stung for large amounts of money. I say “stung” because many such companies use every trick in the book to get round the legislation as it stands.
The Doncaster Free Press and I have received endless complaints from local people about a company called Park Rite, which operates in Doncaster. The company has concealed signs covered with minute writing, so that it is impossible to read that a particular location is a private car park, and it charges extortionate fees, often by charging two or three times for the same parking transgression—once for clamping and once for towing away, and then again for storage. There are complaints about the company’s refusal to have a proper appeals procedure, using mobile phones that are not answered and demanding cash only. Park Rite accepts no other form of payment, such as cheques or debit cards, which has led to people being frogmarched to cash points, with the clampers standing over them to make sure that they come up with the money.
The Free Press and I launched a petition to call on Park Rite to change the way in which it was operating. We were supported by two local companies, Cooplands and Weldricks Pharmacy, and we received a huge amount of support. I had one meeting with the company, to try to reason with it and ask it at least to join the British Parking Association, so that it would need to adhere to the association’s code of practice. As far as I am aware, it has not done so. Since then, it has been impossible to pin it down to another meeting. This epitomises the attitude of some of these companies: they are completely unaccountable for their actions, and they leave people frustrated and angry about the way they are treated—or, not so much treated as bullied.
Of course we should not have a parking free-for-all, and of course private landowners need to protect their land, but we all know that that is not what is happening. This is not about keeping car parks free for specific users; it is about luring motorists on to private land to get as much money out of them as possible. It causes endless problems for the local police, who have to spend their time explaining to worried motorists that their car has not been stolen, but that it has been clamped and towed away.
One of my constituents whose car was clamped had just had both his hips replaced. He was told that his car would not be released unless he handed over £100 in cash. Not having that kind of money on him, he had to walk into the centre of town to withdraw the money from the ATM. On his return, he was confronted with a further demand for £55 to cancel a towing vehicle that had been ordered while he was away. He had to go back into town to collect the money. This was on a Sunday night in February, when we were experiencing some of the coldest temperatures for a generation. He said that there were four notices in the car park, all of which were printed in small black and white lettering that would not have been legible in the dark to anyone who lacked outstanding eyesight.
Another sorry tale involves two of my constituents—ladies in their 60s and 70s—who were fined £250 each to release their vehicles. Again, a lack of clear signage was the issue. The women also found that, when they called the number, there was an out-of-date answerphone message telling the caller to read the back of the parking ticket for information on how to appeal. However, the tickets that they had received had no information on clamping or appeals, or information about the time at which the cars were clamped. When they came to see me, they said that they had felt threatened by the man who had clamped them. He was not wearing a uniform and his vehicle was unmarked. They were also told by the man on the telephone that, if they failed to pay the fine by 4 pm, they would have to pay another £100, and that he would not accept a cheque. In her own words, one of the women said of the incident:
“I am a pensioner, and to be bullied, over the telephone...is very intimidating. The stress and anxiety caused, having to obtain money, hire a taxi and locate the whereabouts of the vehicles left me bereft and traumatized.”
Treating an elderly person in this way should not be tolerated.
I have campaigned for tighter control of these companies over several years, along with a number of other Members of this House, some of whom are here tonight. I am grateful to them for their support. We made progress under the Labour Government, first by setting up the Security Industry Authority in 2005, then through the licensing of individual clampers. Unfortunately, that did not solve the problem. It became clear that the only way to guard against rogue practice would be to ensure that the private clamping companies—not just the clampers themselves—had to be licensed, had to conform to a strict code of conduct and had to be subject to an independent and fair appeals process.
That is why the Crime and Security Act 2010 was passed. I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who, as a Minister, pursued this issue relentlessly. It is thanks to him that those measures were included in that legislation. The Act introduced a requirement for clamping companies, as well as clampers, to be licensed. It also introduced a mandatory code of practice and an independent appeal system. The Act has been passed, but now we need urgent action to bring in the regulations. I know that my hon. Friend had a number of discussions about the implementation of the Act with organisations such as the AA, the RAC and the British Parking Association, so the groundwork has been done.
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government document stated:
“We will tackle rogue private sector wheel clampers”,
which I certainly welcome. I am concerned, however, that the new Government have stated that they are rather averse to introducing any new regulations, so I would be grateful if the Minister gave me reassurances on the following points. First, can the Minister confirm that the Government will definitely introduce the necessary regulations under the Crime and Security Act 2010? Secondly, can the Minister also confirm the timetable for introduction? Thirdly, can she confirm that she intends to set up an independent panel to review appeals against fines, and will it be within the time scale set out by the previous Government—by 2011? Finally, can she say what steps will be taken to remove a wheel-clamping company from the approved operators scheme if it is found to be behaving inappropriately, and how long that would take?
In the meantime, before the Minister brings in these new regulations, which is obviously going to be done quickly, I ask the Minister to ask the Home Secretary to encourage police forces in England and Wales to enforce the existing legislation that outlaws clamping without a licence. I am concerned that some unlicensed or criminal clamping does take place, but is not enforced.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being the national champion on this issue—this plague that has now spread to my constituency. Is she aware that, just this morning, Farmfoods, a major retailer in my constituency and elsewhere, has distanced itself from the plague of new clampers who have arrived in Retford over the last month—totally unrequested, totally unlicensed, and grabbing money from the innocent?
Ms Winterton
I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned hard on this issue as well. This is exactly the point: unless these regulations are brought in quickly, there is a danger that some of these clamping companies will feel that the foot has been taken off the pedal and that they will somehow have an opportunity to sneak in and increase rather than decrease their activities, when it is a decrease that we all want to see. As I say, some clamping firms may have many operatives, but few licences. The licence is produced by the operative who takes the money, not the one doing the clamping, which is probably technically illegal. If the Minister cannot give me an answer to this question now, will she perhaps come back to me in writing?
Urgent regulations need to be introduced to implement the Crime and Security Act 2010 because the public have a right to be treated humanely. The law must afford people protection. At the moment, drivers continue to be terrorised by a small but active number of rogue wheel-clampers. As I said, this is a particular problem in Doncaster, but I know that many other areas around the country are also affected. We must prevent it from happening in those other areas as well. No time should be lost in the Home Office’s making of new regulations to outlaw this behaviour once and for all. I urge the Minister to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) on securing this debate on wheel-clamping? It is an important debate on a very important subject, and her interest in it is well documented. I am sure that the right hon. Lady’s concerns are shared by many Members, if not every Member whose constituents have encountered these abuses. I am sure that what she has told us tonight is familiar to all of us from our constituencies. I know that wheel-clamping and the related activities of blocking in and towing away continue to cause great anger. Some of the most common complaints concern the amount of release fees, inadequate signage, and immediate clamping or towing away. Having been chair of transport in London for nearly five years when I was a member of the London Assembly, I am more than well acquainted with the problems that motorists face. I also know about the pressure on parking places. While safety, traffic flow and the fair rationing of parking spaces—on which there is always huge pressure—are entirely legitimate reasons for regulation, parking controls too often appear to be about revenue-raising, as the right hon. Lady pointed out. Our mission is to ensure that we deliver a solution to the problem.
If we want people to comply willingly with parking controls, those controls must be fair and just. The right hon. Lady used two examples to illustrate how unjust rogue clampers can be—indeed, cruel beyond belief. Her story of the man with the hip replacements having to walk on a cold February night, and then being asked to do it again, seems to show the clampers verging on sadism. She went on to describe an incident in which two older ladies were each fined £250 when, in reality—as is so often the case—the issue was poor signage. Such cases seem to constitute little more than entrapment, in which rogue clampers literally set a trap. They view it as a honey pot, while we, the public, become the cash cow.
Moreover, in my experience, more often than not it is those who try hard to comply with all the rules and controls who get caught out. People who seek to park legitimately and check for signs, but see none and park, are shattered not just by the upset caused by the financial hit from the clamping—which is substantial—but by the actual experience of being clamped when they were being good and trying not to break the rules. We must not let the good guys be the fall guys for rogue clampers. That is why the coalition’s programme for partnership government, published on 20 May, included the commitment that the right hon. Lady quoted:
“We will tackle rogue private sector wheel clampers.”
I hope that both what I have said—which was quite strong—and that published commitment by the coalition Government indicate our position, and assure the right hon. Lady that we are on the same side in this debate. I have seen examples of abuses of parking controls on private land in my own constituency, mostly involving poor signage but also involving abusive behaviour on the part of clampers.
At present, the Private Security Industry Act 2001 requires individual vehicle immobilisers carrying out clamping and towing on private land with a view to charging a fee to hold a licence issued by the Security Industry Authority. That has been required in England and Wales since 2006, and was extended to Northern Ireland last year. Licensing of individual clampers is designed to protect the public by ensuring that only fit and proper persons with the necessary skills and knowledge are employed. As I am sure the right hon. Lady knows, to qualify for a licence applicants need to pass an identity check and a criminal record check, and to complete an accredited training course. There are currently more than 2,200 wheel-clampers with a licence. Since the introduction of licensing, over 290 people have had their applications for licences refused because they did not meet the criteria, and 22 licence-holders have had their licences revoked.
The right hon. Lady asked some specific questions about enforcement in Doncaster. She asked me to encourage the Home Secretary to speak to the police, but it is up to individual police forces to decide what their priorities are and what to focus on. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 contained a number of specific offences to deal with people working without a licence and deploying unlicensed staff. The police do enforce that. The Security Industry Authority also has powers to do so, although it tends to focus on companies, rather than individuals. It can revoke licences, and the punishment for individuals not having a licence is up to six months in prison and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
I looked up the performance of police forces. Merseyside is one of the best performing on the issue. In 2007, Merseyside police proceeded against 200 clampers and found 157 guilty. In 2008, the last year for which I could find figures, they proceeded against 54 and found 47 guilty. In South Yorkshire, which includes Doncaster Central, in 2007, no clampers were proceeded against, so none was found guilty. In 2008, two were proceeded against and two were found guilty. I suggest therefore that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. However, it is not necessarily for the Home Secretary to deal with it. It is beholden perhaps on all Members of Parliament in that area to speak to the police chief to point out that differential figure, which is startling.
On only one operative having a licence, the right hon. Lady is correct: it is a legal requirement for everyone involved in clamping activity to have a licence—not just those who receive the money, but those who put on and remove the clamps. The licences must be displayed and it is an offence not to wear the licence. Those in companies that supply unlicensed workers can face an unlimited fine and up to five years in prison. The police should also be acting on those cases.
Experience has shown, however, that licensing of individuals has had little impact on the behaviours which generate most complaints from the public. That is because most of those behaviours are controlled by the vehicle immobilisation businesses, and are out of the control of the individual clampers.
The Home Office conducted a public consultation last year to gather more information about these abuses. Over 500 people responded. That research showed that the public's main concerns, which had not been addressed by individual licensing, include, pretty much as the right hon. Lady annunciated: inadequate signage, including small size and poor visibility, so motorists do not know that they are not allowed to park or the consequences of overstaying; high release fees, sometimes totalling hundreds of pounds; demanding immediate cash payments and not accepting other forms of payment, such as credit or debit cards; immediate clamping or towing away after a parking ticket has expired; the lack of an effective means of contesting a charge; no place for the motorist to turn when they feel unfairly treated; lack of evidence from the clampers that the motorist had breached parking rules, such as photographic evidence or retention of records; and aggressive or intimidating behaviour by the clampers. Many of my constituents have faced such problems. Some have phoned me in tears because of seriously abusive behaviour.
The Government are committed to tackling the menace of rogue private sector wheel-clampers and are looking at all available options. I have seen articles in the media over the past few days that ask whether and when the Government plan to bring into force the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was introduced by the previous Government. The Act seeks to address these problems by requiring vehicle immobilisation businesses to be licensed by the Security Industry Authority and to comply with the conditions of a code to be set out in regulations. These conditions could, for example, limit the release fee and require the display of signs warning motorists where clamping takes place. It would also allow for an independent appeals system to be set up for motorists who have been clamped.
This new system is not in place, however. The 2010 Act received Royal Assent on 8 April, just prior to the general election, but the relevant provisions have not yet been commenced. I want to make it absolutely clear that the coalition Government response actually tackles the problems caused by rogue clampers. The Act does not necessarily solve all of the problems, however, so I am looking at all available options as quickly as possible, including those not set out in the 2010 Act.
This is the right time to consider our approach before taking any action. We should adopt an approach that is proportionate, and which balances the rights of the motorist to have access to their vehicle with the rights of landowners to use and control access to their property. Clamping should not be used simply as a means of generating revenue from motorists who have no choice but to pay. We have been clear about our commitment to tackle rogue wheel-clampers, and we will do so, but I want to ensure that our response is clear, decisive and effective.
We understand the concerns of Members and others who have made representations about wheel-clamping and want to see action. I agree that we must act. As soon as we have decided on the way forward, we will announce our intentions and we will act.
I thank the right hon. Lady again for securing this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Public Sector Employment
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK Parliamentary Sovereignty and the EU
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak before you in this Chamber, Mr. Streeter. I would like to dedicate this debate to my mother, who died this past weekend, and to my father, who was killed in action in Normandy in the last war.
I heard today that Philip Ziegler’s biography of Mr Edward Heath has just been published. I recall vividly a discussion that I had with Mr Heath in the Smoking Room on an anniversary of the D-day landings. It transpired that we had an enormous amount in common, which may seem very strange. I heard Philip Ziegler this morning describing Edward Heath as a person who stuck to his course, who did what he thought was necessary, and who was bloody-minded. That is not an uncommon characteristic of those of us who get entrenched in European battles.
I recall that Mr Heath was not much disposed to talk at the beginning. He had on an Artillery tie, and I asked him, “Why have you got that tie on?” He said, “It is because of today’s commemoration.” I mentioned the fact that my father had been killed in Normandy, where Mr Heath had fought at the same time. Interestingly—to me, at any rate—he then began to engage in earnest conversation and explained to me the real reason he took the line that he did on Europe, which I do not think has come out in some of the reviews of the book. He felt that if we did not take that line, the problems that he had witnessed in the war might well recur.
I also remember, while I am in historical mode, a Cabinet lunch in July 1990 to which I was unexpectedly invited. Margaret Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher, invited me to No. 10. She said, “Today we will talk about Europe.” There I was, surrounded by an impressive galaxy of Cabinet Members. She turned to me and asked, “Bill, what do you feel about Europe?” Rather taken aback, I said that I thought that her task was more difficult than Churchill’s. She said, “Did everyone hear that? Bill says that my task is more difficult than Churchill’s. Can you explain?” I said, “Yes, Prime Minister. He was faced with bombs and aircraft. You are faced with pieces of paper.” That is the starting point of my concern about what has developed during the 26 years that I have had the honour of being a Member of this House.
The time has come for action. I quote a passage from “Julius Caesar”:
“There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”
I believe that we are at such a moment.
It is ironic, perhaps, that this week there will be an incredibly important summit that will deal with the essence of our sovereignty in relation to the proposals for budgetary arrangements and the question of whether they would be presented to the European Commission before they are presented to this sovereign Parliament. Therefore, without overdoing it, I hope, I suggest that, as in the case of the passage I just read out, this is the moment when there will be those who will be seen at Philippi.
There are similar problems today in respect of the sovereignty of our country, our people and our Parliament, and we have a responsibility to deal with them analytically and politically. Sovereignty means supreme power or authority. It means a self-governing state. I hasten to add—this is for my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I have had the pleasure of debating these matters over many years—that this debate is not specifically about getting out but about the practicalities of how we should now deal with the European issue. It is not about an abstraction but about the daily lives, economic and political, of those who vote us into this Parliament. It is about Euro-realism in the United Kingdom and in Europe as a whole.
This debate is about rules that do not work, economically or politically, and the need for radical reform of a system that has become uniform and inflexible, with the acquis communautaire, which has become sacrosanct and irreversible, and with majority voting and the pernicious system of co-decision. Barring only a total negotiated change by all 27 members in an association of nation states will problems be resolved. If and when that fails, we must assert the sovereignty of the UK Parliament to override this failing system. It is in our vital national interest to do so.
To give but one example of the problems, the system of co-decision is described by someone from the European Commission’s Legal Service as creating a situation in which the European Parliament
“is allowed to propose uniform, irrational, impractical amendments, safe in the knowledge that they have no responsibility for implementation.”
Of course, that is compounded by the role of the European Court of Justice. If the Legal Service takes that view, and it is so seminal to the undermining of the sovereignty of this Parliament, a serious review is called for.
On the “Today” programme yesterday, I heard a pre-eminent German banker state that he believes that there will be “revolts in the street” in “ever higher frequency” and a kicking out of the Government. He described the situation as highly dangerous, and said that there were indications of revolution. Michael Sturmer, who was Chancellor Kohl’s adviser, is also deeply disturbed, and Angela Merkel herself, who, by all accounts in today’s paper, is in serious crisis with her coalition, acknowledged recently that Europe is in danger, as is the euro. So it is, and so are we.
We have already seen hundreds of thousands of people all over Europe coming out on to the streets, and the catastrophic failure in Greece. It is not as if this has not been coming for decades. In a series of essays published in “Visions of Europe” in 1993, I warned of how the then new rules of economic and monetary union, which we opposed at Maastricht, would increase the likelihood of strikes and civil disorder but that there would be less and less practical accountability as the leaders of Europe withdrew from their responsibilities and handed over more decisions to unelected bankers and officials.
I then went on to warn of the neutering of national parliaments and the paralysis of Europe, which would
“give way to the…collapse of the Rule of Law, compounded by waves of immigration from the east, recession and lawlessness.”
I say this not with any sense of self-congratulation—at the time of the Maastricht rebellion, we were under the most intense pressure to disavow what we were saying. I simply ask that, in all honesty—an eminent columnist wrote to me the other day and said that it was lacking—people admit that a problem exists and that it must be addressed.
The real question is what the UK and our coalition Government will do about the situation as it is now—as it has come about—and how they will lead the UK and Europe out of the predicted and present chaos which is damaging to the UK economy and democracy, and to individual European countries and Europe as a whole. That is a practical necessity requiring vision, statesmanship and political will. The argument, I would say, is over, and it is now down to action.
The European Communities Act 1972, as Lord Bridge said in the Factortame case, is a voluntary Act. European treaties are subordinate to Parliament—as I established in exchanges with the right hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) when they were Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe respectively—and that includes the Lisbon treaty. I have made that point consistently and repeatedly, and I have already made three speeches in the new Parliament on the issue. In January 2010, I set out the legal and constitutional case, and in this contribution I wish to concentrate more on the practical questions, as compared with the remedies that I proposed in my United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill.
Over many years, I have set out the case in correspondence with the current Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary for the immediate implementation of the sovereignty Bill. In my view, there is an unchallengeable, legal, political and constitutional case for that Bill, and a necessity to enact it immediately to underpin negotiations that are needed and which include, for example, talks that the Prime Minister will conduct this week in Brussels. The sovereignty Bill was in our manifesto. On 4 November 2009, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now Prime Minister, made a speech entitled, “A European policy that people can believe in”, to which I replied in The European Journal. That was on my website during the general election.
Immediately before the general election, I intimated to the current Foreign Secretary that we needed the sovereignty Bill now, so as to underpin negotiations and deal with what appeared to be the inevitable and now present course of events. On 10 May, I wrote to the Prime Minister regarding those fundamental matters in the context of his pending negotiations for the coalition agreement. He replied on 21 June.
The situation has become significantly worse, including proposals in the context of majority voting for the sovereign right of the United Kingdom Parliament to receive and determine its own budget, which the Prime Minister will have to address this week. I regret to say that under the coalition agreement we are now reduced to a mere proposal for a commission to discuss sovereignty, not the manifesto commitment to pass the sovereignty Act on which we fought the election, and to which I referred in my commitments in my election material.
In my judgment, the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament and the imminent practical necessity supersedes the compromises of a coalition. This is no time for dither or prevarication, or for too-clever-by-half manoeuvres by the Foreign Office or diplomats in the Committee of Permanent Representatives, or by others. This is a time for action. We are where we are, and we must address the present crisis that lies at the heart of our constitution and at the axis of our economic and political future.
On “The Andrew Marr Show” last Sunday, the Foreign Secretary replied to questions about the European proposals to submit the UK budget to European institutions before submission to the UK Parliament. He replied that those were only proposals and would be dealt with in due course, and that we will argue for that position and maintain it. So far, so good, but we heard nothing about the use of the veto, no doubt in the knowledge that the proposals will be dealt with by majority voting. There are times when issues cannot simply go on being deferred or avoided, as happened, for example, in very different times during the 1930s. We cannot expect that something will turn up, or that negotiations with recalcitrant parties will somehow succeed.
In 1986, I tabled an amendment to the Single European Act, which is where majority voting comes from. It was refused for debate but stated:
“Nothing in this Act shall derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.”
It was supported by only one other Member of Parliament at the time, the right hon. Enoch Powell, who clearly understood why it was important.
There is also the question of the still outstanding Irish guarantees, which take us back to the Lisbon treaty and which we are told will be attached to the next accession treaty, possibly with Croatia. We will be denied a referendum on that, despite the accretion of powers to the European Union that it will involve. We have already been refused a referendum on that treaty, despite the fact that it fundamentally alters the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union—a point that was outrageously denied by the outgoing Government but well understood by the Conservative Opposition during the last Parliament, and about which I made a minority report in the European Scrutiny Committee.
Why can France, Holland, Denmark, Ireland, Spain and other European countries have referendums, yet we deny one to our own people? There is also the question of what are, in my view, the unlawful guarantees given by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the Greek bail-out. I tabled questions on that, but I have received no satisfactory answers. They appear to have been thrust under the carpet, despite exposing the fact that the UK taxpayer has been saddled with about £12 billion of commitments. That is against the background of the current Government debt and deficit, which is second only to Greece. It is compounded by our being the second greatest contributor to the European Union, with costs rising to £6.6 billion for 2010-11. According to the TaxPayers Alliance, the European Union costs individual British taxpayers £2,000 each per annum, which they certainly cannot afford. In the context of that broad landscape, I have to ask what it is in return for.
Furthermore, there is the proposed European tax on our financial services sector, which infringes the sovereign right of taxation of the UK Parliament, not to mention the European regulation of the City of London, about which I have written in the Financial Times on many occasions over the past few years, and spoken in the House. That tax is again by majority vote, and the jurisdiction—as with all European legislation—is with the European Court of Justice over and above the Bank of England and/or the Financial Services Authority.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the costs of the European Union. Does he accept that other additional costs go beyond those that he has mentioned? Because of the European Union, economic growth has been slower than it would otherwise have been. If one adds up the cumulative loss of growth over 30 years or more, it represents a considerable cost to Britain. Additionally, there is the higher cost of food which is a result of being a member of the common agricultural policy.
Mr Cash
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his consistent, persistent predictions, all of which have proved to be right, even if he and I may differ as to what use we would make of the sovereignty if it were reclaimed. The right hon. Peter Shore became a good friend of mine, and during the Maastricht debates, he and I debated issues of the kind raised by the hon. Gentleman. We can honestly say that we did our best and that what we demonstrated has occurred.
The hon. Gentleman’s point about costs raises the question of over-regulation and competition. Professor Roland Vaubel of Mannheim university has written on that matter, calling it a form of “regulatory collusion” between the Governments of the member states, with member states using majority voting to create competitive advantage. Vaubel shows that regulation is explicitly used as a means of raising rivals’ costs. People must take that seriously. That is what is going on; it is a form of warfare—as Clausewitz would have said, “War by any other means”. Indeed, Germany followed that model, led by Prussia in a majority coalition after 1871. As with so much of what goes on today, much has already happened in the creation of modern Germany.
There is also the problem of over-regulation calculated by the British Chambers of Commerce in its “Burdens Barometer”, written by Tim Ambler and Francis Chittenden. It shows that in both the United Kingdom and Europe, 70% of over-regulation comes from the European Union, which since 1998 has cost the British economy £76.8 billion.
One of the most invasive legal obligations is the working time directive, which came through the Single European Act. Despite my warnings to the then Government, that directive was misleadingly included in a declaration in that Act, which the Court of Justice subsequently ruled, as I had expected, as a legal obligation—a costly mistake, which has to be reversed. Even the noble Lord Mandelson stated—as did his fellow EU Commissioner Mr Verheugen—that the over-regulation that so undermines EU and UK competitiveness, with China and India for example, amounts to as much as 4% of GDP. Indeed, we heard yesterday that the noble Lord Young of Graffham will lead a review of health and safety legislation. I trust that that review will recognise that so much of this damaging legislation—some of which is necessary—comes from the European Union, and particularly from the powers made under the so-called precautionary principle, which bypasses judicial review and is used by the Court of Justice. That principle will need to be overridden—as will so many other laws—under the sovereignty Act that I propose. That same principle applies in the fields of environmental and consumer protection law, and it is therefore pervasive.
Kelvin Hopkins
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s flow yet again, but he made a point about competitiveness. There might be many differences between the two of us on economics, but had Britain been a member of the eurozone we would not have been able to depreciate and our competiveness, compared with India and China, would have been even worse.
Mr Cash
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is, as ever, slightly ahead of my curve, but I now move on to the next point.
We hear from the Prime Minister that we want the eurozone to be stable. I have argued for many years that an imploding European Union is not in our national interest. I have been saying that for 20 years; I thought that it would occur, and it has. What has been needed is a realignment of European institutions and Europe itself into an association of nation states, precisely to avoid the implosion that is taking place. Only a few months ago, the Prime Minister himself referred to the desirability of our forming ourselves into an association of member states, which I take to be much the same idea.
The Lisbon agenda has failed. I railed against the stability and growth pact in 1996, when the now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wrote to Members of Parliament in reply to his letter, indicating that I did not think that the pact could work. It has failed, and with it, the rule of law. Yet, here they are: I heard Madame Lagarde only yesterday talking about bringing it back again, as if experience cannot be seen for what it is. Experience, in my judgment, crushes hope.
The common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and the EUROSTAT statistical system have all failed. I believe that the latter is at the heart of the problem in relation to—let us put it bluntly—the lies that were told about the Greek economy. EU origin marking causes enormous damage to the third world, as the committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) demonstrated the other day. We had an interesting analysis from the global governance commission in Washington, which emphasised over and over that the EU origin marking system was one of the major problems for the third world.
There is endemic fraud. The Maastricht deficit criteria of 3% is nothing short of a joke, with massively seriously consequences for the voters in this country and throughout Europe, who are subjected to bungled economic management, and massively increasing debt, with the hidden costs of up to £3.1 trillion——in our own case in real terms—which cannot be swept away. The budget deficit proposals of £6 billion are a mere sop in relation to the mismanagement that is coming through Europe and affecting our economy as well, and we will not convince the bond markets or the rating agencies, which determine our ratings in the global marketplace.
As I have said, we were told by the Prime Minister that we need a strong eurozone, because 50% of our trade is with that zone. However, the eurozone is imploding, and Angela Merkel and 68% of the German people are opposed to the Greek bail-out, precisely because the whole economic and political structure of the European Union does not work.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, in this very timely debate. I am listening with great interest to him analysing the situation, both within and without the eurozone. Does he agree with me that if we do not move now and grasp the nettle—as he has accurately said we should—one of the political problems will be the rise of the far right across Europe, which preys on the very fears and concerns that we all know are out there, and which we have seen emerge from time to time in various nation states?
Mr Cash
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and in my essay in “Visions of Europe” in 1993 I said exactly that—that that would be the consequence of the lawlessness that would follow. The problem is that it is not good enough to wring our hands and say, “Oh well, we’d like this to be better,” or “We’re going to go along with it.” We have to have a radical policy based on proper analysis. I wait to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says, but I cannot believe that he could seriously disagree with anything I have said. These are factual questions. If it is just a matter of culture or attitude: “Oh well, we want to be good Europeans,” or “We don’t want to face up to these things,” or “People such as Bill Cash are just Europhobes who go around ranting about Europe and banging on”—
Mr Cash
I am glad that my hon. Friend has made the inevitable harrumph, but the matter needs to be taken extremely seriously. Europe does not work as it is now devised; it is pre-eminently a practical matter. It is no good our being committed to a eurozone that is so undermined by its own institutional inadequacies and contradictions, by the diversity of its different economies, and by the real requirements of the voters and the business community in each country. Is it all so difficult, complicated and entrenched that nothing can be done, or do we roll up our sleeves and get down to resolving it? I suggest that at the summit this week we at least start to get serious about the nature of the problem. Europe does not work, not only because of over-regulation and the irreversibility of the acquis communautaire, but because it is essentially undemocratic and authoritarian, which is dangerous, as both German and Greek commentators agreed only yesterday. And it is not only one or two commentators; that view is becoming endemic and demonstrable.
The whole of Europe is trembling and action is needed now. There are those, such as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Daily Telegraph, Martin Wolf and Ralph Atkins of the Financial Times, Walter Munchau, Stephen Glover, Andrew Alexander and a growing band of Euro-realist Members of Parliament who are beginning to speak out, and many who have done so over many years. In Holland, the general election left its message on the table—in France and Germany, the same. Across the entire breadth of the continent, in Italy, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria, in the referendums that have taken place and in the ditching of the constitutional treaty, which was then supplanted by the Lisbon treaty—virtually the same thing—people are disillusioned with the European Union and demand change and action, yet we are still presented with a policy of further enlargement, against which I have argued for many years. In the leader in today’s Financial Times we hear more about Europe’s debt crisis. It states:
“Europe’s sovereign debt worries have prompted parallels to…2008”,
and
“crisis management is not the same as crisis resolution.”
On enlargement, only last week The Spectator devoted its leader to the proposal for Turkish accession. It is clear that Turkey is moving towards accession, and on both economic and political grounds it should not be regarded as a prospective member of the club, given its current dealings with Syria, Iran and the middle east. As is so often the case in the political and economic sphere, the problem with enlargement is that European Union policies, once espoused, are deemed irreversible. Just when decentralisation and democracy—listening to the people and involving them and the big society in our Government—have become so essential, the institutions and governmental establishments of the European Union and each of the member states career ever more wildly into crisis.
Recently, we have had the experience of the European arrest warrant. The absorption of our criminal justice system is yet another area of deep concern. Under a European arrest warrant, Mr Arapi, a British resident from Leek, in Staffordshire, was convicted in his absence and sentenced to 15 years. We have the inconceivable and unacceptable vision of a British judge ordering Mr Arapi’s extradition, when there is apparently overwhelming evidence that he was not where he was said to have been when he was supposed to have committed a murder in Italy. The whole project is flawed from beginning to end and must be radically reformed, or else.
I turn now to the European Scrutiny Committee. Parliament has a system for dealing with many of the problems that I have outlined or, at any rate, for alerting Members of Parliament to what is going on. I regret to say that the Committee is still not sitting, despite the fact that Parliament has now been back for a couple of weeks. I have been on the Committee for 26 years, sometimes in adverse circumstances; it has been difficult to be heard, let alone listened to and certainly agreed with, despite much evidence. While in opposition in the last two years of the previous Parliament, the Conservative party achieved remarkable unity on the European issue and the Lisbon treaty, barring just one vote on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
Although the manner in which Parliament deals with European legislation has been subjected to a number of improvements, we have not gone far enough. Indeed, the present Home Secretary made some significant proposals for reforming European scrutiny. She agreed to adopt my proposal that if the European Scrutiny Committee recommends a European matter for debate, and 150 Members of Parliament propose that it is a matter of national interest, it should be subjected to a free vote on the Floor of the House—I say “vote”, not “take-note motion”, because that is one of the problems. She also proposed that the Committee meet in public, as many of us have advocated for some time. After the issue was finally voted on by the Committee, it was abandoned, and it must be revived.
In my 26 years on the Committee, the establishment and the Government of the United Kingdom have always ensured that there is a majority in favour of European proposals that emanate from Brussels. Matters may be recommended for debate in a European Standing Committee—sometimes by a majority vote—but no vote in such a Committee ever goes against the Government. If one ever does, it is immediately reversed on the Floor of the House as being inconsistent with the European Communities Act 1972. That is no way to proceed. Not one vote has ever gone against Brussels legislation in my 26 years on the Committee. Only last week, a Cabinet Office Minister indicated that there were no proposals for a sovereignty Act to alter that disgraceful state of affairs.
That is how the European Scrutiny Committee functions. I have been on it long enough to know that not one single vote on any European legislation that has been through a European Standing Committee on the recommendation of my Committee has ever been passed on the Floor of the House, and I challenge anyone to come forward with an example. We have take-note motions, Adjournment debates and general European affairs debates, but we do not have votes on seminal matters of the kind I have described.
Whatever the merits of the national interest, which I have already described, it is vital to create a requirement, set out by our Prime Minister in 2005 when he referred to an imperative requirement to achieve competitiveness in the British economy. The European Scrutiny Committee is called in for debates, but issues are not voted on, which makes the process intrinsically futile. The Committee is important, but it must be reformed and improved, although improvements are taking place.
The Committee has the power to impose a scrutiny reserve while debates take place, but it is sometimes overridden out of what is described as urgent necessity. In any case, such measures merely hold down the European juggernaut for the time being, and there is no resistance whatever to majority votes in the Council of Ministers being imposed on the UK Parliament. A work by Sanoussi Bilal and Madeleine Hosli states what some of us know already, although it is worth recording. They say that in the EU,
“a major difficulty arises from the lack of transparency of the decision-making process. In particular, decisions by the Council seldom result in a formal vote, but are rather taken by consensus (or without a vote when no obvious blocking minority has formed)…why would a minority member state cast a vote against the majority knowing it is doom to lose anyway, unless it wants to make public its disagreement. Therefore, most of the time, formal votes at the Council level merely represent the tip of the iceberg of the coalition-building and decision-making process.”
Given that the enormous matters we are discussing affect the entire British economy in one form or other, and given what is at stake, only some of which I have indicated, it is inconceivable that there should be such incredible problems in the fault-lines of the system that has been devised. Once again, the issue needs to be taken extremely seriously, but I wonder whether it will be. If it is not, there will be difficulties of a kind that I do not need to specify.
The Back-Bench business committee proposals, which will come before the House this afternoon, do not include European documents, although the proposals would not seem to preclude votes on European affairs, unless such matters were taken only in Westminster Hall, and that highly contentious question will no doubt be debated this afternoon. We therefore have debates on European matters without votes, on a take-note basis. Much business is conducted behind the scenes in Brussels by the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the European Union and COREPER, using their own arcane procedures. It is conducted within and parallel to the European establishment and it is intertwined with it. Why and how can that be allowed to continue?
Not only is most business conducted behind closed doors, but the majority voting system itself is not transparent. More often than not, we do not even know which way the UK will have voted or whether it will have deliberately abstained—we know a bit more about the German situation—to acquiesce in or even appease the European institutional consensus. At the same time, the UK Parliament, and therefore the British people, are bypassed and stitched up.
Recent events relating to the 1922 committee concern the independence of Conservative Back Benchers, but the same applies to the parliamentary Labour party. It is essential that those of us on the Back Benches have systems, mechanisms and procedures that can act as a safety valve. We do not necessarily want those things because we want to act in a hostile manner or to be difficult or awkward, but because there is an alternative view, and expressing it is part of our freedom of speech and vitally affects the interests of those who vote us into this place.
The BBC has consistently declined to give proper coverage to the European issue and has adopted that policy with tenacity and editorial contrivance since the 1950s, as has been well documented. Anyone who raises serious and seminal questions about the European issue—most of their predictions have turned out to be true—tends to be regarded as Europhobic or worse.
What can now be said with certainty is that, as we speak, our economy, our democracy and our constitution are on the line. This week, the summit will discuss proposals for our Budget to be presented to the European institutions before our Parliament sees it. There may be attempts to create some obscurantist device, perception or spin to make it look as if these things are not really happening or that they are all happening under the aegis of the majority vote. At last, however, the penny has begun to drop. The mask is being stripped away. Our national interest is at stake, and the need for political will to reaffirm the sovereignty of the British people through their representative Parliament has become paramount in the national interest, as is there for all to see.
This critical summit is the time for us and the European Union to face up to action and reality. Let us put our commitment to a sovereignty Act on the table this week. Let negotiations commence between all 27 member states for a voluntary association of nation states to get out of the mess that exists, which will get worse. Even the Prime Minister has recently put forward the idea of an association of member states. If that falls on deaf ears at the European Council, let those member states who want to, including Germany and France, use the enhanced co-operation procedure for a fiscal and political union—a new Zollverein with a new treaty—with a referendum here in Britain on the proposals; for they will affect us in a fundamental change in our relationship with the European Union. We can remain with other like-minded states in an associated status within the amended European arrangements, as I proposed in my pamphlet of 2000 called, in deference to Churchill’s time-honoured phrase, “Associated, Not Absorbed”.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
May I say first what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr. Streeter, and secondly may I convey my sympathy to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on his bereavement? I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important debate. I thought it important to come along and put a democratic socialist perspective, arriving at the same conclusions from a different perspective on the European Union.
This is a critical time in the development of the European Union and in Britain’s history. The European Union and, indeed, Britain, are suffering severe economic difficulties. The eurozone is in crisis and the plans of the extreme federalists are unravelling before our eyes. That is a welcome movement, and is happening not before time. It is possible that Germany is in the process of re-establishing the Deutschmark, or a Deutschmark area. It has great difficulty in doing that, because it is so exposed to other member states of the European Union, which have great economic difficulties, but that shows the folly of imposing a single currency on different economies, with different levels of economic success. It does not work and on many occasions elsewhere it has been proved not to work.
The peoples of Europe are deeply sceptical about the European Union and the direction that it has taken. The danger, as the hon. Gentleman said, is that there could be a rise in nationalism as a reaction. Such a reaction results from the fact that the peoples are not listened to. The opposition to much of what the European Union has been doing recently comes from the left. The referendum in France was won—that is the sense in which I see it—by people of the left. The left was also in the lead in the Dutch referendum. Even to go back to the Swedish referendum on joining the euro, which was another substantial no vote, it was the left—trade unionists, socialists and social democrats—who pressed that case.
Over and again I have to point out that, although we keep talking about Europe, we are discussing not Europe but the European Union. Europe is a geographical entity with many historical and cultural links. The European Union is an invention of humankind, imposing a political structure on many of the nations of Europe, but it is not Europe itself. Although I may be accused of being a Europhobe I genuinely love Europe. I am culturally European. Clearly, Britain is European. I love European music, languages and literature. I love and enjoy everything about Europe, but I do not approve of the European Union.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that positive intervention. In a few weeks I shall be sojourning in Provence, sampling wonderful European wine, listening to music and so on. Europe is a wonderful place, but the European Union is deeply flawed.
The hon. Gentleman has said that even this week the European Union is trying to interfere and to impose its will on Britain’s decisions about its budgetary situation and economic policies. That was reported yesterday in the Evening Standard, so it is not going away. I hope and trust that the new Government will tell the European Union in no uncertain terms that decisions about our budgetary and economic policies will be decided by the British Government, who will be accountable to the British Parliament, and will not be determined by the European Union. Perhaps the EU is under the illusion that it can manage Britain as well as it has managed the eurozone. That would lead us pretty much into disaster.
While I am on the question of the European Union’s recent policies, I shall mention enlargement. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Edward Heath. I listened to one of his last speeches to Parliament before he retired 10 years ago, and he made a strong point to the effect that enlargement would not work. He was against it. I do not speak for or against it today, but Edward Heath was strongly opposed to it because he thought that a European Union covering more than the developed nations of western Europe would not work. He wanted a deeper and stronger European Union, possibly with a single currency, but he believed that it could not work if it were to be widely enlarged. One of the reasons I have supported enlargement is that I believed it could weaken the European Union. That may be a cynical view, but I thought that over time people would realise that ramming countries or nation states together in that way would not ultimately work. Therefore I have gone along with enlargement. I think it is a way of ensuring that in the end people come to their senses.
I am not against international alliances or co-operative relationships with all our neighbours. Indeed, those are vital. I am sure that everyone would be in favour of those things if they were based on democratic Governments agreeing to work together for mutual benefit on behalf of their peoples. That is what the European Union should become, in my view. We must stop the drive towards a federal Europe now, retain what sovereignty we have, and begin to roll things back: the EU and what it has taken over from Britain and other member states.
I have often mentioned my concern about the common fisheries policy, which is completely barmy. I think that Edward Heath decided at the last minute that we should go into that, but it has been disastrous. Some of the biggest fisheries in Europe are Britain’s, and the EU itself has reported, in the past week or two, that 30 per cent. of fish stocks are at the point of collapse, and all fisheries are being overfished. The only way to overcome that is for fisheries to be restored to member states, which will then have the sense of ownership and responsibility for managing the areas in question. Then fish stocks can start to recover. Reforms have taken place and there are non-fishing areas, but it will not work until member states take over responsibility for their historic fisheries and husband them as they did in the past.
The costs of agriculture are enormous and every member state in the European Union has its own approach. Some are more agricultural than others. We are one of the most efficient agricultural nations, but that is only a small part of our economy. Other countries are overwhelmed by agricultural costs and inefficient, small-scale agriculture, but it is up to those member states to manage their own agriculture. If we need to transfer revenues between member states, that can be done on a voluntary basis, and if poorer states need to be sustained by richer states perhaps fiscal transfers can take care of that. The common agricultural policy distorts the whole of agriculture and operates in an inequitable way. Some member states pay more than they should and some receive more than they should, in a way that bears little relationship to their relative wealth. We should start to roll back agricultural policy.
I hope that the Government will give notice that we want to return to a world in which member states manage their own fisheries—an abandonment of the common fisheries policy. If other member states or the European Union refuse, Britain should give notice that, after a period, we would re-establish control of our historic fishing grounds. I hope that that would put sufficient pressure on the EU to make some sense of it.
The real question is one of democracy—of whether the populations of the various member states have control of their own destinies and can choose to be free market capitalist or democratic socialist countries. I have campaigned all my life for a democratic socialist Britain, and I do not want that possibility to be taken away by EU bureaucrats. Equally, some want to see a more free market capitalist world in Britain. We will not want bureaucrats in Brussels telling us that we cannot do things if the people of Britain have chosen to go in those directions. It is about democracy. One of the great advantages of our system of government is that when the population gets fed up with the Government or do not like what they are doing, it can kick them out and put in another Government with a different view. The essence of democracy is a real choice of policy in how people are governed.
British economic policy should be decided by British Governments that are elected by the British electorate. As and when we need to co-operate with other member states and other nations, we should do so on a democratically agreed basis. I am sure that that would be most agreeable to everyone, as well as being beneficial. It would also help us resist the tendency to nationalism. If people become frustrated about the EU and the lack of democracy, they may turn to other forms of politics, some of which would be much more unpleasant—one such is nationalism—and there is talk, even in Germany, of serious disorder if things are not made democratic. If the Germans and the Greeks can decide their future, so can we. Although we have friendly relations with other member states, if we rather than the European Commission and the European Union were able to decide our future, everyone would be a lot happier. The danger of extreme politics would go.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I share most of his views. Does he agree that one of the mistakes made by our trade union and labour movement—it was a historic and democratic mistake—was to be persuaded by Delors that we could more easily get a shift to the left and more trade union rights via the back door of the European Union, then the Common Market, than by winning the argument in this country?
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The fear was that the only way to roll back what was then described as Thatcherism was by going along with the European Union. The TUC flip-flopped right over from being critical and sceptical about Europe to being enthusiastic. Subsequently, however, judgments have been made by the European Court against trade unions and in favour of employers, because it thinks that they interfere with how the market should operate. The trade unions, and even John Monks, a great enthusiast for the European Union, are becoming more sceptical.
Mr Cash
May I mention again the extremely important paper written by Professor Roland Vaubel of Manheim university on the raising of rivals’ costs? Much of that is to do with labour regulation. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a copy, as it demonstrates how regulatory collusion can create disadvantages for certain countries.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I take a slightly different view on some of these things because I think that trade union rights should be decided though the democratic governance of member states.
International involvement comes through the International Labour Organisation, with its minimum standards for labour regulation. That is where we should stand, but we fall below those standards. I want us to move forward and restore trade union and worker rights at least to the ILO standards, in many ways going back to the sort of regime we had in the past. That would not be agreeable to the Government, no doubt; and other countries, too, might choose another approach. However, that is the approach that I would like to see, and I would like to see it voted on by the working people of Britain, who I hope would support the election of a Labour Government committed to re-establishing trade union and worker rights. It is another example of democracy. I do not want to see the European Union telling me or other trade unionists or socialists that we cannot legislate in a particular way. We should decide our trade union rights, not the EU.
The EU and its ultra-federalists have over-reached themselves. It is time to roll back the EU, and restore sovereignty and democracy to member states. Member states may choose to go down a socialist road or a non-socialist road, but the direction should be down to them and to their electorates and peoples. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important subject, and I hope that my brief comments are helpful.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I apologise, Mr Streeter, for having missed the opening of the debate and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).
I see this debate as being divided into two sections. Sovereignty of Parliament is questioned—indeed, threatened—by the development of the European Union. That may be so if custom and usage has a part in it; sovereignty of Parliament is the profound constitutional doctrine that has determined the course of our development over nearly three centuries. I do not see that concept being threatened for as long as the judges apply it.
The conflict that arises with the European Union is entirely of Parliament’s making. If there is a conflict, it is because Parliament assents to each and every dreadful transfer of powers—powers of initiation, and powers of legislation—to the EU. The conflict lies with Parliament asserting—contrary, I would argue, to the will of the people—that all these transfers and mechanisms used by the EU are appropriate. That will doubtless be the Government’s position today; they will fudge along, arguing that we are, of course, taking strong measures to protect our sovereignty. However, there is no need to protect our sovereignty if we in Parliament are clear about its relationship with the people.
I have argued during my time as a Member of the House of Commons that it is not the sovereignty of Parliament in the current age but the sovereignty of the British people that matters, and that for as long as Governments are not prepared to refer the issues involved in that concept to the people themselves, then the question of legitimacy arises. Those are the issues that I think thread through the problem.
Anyone who has experienced modern British government knows the tyranny of the majority; the sovereignty of Parliament can indeed assert itself and, as a raw concept, be a great tyranny. Instead of the old traditions, with Governments attempting to win arguments to pursue their policies, they now resort to sheer, simple, straightforward majoritarianism. It is evidenced, of course, in the proceedings of the House, where guillotines are the order of the day. No one can say, in a proper and reliable sense, that the sovereignty of Parliament rests upon consent, in the sense that due and proper process, the seeking of an argument and the ability to develop an argument, is scrupulously observed by Parliament.
In respect of the European Union, one speech on what was happening was perhaps the best that I ever heard. Leaving aside all the manoeuvrings, it was an observation made on 28 February 1992, when I was moving my Referendum Bill on Maastricht, that it was incredible that what will now be two generations of those who had run our country’s affairs were prepared to surrender that thing which this island, this nation, had believed was among its crown jewels—self-government. That is what this conflict is about.
In my lifetime, Governments of both parties have, since the referendum, pursued the giving away of whole areas of self-government. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred to the right of others to determine our employment laws and the relationship with the trade union movement. Such matters were brought up by Peter Shore, whom we remember as the author of Gaitskell’s “a thousand years of history” speech. That was not a rabid anti-European Community measure, or the Common Market as it was then called, but a speech made in the absence of knowing what this would lead to—cautious, intelligent and well worth reading today.
Why have the two generations who have run our public policy pursued a policy that undermines the very sense of sovereignty of the British people, and done so often contrary to the wishes of the parties—it destroyed Major—and the people, as regularly diagnosed by public opinion polls? Those who make the laws are accountable. That is what self-government is about in a democratic age. They are accountable to the people, in our instance; hence, I call it the sovereignty of the people. What in those relationships makes the European Union, to which we have outsourced the making of our laws, accountable to the British people? Of course it is not accountable, nor was it ever intended to be. The biography of Edward Heath was mentioned; his regard for the wholehearted consent of the British people was contemptuously disregarded. It took Mr Wilson and a split Labour Cabinet to give a “sort of” referendum to the British people on something of which Mr Gaitskell would have said, “We do not know where this leads”. And we did not know where it led.
I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Stone for initiating this wide-reaching debate about where we are and the significance of what we should be. I stand, as does my hon. Friend, for the British people in this argument. In the end, those who give cast-iron guarantees on referendums, or otherwise, destroy faith and trust in themselves and in our system. This debate gives us a way forward to show that our political parties believe in their people, their nation and the trust conferred when they make a pledge.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you chairing the debate, Mr Streeter. Following the contributions this morning, I think the Minister and I will be the more pro-European contributors, which is perhaps ironic. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on securing the debate and on his consistency, constancy and determination. I am sure he will apply as much rigour to his scrutiny of the new Minister for Europe as he did to that of the previous one; indeed, if anything I suspect his scrutiny will increase slightly. I am sure he will look forward to that. I, too, pass on my condolences to the hon. Gentleman; he spoke movingly about his father and mother. Many of the positions we adopt on European matters spring not only from an intellectual position but from an emotive argument that has sustained itself in our hearts. I do not say it is a bad thing; it is an entirely laudable one.
One area on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman is European scrutiny: we still do not do it properly—not only in this House but across Parliament. It tends to be done by a very small number of people who could perhaps be described as obsessives or anoraks—I include the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and myself in that category—and we need to find a means of doing it better. The hon. Gentleman is right: we rarely vote on European matters and that ought to change. I have never understood why European affairs debates have to be on the motion for the Adjournment or a general debate. I do not know why they cannot be on a substantive motion before the House, which might encourage the Whips to take a greater interest in ensuring that more people attend such debates, and might extend the range of issues that we discuss. The focus is often narrow—on what is going on in the European Union—rather than broad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North and I both nominated the same person for leadership of our party, but we may end up voting for different candidates. I say gently that I also believe in democratic socialism, but I do not believe that it can be built in one country alone. We have to strive for it internationally, because the rights and principles that one adheres to apply to all.
Kelvin Hopkins
The candidate that my hon. Friend and I nominated is a Eurosceptic.
Chris Bryant
Which shows what a generous soul I am.
It is good to see the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) in his place. He pointed out that Parliament consistently assents to such measures, which relates to the point I made earlier about the European Union and scrutiny in this House. Parliament assented originally in the European Communities Act 1972, and we continue to assent every time we choose not to have a vote, and every time we choose to do so and vote in favour. In a sense, therefore, the nub of the question about sovereignty is rather different.
Chris Bryant
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind I will not give way, which means I will shut up sooner. He spoke for some time and we want to hear from the new Minister.
There are some significant paradoxes and problems facing the Union. We all rightly fight for fiscal autonomy for each of the member states, but also know that we are economically interdependent. If the euro collapsed it would be bad for the British economy, not least because to all intents and purposes, in many regards we are Europe’s banker. We want the rest of Europe to shoulder more of the security burden around the world, particularly in Afghanistan. At the same time, the only way we can achieve that is by cajoling and persuading. We want Europe to punch its weight in relation to the emerging economies—Brazil, Russia, India, China and so on—but we rely on self-discipline to achieve that and often, self-discipline does not work when Russia holds out its paw with an enormous financial offer.
We want better protection—for instance, for British people who have chosen to live in Spain and whose houses are being pulled down—but we are not prepared to ensure that Europe has the enforcement powers when rights are not being protected. We want better EU regulations so that financial services organisations in Cyprus, for instance, do a better and more legitimate job, but at the same time we want to ensure the autonomy of the UK financial services industry. We want Romania and Bulgaria to be members of the Union, but at the moment I can see no prospect of allowing Romanians and Bulgarians to work in the UK. I suspect that the same might be true of Croatia and the other countries we hope will become members of the European Union in the near future, such as the western Balkan countries. We want them to join, but I suspect that the Government want a derogation so that those nationals cannot enjoy freedom of employment in the UK from day one; perhaps the Minister will clarify that point later.
Likewise, I have always considered the operation of the common agricultural policy immoral in many ways, as other countries are unable to compete because we subsidise so much. At the same time, if there was not a common agricultural policy there would be a French, Italian, German or Greek one, which could be considerably worse. There is a constant clash at the heart of Europe between subsidiarity and collective action, and now is a key moment in European politics to decide how to reconcile such issues. I suspect that such a reconciliation will happen at a dinner on Wednesday evening when Angela Merkel and President Sarkozy meet up. Let me say gently to the Minister that I hope he ends up joining the European People’s party, because it is easier to do business sitting at the table when the decisions are being made, rather than waiting for the moment after the decisions have been made by the big players.
The hon. Member for Stone did not refer much to his or the Government’s sovereignty of Parliament Bill. I have expressed views on the matter before, so I will not bore the Chamber with them again. Suffice it to say that it will either mean nothing because Parliament is already sovereign—it could, if it wanted to, withdraw from the European Communities Act 1972, it could repeal the Act or decide that the legislation no longer applies—or it will mean something, in which case this House can say, “We don’t care what has been decided through the co-decision process; we simply disagree.” It could say, “I don’t care whether the Government have signed up to it; we disagree and we are going to strike down that legislation.” Such a move, however, is potentially very dangerous because it puts us on course for leaving the Union.
I have a few questions for the Minister. He told us that there would be a new Europe Committee—a Cabinet Sub-Committee. Has it met yet and is it to meet in public? It will be fascinating to see the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary publicly debating Europe. Will the Committee include Members from the devolved Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? Some of the issues that come up at such meetings are devolved responsibilities, so there might be a particular value in including those Members. I have similar questions about the committee on parliamentary sovereignty. Who will chair it and who will be on it? When will it meet and what resources will it have? Will it effectively be a parliamentary commission, and if not how will it conduct its business; and when will it complete its work? Finally, what is its precise position on whether Britain and countries outside the euro should be required to present their budgets to the Commission? It seems bizarre that the European Union or the Commission—in whatever format—should be able to have sight of a British Budget before the British Parliament.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on securing this debate, and also express my sincere condolences to him on the recent death of his mother. He clearly set out his views on sovereignty. In the last Parliament, he championed the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill to allow for further debate and consideration of such matters. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are now considering a United Kingdom sovereignty Bill, and the programme for government agreed by both parties in the coalition states:
“We will examine the case for a Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) pointed out, the common law is clear; Parliament is sovereign. European Union law takes effect in this country only by virtue of an Act of Parliament. The European Communities Act 1972 states that European Union law should have primacy. That means national laws, including Acts of Parliament, must be interpreted in such a way as to comply with EU rules. Where the two are incompatible, UK law is disapplied. The 1972 Act, therefore, gives EU law primacy over UK law for so long as that Act remains in force. However, as successive Governments and the courts have recognised, such measures do not impact on sovereignty, because it is always open to Parliament to amend or repeal an Act; it is Parliament’s choice that EU law has primacy, and it can, if it chooses, change its mind. I do not want to underplay the enormous political consequences that would flow from such a decision, but those are the constitutional facts, and they were confirmed in the most trenchant language in the metric martyrs’ case in 2002 when the courts ruled that
“Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of the [1972 Act]…there is nothing in the [1972 Act] which allows the Court of Justice, or any other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom. Not because the legislature chose not to allow it; because by our law it could not allow it…being sovereign, it cannot abandon its sovereignty.”
The Government are now exploring how they can ensure that the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty is upheld. They want to assess whether the common law provides sufficient ongoing and unassailable protection for that principle. It is an important process, and it is only right that sufficient time is allowed for discussions within Government and for appropriate advice to be taken. Once the Government have decided on whether there should be a Bill to reinforce the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, we will make an appropriate statement to the House.
Mr Cash
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have spoken on both this subject and the metric martyrs’ case on many occasions. Does he not accept that we voted against the Lisbon treaty, which is a consolidating treaty and incorporates all the treaties? In addition to that, the issue of primacy is already clearly stated in Costa v. ENEL and in other cases. They say that the European Court of Justice asserts its primacy over our constitution. I hope that the Minister will come on to that, because that is where a big problem starts to get even worse.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend will have to forgive me if I say that the kind of questions that he asks are precisely those that the Government will wish to consider in the exercise that I have just described—when they come to a view as to whether we should introduce primary legislation to reinforce the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. So far, as he knows, the British courts have upheld the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. We want to ensure that such a principle is unassailable and ongoing.
Chris Bryant
Before the Minister’s speech, we were told by the Government that a committee will be set up to do such work. Now, however, he seems to be saying that there will not be a committee, but just a general process of cogitation, regurgitation and general thinking. Does he describe that as the backburner or the long grass?
Mr Lidington
It is certainly not the long grass. The work has already started, but it requires proper consideration. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s impatience and eagerness for an outcome to this exercise, but given that we are only a month into the new Administration, he will have to bear with us a little longer before we come to a conclusion. I can assure him that as soon as a decision is taken, we will make a statement to Parliament, so that he and other hon. Members can question and challenge us on the outcome of that debate within Government.
The Government have been clear about what we intend to propose in legislation at the earliest opportunity. We have agreed that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers from the United Kingdom to the EU over the course of this Parliament, and that commitment is written into the coalition programme. The Government are also committed to increasing democratic and parliamentary control, scrutiny and accountability in relation to EU decision-making. We will introduce a Bill to ensure that the British Parliament and the British people have more of a say, and that will increase the democratic accountability of the European Union. The Bill that was listed in the Gracious Speech has two main elements: a referendum lock and greater parliamentary control over the use of the so-called passerelle or ratchet clauses in the Lisbon treaty.
Let me describe briefly what we propose in terms of a referendum lock, although my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and the House will appreciate that very detailed work is now going on to determine the precise language of the Bill. Any proposed future treaty that transferred competences or areas of power from the UK to the EU would be subject to a referendum. No Government would be able to pass more powers to the EU unless the British people had agreed that they should be able to do so and no Government would be able to join the euro unless the British people had agreed that they should do so.
My hon. Friend said that there might be an attempt to bring about treaty change to create some form of economic governance in light of the current financial crisis. I can say to him that there is no consensus so far even in the euro area that there should be a further treaty. Any EU treaty, even one that applied only to the euro area, would need the unanimous agreement of all 27 member states, including the UK. Each of those 27 member states would have a veto. Even in the case of a hypothetical treaty that the British Government were prepared to endorse, the fact remains that any treaty that proposed to transfer powers from the UK to the institutions of the EU would require a referendum for ratification, under the terms of the programme for Government that the coalition has set out.
We also plan to change the law so that any Government would be required to pass primary legislation before they could give final agreement to any of the so-called ratchet clauses. There is a variety of those clauses; there is no easy definition of a ratchet clause. Some provide for modification of the treaties without using the ordinary revision procedure and some are one-way options that are already in the treaties, whereby EU member states can decide together to exercise those options, and which allow existing EU powers to expand. There are options, for example, in the common foreign and security policy, in justice and home affairs, and in environment policy. Besides the provisions on primary legislation, in our Bill we will also ensure that the use of any major ratchet clause that amounts to the transfer of an area of power from the UK to the EU would be subject to a referendum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke about the inadequacy of our current system of parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation. The Government plan to improve the scrutiny of EU decision making, and getting the scrutiny system right is a very high priority for us. I am currently examining ways of strengthening the existing system of parliamentary scrutiny and I am keen to discuss proposals with the new Scrutiny Committees of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, once they are formed. I hope that they will be formed in the very near future.
Kelvin Hopkins
There has been an honest division of view about how parliamentary scrutiny should be reformed. The hon. Member for Stone talked about having all the debates on scrutiny open. I took the other view, because we receive very valuable advice from Officers of this House—honest and frank advice, which I may say is often sympathetic to my view as well—and the Officers would not be able to provide such advice if the debates on scrutiny were carried out in public.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman makes a clear point that we in Government and the House as a whole will want to bear in mind when it comes to taking decisions about the scrutiny process. It is also important that we look at the practice of scrutiny in other EU member states. I had a meeting last week with the chairman of the Swedish scrutiny committee, and we are exploring the models of scrutiny that are in use elsewhere in the EU, to see whether there are any aspects of those processes that we might usefully adapt for our own purposes here.
Chris Bryant
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I sensitively suggest to him that most other member states conduct scrutiny remarkably worse than we do, which is quite a thing to be able to say.
In addition, all I would say to the Minister is that we still do not have the European Scrutiny Committee set up. For the life of me, I cannot see why the chairmanship of that Committee was not established when the other Select Committees that we have already elected were established. Also, I hope that a new scrutiny reserve resolution will be tabled fairly soon. I urge the hon. Gentleman to try and make this issue as much a matter for the House as for the Foreign Office, because it should be a matter for the whole of the House to decide on.
Mr Lidington
I take very seriously the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. He also asked me about the new Cabinet Committee on European Affairs. That Committee is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and the deputy chairman is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. It has met; it met for the first time last week. However, I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman by saying that it does not meet, and does not intend to meet, in public. There is no difference in that regard to the system for any Cabinet Committee. Members of the devolved Administrations are not members of the Cabinet Committee on European Affairs but they continue to meet under the aegis of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, to prepare for the European Councils each year.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman says that, but we want to make our relationships with the devolved Administrations work a lot better than they used to during his time in office; that is one of the differences that the new Government intend to make. We want to turn not only those formal meetings but our regular contacts with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations into something that informs the development of our approach to European affairs. Now, having said that, I must press on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked questions about a number of detailed issues and I want to reply very quickly to those questions. So far, there are no proposals at all on the table that would require the UK or any other member state to submit its budget plans to the Commission in advance of informing Parliament, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have all made it clear that we would be utterly opposed to any such proposal.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of some of the current proposals on financial services, which are with the European institutions now. In particular, the de Larosière package on financial supervision is a matter of primary importance to the interests of this country. Yesterday, in both the formal proceedings of the General Affairs Council and in bilateral conversations with some of my counterparts from other countries, I said that we wanted to see the unanimous agreement that was reached on the proposal at ECOFIN in December 2009 maintained in any future drafts of that proposal.
The hon. Member for Luton North asked about agricultural policy reform. The Government remain committed to a policy of common agricultural policy reform that would see an end to the direct subsidy of production, a reduction in the external tariffs on foodstuffs, bringing them down to the same level of external tariffs that apply on other goods, and an end to the practice of dumping EU produce on the markets of developing countries, which undercuts those countries’ own farmers.
A number of hon. Members spoke about excess EU regulation. I know that both the Cabinet Committee on European Affairs, which I am a member of, and the Regulatory Sub-Committee of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs will be keeping a very close eye on that issue. Excess EU regulation comes not only from Europe itself. Too often, there is gold-plating in Whitehall of European legislation, which is something that we are also determined to guard against.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone said one thing that I will quarrel with him about—in a good-humoured manner—and it was about EU enlargement. I disagree with him on this issue. I think that the enlargement of the EU has entrenched political stability, the rule of law and democratic institutions in Spain, Portugal, Greece and in central and eastern Europe. It is actually a tremendous achievement on the part of the EU. If one contrasts the picture today in those parts of our continent with what we saw in those same countries in the 1920s and 1930s, I think that the advantages and the strengths of the EU’s approach are demonstrated.
My hon. Friend rightly said that many people in Europe are frightened, angry and disillusioned. That is why we need to push forward a positive British agenda, to get European people back to work, to free up markets, to enhance free trade with the rest of the world and to demonstrate an advance towards a cleaner and greener European economy. At the same time, we need to champion vigorously the interests of the UK within the EU, to increase accountability to the British people and to increase the democratic legitimacy of the decisions that Ministers take in Europe, ensuring that it is the people who can take the final decision on any future transfer of power from this country to European institutions.
Gaza
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. I appreciate that the whole House had an opportunity to debate the situation in the middle east yesterday, but I am sure that hon. Members will be tolerant of our having a debate today that concentrates specifically on issues affecting Gaza, given that they have been of so much concern in the past few weeks.
The crisis in Gaza is central to the broader crisis between Israel and Palestine, and that conflict, in turn, is one of the most important in global political terms. It is crucial that British parliamentarians and the UK Government, along with the European Union, the United Nations and the Quartet partners, redouble our efforts to ensure that the blockade of Gaza is lifted. However, that is simply the most immediate step towards a lasting peace settlement, without which we are doomed to see repeats of the present situation. Not least because this point is often misrepresented, it is essential to restate that Israel has entirely legitimate security needs that must be met; but that can happen only if the Palestinian people have the right to a viable and secure state within sovereign borders.
As we are all aware, the latest crisis was triggered on 31 May, when Israeli forces boarded one of six vessels in the flotilla carrying aid to Gaza, killing nine Turkish nationals. Accounts of the event vary widely, of course, and have varied over time as different presentations of events have appeared in the media. From the footage that we have seen, there seems to be no doubt that Israeli soldiers were themselves subject to violent attack. However, Israel originally stated that its soldiers were fired on first—a claim for which no evidence has been provided—and that they were equipped with paintball guns, whereas the BBC’s “Newsnight” on 1 June showed that Israeli solders had been carrying lethal weapons from the beginning. Although we can draw some conclusions from the footage made available to date, we cannot yet be certain of all that happened on that day.
It is crucial that the inquiry into those events wins the confidence of the international community. Whether that can be true of an internal inquiry with foreign observers, as opposed to the independent investigation requested by the UN, is open to doubt at the very least. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view of the robustness of the internal inquiry promised by Israel.
However grave the events involving the flotilla were, they also serve to draw attention to the wider predicament of Gaza.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As she is moving on from the events involving the flotilla, may I take this opportunity to ask what her response is to the experience of one of my constituents, Theresa McDermott, who was on one of the other boats in the flotilla? Although live weapons were, fortunately, not involved, Theresa McDermott experienced what can only be described as brutality by Israeli forces, who fired sound grenades directly at people, tasered them and so on. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is another reason why an independent inquiry into what happened on the flotilla is needed, and that it would also be in Israel’s own interests to clear up what happened?
Ms Buck
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is of course true that in discussing the flotilla, we have, perhaps understandably, concentrated on the terrible events that led to nine deaths, but there are certainly grave allegations about what happened on the other boats in the flotilla. It is in everyone’s interests—including Israel’s, in my view—that the inquiry is sufficiently independent to win confidence. That is so often the case with such inquiries.
I have visited Gaza twice in the past three years. I spent two days there in March as part of a parliamentary delegation. On both occasions, what I saw shocked and appalled me. As an important preamble, let me say that on my previous visit in late 2007—I was there with other hon. Friends here today—I was able to visit Sderot, one of the southern Israeli towns subjected to rocket attacks from within the Gaza strip. Although it should not be necessary, I restate that rocket attacks on the civilian population, such as those that rained down on Sderot, constitute war crimes. I have no doubt that everyone taking part in this and other debates condemns such attacks without reservation. Israeli civilians have a right to peace and security. It is right that reasonable steps should be taken to prevent the flow of weapons into Gaza and to expect that attacks on the civilian population should not take place from within Gaza.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. I am listening carefully to what she is saying. Does she agree that the key problem behind the current crisis is the fact that Hamas, which rules Gaza, refuses absolutely to recognise the existence of the state of Israel?
Ms Buck
I have not instituted this debate in order to act as an apologist for Hamas. There is absolutely no doubt that Hamas is a critical player in the crisis in the middle east, and neither I nor, I am sure, other parliamentarians are here to defend its role. The conflict is deep and intractable and Hamas must take responsibility for its share. However, with that important caveat, it seems to me that the issue underlying the wider crisis in Palestine and the situation in Gaza is the proportionality of the response and the collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Surely there can be no excuse whatever for the acts of terrorism against the people of Israel, and the best way to stop the blockade is by Hamas stopping its terrorism so that people can live together in peace and harmony?
Ms Buck
I am grateful for that intervention. I was not aware that I was in any way excusing acts of terrorism; I do not do that. However, although I do not want to be diverted into the chronology of recent events, it is also true that Hamas has instituted truces in the rocket attacks on any number of occasions, but that those truces have not led to the sort of response that would allow us to make progress. I am sure that colleagues seeking to participate in the debate will discuss that further. That is true in respect of both Gaza and settlement building in the west bank. The way forward to peace involves initiatives taken by both sides.
Mr Slaughter
The general tone of the interventions so far seems to suggest that Palestinians have brought this upon themselves by electing a Hamas Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the political issues in the middle east, punishing the Palestinian people collectively for exercising their democratic right is entirely wrong?
Ms Buck
I agree totally and that is the main thrust of my contribution today. There are issues of proportionality and collective punishment. The 1.5 million citizens of Gaza should not be subjected to the impact of the siege because of the Government that they chose—or, in many cases, did not choose—to elect.
Israel has stated frequently that the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005 with the withdrawal of 8,000 settlers. However, as it has at any time since 1967, Israel has remained firmly in control of Gaza’s sovereignty, controlling its borders, airspace and coastal waters and retaining the right to enter at will. Gaza is surrounded on three sides by a security fence, and a seam zone extending up to 1 km into the territory is enforced by snipers to prevent anyone from approaching the fence. Palestinian farmers entering the zone are liable to be shot at by border guards, while fishermen seeking to fish away from the highly polluted coastline are regularly fired on by the Israeli navy. Leaving aside the casualties of Operation Cast Lead in 2009, 31 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces and 116 injured since the beginning of 2010 alone. On 7 June, six Palestinians were killed off the coast of Gaza.
Since 2007, the control of Gaza’s borders has tightened further, to the extent of its being an all-encompassing siege. The people of that grossly over-populated strip—measuring only 10 km from east to west—have been denied all freedom of movement, have extremely limited access to vital goods and services and, perhaps most crucial, have been denied access to construction materials needed to rebuild the many homes and facilities destroyed during Operation Cast Lead.
The agreement on movement and access stipulates that 15,500 trucks a month should be allowed to enter Gaza via the crossing points with Israel. Since June 2007, however, the actual volume has typically been about 20% of that number. Between May and June this year, only 400 trucks entered Gaza—one third of the pre-siege level. The trucks are supposed to contain everything that the 1.5 million people of Gaza need to survive, yet only 73 sanctioned items were permitted. Items that were blocked—there has been very recent movement on this—included pasta, powdered milk, jam, cooking oil, school books and textbooks and T-shirts.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Regarding imports and exports to Gaza, she is aware that one of my constituents, Ibrahim Musaji, travelled recently to the area with Bristol Gaza Link—the third time that that organisation has travelled with humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. Does she agree that, given the heavy decline in both imports to and exports from Gaza, with 95% of private business in effect going bankrupt, life is no longer normal in Gaza? Restoring the normal pattern of trade and humanitarian aid into Gaza is a crucial element for helping the people of Gaza, but doing so while managing to exclude weapons from being transported there is a conundrum that we hope the Government might be able to help to resolve.
Ms Buck
I absolutely agree. That point goes to the heart of everything that I am hoping to say in the debate.
I mentioned a very recent relaxation of the inventory of items permitted to enter Gaza. There are reports that the Israeli authorities have recently approved the entry of 11 new food and hygiene items to Gaza, including jam, halva, soda, juice, canned fruits, razor blades and paste, yet overall Gaza imports have declined by almost 26% compared with last week alone. This week’s figure constitutes 17% of the weekly average that entered during the first five months of 2007—2,807 truckloads of items—before the Hamas takeover. A relaxation of the inventory is certainly not reading across into a relaxation in the volume of vital goods. Diesel and petrol for general use have been delivered on only five occasions in the last 18 months. Industrial fuel for Gaza’s only power plant is also restricted. Between May and June, only one quarter of the quantity required to operate it at full capacity was allowed through.
Operation Cast Lead destroyed or damaged 50,000 Palestinian homes, 280 schools and a number of hospitals and medical facilities, which I and other hon. Members in the debate saw for ourselves in early March this year. However, concrete and steel have, broadly speaking, not been allowed into the strip, and glass was allowed in only for a very short period. The result has been an almost complete lack of reconstruction since the war. That is clearly not in line with UN Security Council resolution 1860, which during Operation Cast Lead called for the
“unimpeded provision…throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including food, fuel and medical treatment”.
The Goldstone report, arising from the UN fact-finding mission, further found that the blockade deprives Palestinians in the Gaza strip of their means of sustenance, housing and water, as well as denying them freedom of movement. The report found that Israel has specifically violated
“obligations it has as Occupying Power”
spelled out in the fourth Geneva convention, such as the duty to maintain medical and hospital establishments.
On 1 March, I and other parliamentarians present saw, during my second visit to the area, that sites continue to lie in ruins or badly damaged a year after Operation Cast Lead, including the American international school, which was destroyed by Israeli missiles in January 2009. Rubble has been cleared, but apart from some innovative “earth dwellings” to help the homeless, little reconstruction has taken place. In the southern town of Khan Younis, we visited some of the 2,600 housing units commissioned by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that have stood unfinished since the start of the siege. In total, $100 million-worth of UNRWA projects are on hold. Sewage treatment and the provision of safe drinking water are among the most urgent public health necessities, yet there too, materials are on hold for that crucial project.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the first part of my hon. Friend’s speech. Did she also observe during her visit the psychological damage done, particularly to young people, by the sense of incarceration and imprisonment, lost ambitions and the inability to travel or see anything that the rest of us wish to see of this planet?
Ms Buck
I did indeed. We hear a great deal about the public health impact of the siege, and there is clear evidence that a shortage of minerals and vitamins in the diet of children is leading to very serious bone and dental health problems and broader public health problems, but mental health is of critical importance. It is of critical political importance as well. It is hard to measure and often people do not see mental health problems as representative of a traditional humanitarian crisis, of the type that we saw in the days after the Haiti earthquake, but it is arguable that a graver problem is being stored up, not just for the people of Palestine and Gaza, but for the Israeli people and for the future benefits of the peace process. Half the population of Gaza is under 18. Some 900,000 children and young people are trapped in an open prison. What that is doing to them and to the next generations of political leaders does not bear thinking about.
That is one of the reasons why I feel so sad. It seems that, again and again, we see a behaviour that is not necessarily in Israel’s own best interests and is really counter-productive. The other example of that is the destruction, referred to in an intervention, of the private economy as a consequence of the siege. We have seen the virtual total destruction of private commercial enterprise in Gaza. That, of course, has contributed to poverty because it contributes to unemployment, but it has also—this is a perverse consequence—strengthened Hamas in important ways.
The siege has contributed to the thriving tunnel operation—the means used for smuggling on a massive scale from Egypt into Gaza. We saw for ourselves some of the estimated 1,200 or so tunnels under the border, which permit about 4,000 items to enter Gaza, from cars and satellite dishes to the fabled lion that was brought into Gaza zoo and even basic medicines and food. That further disrupts the operation of the economy. The tunnels take a significant toll in human life. Some might say, “That’s the price you pay for what is in effect a criminal operation,” but it is seen as a lifeline—a way of breaking some of the most destructive elements of the siege. Because it provides revenue in the form of taxation on the smuggling operation, it strengthens Hamas’s hold on the economy, which is surely not what critics of the Hamas regime want.
Steps to close the tunnels, which are now being executed, will deprive Hamas of revenue, but tighten the screws still further on the siege of 1.5 million people. No doubt Israel is worried—I understand why—that a lifting of the blockade would be claimed by Hamas as a victory, yet it is hard to see a viable alternative strategy, unless it is believed that sheer desperation will lead the people of Gaza to punish Hamas in favour of a more moderate strategy, which they have yet to see will read across into an effective political solution, as we have seen with the settlement building on the west bank. I suggest that anyone holding such a belief is doomed to be disappointed.
I hope that the Minister will give us his assessment of the independent inquiry into the events on the Gaza flotilla. I hope that he will report back from the EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Brussels and advise us on what progress the EU can make, by itself and in discussions with other Quartet members, to lift the blockade urgently. Does he believe that any easing of restrictions will not merely ease the humanitarian situation, but underpin a strategy of reconstruction and the rebuilding of the private economy? Will the British Government do all that they can to strengthen the accountability of all parties in this conflict for war crimes and transgressions of international law leading up to, during and subsequent to Operation Cast Lead?
I shall conclude now, because many other hon. Members want to contribute to this important debate. I remain convinced that, whatever the larger politics of the situation in Gaza and the middle east, we must act with the utmost urgency to resolve the crisis afflicting 1.5 million civilians in Gaza—one of the gravest in the world today. Britain’s longstanding connection with the area should be used even more effectively to achieve a resolution.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who regularly does this House a service by choosing topical issues, which she has done again. I hope that the way in which she spoke—her carefulness and informed contribution—will commend her comments to all parties.
I welcome you to the chair, Mr Streeter, not only because you are a good chair, but because you, with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I, co-chaired the all-party group on conflict issues in the previous Parliament. If there is one strategy that we as a Parliament and the new Government need to deploy, it is to use our skill in conflict prevention and conflict resolution. In that context, I also welcome my very good friend the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) to his new ministerial responsibilities. He was sensitive when participating in the debate on the middle east yesterday in the House, and I know that he and his colleagues come to the subject with huge understanding and dedication.
To make a passing comment to link those words, those of us of the Jewish, Muslim or Christian faith—of course, other people in the House have other faiths or have no religious faith—should have a particular responsibility in this matter. If followers of the three great world faiths, for whom the part of the world that we are discussing is so important, cannot understand that the logic of our faith is that we should seek to accommodate followers of other faiths who share the same belief in the same God, not much of an example is set to the rest of the world when we seek to preach to them.
I have always described myself as both a friend of Palestine and a friend of Israel. I have been actively supporting the case for a Palestinian state since I was a teenager and have always argued that Israel has a right to exist with secure boundaries. I have had the privilege of visiting the area on several occasions, and although I have yet to have the opportunity to go to Gaza, I have frequently visited the west bank.
Let me make some brief comments following the worthwhile contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) to yesterday’s debate. First, we all hope that what Tony Blair said publicly yesterday will soon come to pass. The work done by the Quartet to bring about an end of the blockade, either wholly or significantly, is hugely welcome. Achieving such an end will be great progress, not least because the current situation is clearly nonsense, in the sense that although it is a terrible imposition on the people of Gaza by virtue of the tunnels and other things, it is a blockade with a conniving exemption. The whole thing has become a sort of international fiction, and the sooner we achieve orderly relations between people on either side of the border, the better.
Regarding the Government of Gaza, people must be allowed to choose their own Governments. They are not always comfortable choices, but the world must understand that it does not help by alienating those Governments entirely. I understand the difficulty. The Government of Gaza, Hamas, must understand—as they were moving to do—that the renunciation of violence and acceptance of the right of the state of Israel to exist have to be preconditions for international acceptance. However, that cannot mean that the people of Gaza or the west bank are not allowed to choose Hamas as their Government. The reason why they do so, as I understand it, is that that party stands strongly for the welfare of the people whom it seeks to represent. In many ways, it has done that more effectively than the other parties in the west bank. We must understand that. We must also understand that we may well have to deal with Hamas for a long time to come. I know that there are forces of enlightenment in the Government that want to make progress, and other Governments are helping them to do that. May we please be clear that precluding Hamas from being participants in the future is not a realistic option?
Israel is a democracy. As colleagues made clear in the House yesterday, it should be praised for being a democracy, although I share the view that certain forms of proportional representation are not helpful and that the Israeli system with a single chamber of Parliament might be one of them. The implication of a democracy is that the country respects international law. It cannot have it both ways. It cannot say, “We uphold democracy at home,” as it does, “and an enlightened social and other policy,” but then deny international law outside its own territorial waters or abroad.
I have talked to Israeli Ministers and officials about such matters. They really have to understand that international law has to apply to us all or it is discredited. When an inquiry such as the Goldstone report takes place, Israel cannot just then cast it aside because it does not like the findings. The eminent Judge Goldstone clearly did his job appropriately and properly. I heard the cautious words of the Minister yesterday; the Israeli Government must understand that their credibility regarding the events on the flotilla at the end of May will be established only if there is an international inquiry rather than just an Israeli Government inquiry with some international observers. I really believe that.
I and others have met constituents who were on the flotilla. I have heard vivid accounts of how they saw Israeli troops in large numbers—for example, 400 troops on the sixth boat—descend on the fighting. There is video footage and recordings, so there is no shortage of evidence. I just ask the Israeli Government to reconsider their limited willingness to hold an inquiry and for it to be conducted only by them. I want it to be done in a way that they find acceptable, but under the UN’s authority, as it has requested.
In that context, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West referred yesterday to the motion of the executive of Liberal International, the organisation that represents all Liberal parties throughout the world, which met on Sunday in Berlin. To summarise, it
“Deplores the use of force by Israel commandos”
on that occasion. It
“Deplores the violence caused by some activists on board the flotilla”.
The executive expressed
“shock at the resultant deaths and injuries”
and
“Demands the restoration of liberty of the Israeli Arabs who have been on board the flotilla”.
It
“Supports the UN Security Council’s call for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent inquiry”
examining the actions of all parties, and
“Strongly calls on the Middle East quartet, and the US government in particular, to urge all parties to return to the Road Map and observe international law.”
Let me make one last point about the future. Gaza has a very difficult future. It is a small enclave surrounded by other countries, as the hon. Member for Westminster North rightly described. The history of enclaves in international law is not happy. Berlin is the last one that springs to mind—separate from the rest of its country with a corridor established. I understand the policy of both my party, and that of the Government. The traditional policy of countries such as ours is to accept a two-state solution: a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. That might be right but, just as there will need to be an imaginative solution to the future of Jerusalem, which will have to be the capital of both countries if there is to be lasting peace, so there needs to be an imaginative solution to how Gaza is linked with the west bank.
To have simply two separate territories without connection will not be an adequate way forward. There might have to be a special and protected connecting strip. There might have to be a renegotiation of land settlements that would include those settlements that are illegal as part of the package, as well as a return to old boundaries. There may have to be in the long term a United Nations presence to give security on what was mandated territory for us between the ‘20s and the ‘40s, and other international friends to support it. We, as a country, may have to play a significant role with the Quartet and other countries in guaranteeing the territories, the boundaries and the peace of Israel and Palestine if we are to persuade both Governments to feel confident about the future. I hope that my friend the Minister and his colleagues will be positive and think laterally about the way in which a solution might work, as well as work enthusiastically to make sure that the matter is one of the highest foreign policy priorities of the Government in the days and months ahead.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I rise to my feet as a friend of Palestine, and much to the furious incomprehension of a large number of my constituents, I do so as a steadfast friend of Israel, despite the provocation. Last summer, I sponsored an Adjournment debate on the Spirit of Humanity—a boat carrying humanitarian supplies that was trying to break the siege of Gaza. On that occasion, Israeli forces intercepted the boat—we presume in international waters, although the Israeli Government refused to provide details of the boat’s position, despite requests from British Ministers—but thankfully there was no violence. In the light of that and other previous incidents, should not the British Government have been alert to possible problems with the latest flotilla? Given that the Israeli media reported threats from the Israeli defence forces, making it clear that the ships were likely to be attacked, what actions, if any, had the British Government taken to avert those attacks, particularly knowing that British citizens were on board?
My constituent, Alex Harrison, was on board the Spirit of Humanity last year, and undeterred by that experience, she was also a passenger on the Challenger 1 ship, which formed part of the flotilla that was attacked again by Israeli forces on 31 May. Could the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the legality of the Israeli attack on the humanitarian convoy? What assurances has he had from the Government of Israel about whether there will be any more attacks in international waters on boats carrying British citizens?
Over the weekend, we heard more detail about the inquiry that is to be set up by Israel. We understand that it will include a foreign element and observers such as David Trimble. Will the international community have full confidence in that inquiry and its findings? Will it be independent and transparent? Will the Israelis, the Palestinians and, perhaps most importantly, the people of Turkey have full confidence in its findings? As Cathy Ashton, the High Representative of the European Union put it in The Times yesterday, will that inquiry be “credible, rigorous and impartial”?
In the debate yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) stated the obvious: there have been inquiries in the past on Israel, and perhaps one need go no further than to ask Tom Hurndall’s family about their experience of Israeli inquiries to explain why some people might be slightly cynical about an Israeli inquiry. Another issue is just how wide that inquiry will be and who will be questioned.. Will Alex Harrison be asked about her experience on that boat?
In preparation for this debate, I spoke to Alex. As I said, she was on board Challenger 1. It was flagged in the United States. She would like me to highlight the illegality of the Israeli action. The men who were killed were on the Marmora, which was registered in the Comoros islands, which are off Madagascar. It is her view, and that of many others, that the seizing and killing of the flotilla’s passengers while in international waters is nothing less than piracy. She says that they were some 80 miles away from Israel and were sailing away from Israel when they were boarded.
The Israeli action on 31 May may constitute breaches of international law that could be tried in the International Criminal Court. Alex was one of the boat’s crew. She told me that the Israeli forces came on to the boat, firing plastic bullets. All the glass on the boat broke. People were then pushed to the ground on to the glass. She was the last to be stopped, as she was on the bridge. Two members of the Israeli defence forces came up. Two Australian journalists—Kate and Paul from The Sydney Morning Herald—were with her, and they identified themselves. In response, they were tasered. It was a completely terrifying experience.
There was no violence from Alex’s boat towards the Israeli defence forces, yet those on board were treated with huge violence. She says that she has hand marks on her arms and legs from when she was picked up and carried from the boat. Once they were carried from the boat, all their items were bagged up and labelled. They have not had them back. The Israelis now say that they do not know where they are. She was told that she would be deported to Turkey. She had the clothes she stood up in. She had no passport and no money. She had not been to Turkey—she had come from Greece—and yet the Israelis said that they would deport her to Turkey.
Alex refused to go and so was one of the last to be deported. She was in a pen with 15 other women, and she witnessed some women next to her being hit about the head. They were not treated as badly as the men. She saw some men at the airport who were badly beaten, including Ken O’Keefe, who was so badly injured that he was not able to board the plane. She was some 5 yards away from an Irishman called Fiachra O’Luain as he was beaten around the head—she saw that going on. She also saw Turkish men, who had been injured and come out of hospital, being put on to the plane. Well, to say that they were put on to the plane is inaccurate—they were walking on to the plane as best they could. Some had been shot in the feet and were on crutches. There were no wheelchairs. She was not allowed to assist the men. If any attempt to try and assist them was made, people were hit again. Although she had experienced brutality from a distance in the past, she had never experienced such face-to-face, one-to-one brutality over such a sustained period. She said that they were sworn at, abused and laughed at throughout. That was unnecessary—gratuitous, in her view—and she certainly would like to give evidence to any inquiry. If necessary, she would like the matter to be taken to the International Criminal Court. One can understand why, given her experiences.
Mark Lazarowicz
May I put it on the record that the constituent whom I referred to was also one of the protestors on the Challenger 1? She reports a similar account of what happened on the boat and in Israeli custody. Her account illustrates the real issues being raised by a number of credible people from the UK, and I hope that the Government will respond to them in the positive way that my hon. Friend requests.
Emily Thornberry
Many hon. Members have constituents who have been on the flotillas. I suspect that we have many constituents who will be on them again. Alex Harrison has said that she will go back.
The terrible events of 31 May have brought the eyes of the world back to what has been going on in Gaza, highlighting the suffering of its people. The three-year blockade of Gaza has been compared to a mediaeval siege. There are some similarities: there is no free movement of people; no goods can leave Gaza, leading to the complete collapse of most businesses; no building materials have been allowed in to repair the damage caused by the Israeli attack of December 2008; one in 10 babies in Gaza are malnourished; one third of babies have anaemia; and a large proportion of the population is food insecure. However, the big difference between a mediaeval siege and the siege of Gaza is that the third crusade, when besieging Acre for two years, was intended to topple the garrison and not to behave in such a way that actually bolstered the garrison. That is effectively what has been happening. Instead of undermining the regime—which they seek to do—the Israelis are, by their actions, bolstering Hamas. Israel has got this fundamentally wrong. It is incumbent on those of us who are genuine friends of Israel to tell the truth: this is wrong, and to continue to behave in that way towards Gaza and Hamas undermines the security of Israel.
Mrs Ellman
Does my hon. Friend accept that approximately 15,000 tonnes of goods a week have gone into Gaza, although that is clearly inadequate? Does she agree that if the European Union and the Palestinian Authority had been able to carry out their responsibilities in manning the crossings, goods could have gone into Gaza at a much faster rate?
Emily Thornberry
In the end, if Gaza were treated how it should be treated, the gates would be open and the tunnels would be closed. Yes, I fully understand. I have been to Sderot and have seen how Israeli children are terrified of incoming bombs that rain down on their town. I fully understand why it would be necessary to search trucks going in—to make sure that they do not have weapons in them. However, it is not a challenge to Israeli security to stop biscuits going into Gaza, and that is the fundamental point. Gaza is being treated completely differently and in a way that is fundamentally unfair. It is incumbent on us to say loudly and clearly that that is wrong.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The hon. Lady referred to biscuits. On the visit that I attended with the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), we saw the bombed biscuit factory that, ironically, produced goods for export to Israel. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in controlling the substances that are allowed into Gaza, Israel has been entirely arbitrary? Such substances change from week to week and include random items such as jam and pasta, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Westminster North. When we were there, we were told that nappies—or diapers, as they were called—were not being allowed in. The sole purpose of that seems to be to play with people’s minds and do psychological damage to the civilian population.
Emily Thornberry
It goes further than psychological damage: the fact that there is not a steady stream of proper goods going into Gaza also undermines people’s health. Moreover, the fact that no exports are allowed out of Gaza means that the economy has been undermined and that the people are dependent on Hamas, which allows and taxes the tunnels. Civil society is therefore undermined even further and people become increasingly dependent upon Hamas. When a poor woman wakes up in the morning wondering how to feed her six children, she does not think to herself, “This is Hamas’s fault,” but, “This is Israel’s fault.” That continues to feed extremism and undermine the very security of Israel. Those of us who believe in a two-state solution are fundamentally worried about that and are very concerned about what is happening.
I will not go through all my examples—I am sure that hon. Members are aware of them—but Cadbury’s creme eggs somehow get through the tunnels and nobody can afford them. Some 12,000 buildings need to be rebuilt, and 44% of Gazans are unemployed and so on. The fundamental point, however, is that the siege of Gaza is not hurting Hamas; it is destroying the lives of thousands of ordinary Gazans. The EU is the largest donor to Palestine, but aid is not enough. It is also Israel’s largest trading partner, and we have some clout at EU level. We in the EU must be more confident and do more to put pressure on Israel to ensure that the people of Gaza are treated fairly. I very much hope that EU Foreign Ministers will adopt a united position and that Britain will fully support it. That may include questioning whether an internal Israeli investigation of what happened to the flotilla on 31 May is sufficient.
It is also important for us to be more active diplomatically in the middle east. The problem is not going away—we must address it. We must end the blockade, which is morally outrageous and politically self-defeating, and as I said here last summer, we must open the gates and close the tunnels. Many organisations based in my constituency—such as Medical Aid for Palestinians, Save the Children, UNICEF and Merlin—work very hard to support the people of Gaza; but, ultimately, their good work simply gives us the space to exert moral and political courage to ensure a two-state solution and peace for everyone.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Streeter. I apologise for missing the start of the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing it. It is extremely important.
I have had the good fortune to visit Gaza on five occasions over the past 10 to 12 years, and I was last there with many of my colleagues as part of a European delegation led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), during which we saw for ourselves what the situation was like in Gaza. As I said in an intervention, we saw the people of Gaza’s sense of imprisonment and its psychological effect on young people. I also noticed for the first time—I had never seen it before—a sense of youth disaffection, with higher levels of drug taking, vandalism and antisocial behaviour, which was never previously a factor in the life of Gaza.
Gaza has a very young population. Teenagers and young people often have a good education—the UN schools are pretty good—and there are high levels of university education. Palestine has the highest level of graduation of any country in the region, but people have no possibility of employment unless they can get a job with the UN, a non-governmental organisation, or the Government of Gaza. NGOs clearly require sufficient resources, because the private and business sectors have virtually completely collapsed. The two basic ingredients for running a small business or a store are customers and goods to sell. In Gaza, there are no customers, because they have no money, and there are no goods to sell, because they cannot be got in. One therefore walks down streets and streets of boarded-up stores and shops, and there is a sense of deep depression in the environment.
During our visit, we had a lengthy meeting with members of all parties of the Palestinian Parliament in Gaza in the bombed-out ruins of the Parliament building. What possible purpose was there in Operation Cast Lead specifically bombing the debating chamber of the Palestinian Parliament? What kind of message was that trying to give? Why were mortar shells fired through the upper floors of a school? The last time I had been in that school was as an election observer the year before, when it was teeming with people queuing up to vote. The school was bombed, which was clearly gratuitously insulting to the people of Gaza. There was no point or purpose to it whatsoever. There was no possible military objective; nor was there in the destruction of many homes, among other things.
As we left Gaza on our way to the Rafah crossing back into Egypt, our bus was filled with an unbelievable stench from the sewage works. They had been damaged and bombed and no chemicals had been allowed through to operate the sewage treatment system. The result was tens of thousands of tonnes of raw sewage being pumped into the Mediterranean. At some point, that sewage will start polluting the beaches of Israel when presumably public opinion in Israel will say something should be done to allow equipment in to repair the sewage works in Gaza. That kind of gratuitously insulting behaviour makes people so angry and is utterly counter-productive.
I have spoken to many people who were on the flotilla the week before last, and listened to their descriptions, including that of Alex Harrison, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). The way in which the Israeli soldiers behaved was disgusting: people were shot, imprisoned and denied access to phones, legal advice and, particularly in the case of older people, food and water.
I was at a meeting last week when an al-Jazeera journalist, who had been on the vessel, described in excruciating detail what he had observed. He clearly has a vivid and photographic memory. That account needs to be told because it was of an incident taking place on the high seas in international waters. An inquiry headed by a series of Israeli judges—with all due respect to David Trimble, the only international observer—is not good enough. We want an international inquiry from the United Nations with an international committee of jurists. I guess Israel would not be happy about that because the last international observation of Israel’s behaviour was the Goldstone commission on Operation Cast Lead. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know what progress has been made on the Goldstone commission and its process through the UN Security Council.
I do not want to go on too long because many others want to speak. In reality, the situation is simple: Palestine is under occupation. In the case of the west bank, it is under occupation through checkpoints, endless military intervention, targeted assassinations, the construction of the wall, denial of water, trade and ordinary life, and the sense of collective fear of many people living on the west bank. In the case of Gaza, it is encircled by walls, barbed wire, aerial buzzing—including targeted bombings—and by Israeli naval vessels off the coast to prevent fishermen going further out and the flotilla and aid vessels getting in.
Although public opinion in Israel undoubtedly supports what the Government are trying to do, a significant number of people argue, demonstrate and act collectively to say that the strategy is complete madness, collective punishment and illegal, and creates a sense of isolation in Israel. Israel is now more isolated in world opinion than it has ever been. It broke the law, in my view, in the case of the flotilla. The Goldstone commissioners reported on Operation Cast Lead. British and other passports were used in the Dubai assassination. There are numerous examples of how UN law and resolutions have been flouted by the state of Israel. So we come to the conclusion: what do we do about the situation?
First, we send all the aid that we possibly can to the people of Palestine to allow them to survive. I was at a fund-raising event last week for medical aid for Palestine. The organisation, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, does fantastic work. Many of us have also supported many other charities. Why do we have to send medical aid to Palestine? Why do we have to send aid at all? The people of Palestine and Gaza are suffering not from a tsunami, an earthquake, a volcano, a hurricane or a tropical storm but from something specifically designed to punish, to hurt and to damage people’s lives. That is what the occupation and imprisonment of the people of Gaza are all about.
Why, then, do we not impose some kind of sanction against Israel for its constant illegal behaviour? Why do we not suspend the EU-Israel association agreement by which Israel survives so well economically? Why does the US continue to pour aid into Israel, including military aid and a new missile defence system, other than because it sees Israel as an extension of its own foreign policy in the region? If we want a nuclear-free middle east and peace in the middle east, the siege must end. The blockade must be lifted, and the people of Palestine and their legitimate right to live peacefully and to survive must be recognised.
I sat down with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and others at several lengthy meetings during our visits with the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, the Arab League, the Hamas Government and parliamentarians in Gaza. The one thing that came across in the last two meetings with the Hamas Government and the other parties was that they want to be part of the process. They want to be part of the future, and of a settlement. Isolation, ignorance, occupation, killing and murdering, which is what it is, are not making things better. They are making the situation worse, and we look to the Government to be assertive in their policies towards Israel’s ending the blockade.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Colleagues, winding-up speeches will begin at 10 minutes past 12, so we have 18 minutes to go. I have two colleagues on my list and two new Members have just indicated that they would like to speak, and we will try to get everyone in. You can do the maths yourselves.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is important that we discuss the shocking events of 31 May, but it is also important that we discuss the context in which they occurred, even though some of the facts about that context disturb a number of people. There may be things that they would rather not hear or know about. However, the facts are that Israeli settlers left Gaza in 2005, but that was followed not by Palestinians and the people of Gaza trying to build a new society and attract international investment. It was followed by the violence of Hamas overthrowing Fatah and engaging in a civil war with it, and by Hamas continuing to state its absolute opposition to the very existence of Israel.
Hamas’s charter is readily available. It constantly puzzles me why people who are legitimately and genuinely concerned about social justice wilfully ignore the contents of that charter in a way that they would not if it belonged to any other organisation. The charter includes statements about killing the Jews. It says that the day of judgment will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews. It says that there is no way except jihad, and that peace conferences and negotiations are a waste of time. It talks about the protocols of the elders of Zion, and the false allegation that Jews run the world. It claims that Jews are responsible for all revolutions, including the French and Russian revolutions. Indeed, the charter goes beyond being anti-Israeli: it is clearly anti-Semitic, and when it is combined with Hamas’s actions in targeting rockets at Israeli civilians, is it surprising that Israelis are genuinely concerned about their security?
There is increasing concern about the involvement of Iran with Hamas in Gaza. That concern was intensified when, last November, a vessel was intercepted off the coast of Cyprus, filled with armaments coming from Iran on their way to Gaza. Those weapons were aimed not only at Sderot, which has suffered too much and for too long, but at Tel Aviv. Israel’s concerns about security are real.
Something needs to be done about the crossings and the current state of affairs. Last June, the European Union said it was willing to contribute to post-conflict arrangements, yet what has happened? Very little. Egypt was also involved in addressing what was happening with the crossings, but it has withdrawn. I hope the statement made by Tony Blair yesterday about new proposals will become a reality, so that the long-suffering people of Gaza can have their needs addressed.
Disturbing questions must be asked about the events of 31 May. Six vessels were involved, and it must be asked why five of those six vessels landed at Ashdod as requested and unloaded their humanitarian aid, while on the sixth vessel something was very different. When those five vessels landed their humanitarian aid at Ashdod, Hamas refused to allow that aid to be delivered to Gaza. That is deplorable, and I do not hear cries of concern and criticism directed at Hamas for taking that action.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is aiming her fire at something nobody in the debate has sought to defend. Why does the picture that she paints of Gaza appear to be so different from the weekly reports given by the United Nations and other agencies about the situation, and about the causes of that situation and Israel’s responsibility for it? Those agencies are there, so why does she think they have got it so dreadfully wrong? I suggest that it might be a good idea for her—and a number of other hon. Members—to visit Gaza and talk to people there and get their views on their situation.
Mrs Ellman
The reality is that Gaza is run by Hamas, an Islamist organisation that is proscribed by the EU, the USA and Canada as a terrorist organisation. Its regime has led to this dreadful situation for the people of Gaza. That cannot be ignored; it is a fact. More questions need to be asked about that flotilla, focusing on that sixth vessel. What is the role of the Turkish IHH—again, a charitable organisation linked to Hamas and other terrorist organisations? What about the recording that was made in relation to that sixth vessel, showing that when the Israelis repeatedly asked it to land at Ashdod, the reply came back, “Go back to Auschwitz”? What about the fact that people on that sixth vessel were armed with metal rods with knives, and that a lynching of Israelis was attempted? I have no doubt that the majority of people on those vessels were genuine peace activists, but were they infiltrated by somebody else with other ideas?
What about the reports that we have seen since those events in the Turkish media? Families of people who were regrettably killed on that vessel have stated that their partner—the husband in one case—said that he wanted to be a martyr. Even more damning, what about the broadcast that was made on Hamas TV on 30 May, the day before the incident happened, when a university lecturer said that the participants in that flotilla wanted to die as martyrs even more than they wanted to reach Gaza? What a condemnation.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend is repeating the information—if I can call it that—put out by the Israeli authorities in the immediate aftermath of the incident, for which no evidence has been produced. Is she seriously saying that, because Israeli forces normally get away with abseiling heavily armed on to ships in the middle of the night, when, on one occasion, people resist and nine of them are shot dead, they had it coming to them? My hon. Friend should consider the language she uses, even in putting forward her case so strongly.
[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]
Mrs Ellman
The detail of what happened on the ship will come from the inquiries, but the information that I have brought to this debate—I think very damning condemnation of what happened—does not come from Israeli sources. It comes from the Turkish media and what has been shown on Hamas TV. Those facts might be very inconvenient for people who do not want to know about them, but they are there and they are part of the picture.
Mark Lazarowicz
I understand the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend and her view on the issue, but does she agree that the differing accounts that are being given are themselves a good reason why the inquiry into the incident should be seen as genuinely independent and international, and as having credibility on all sides? Will she at least agree that that would perhaps provide some way forward from that unhappy incident?
Mrs Ellman
There are indeed differing accounts of what happened, and that is to be expected in an exceedingly fraught and tragic situation such as the one that occurred. That is why I agree that it is important that inquiries should take place; but it is not possible to ignore the facts that I have stated: what happened on that flotilla, what was involved in its planning, the statements that have been made on the TV, the information that has been in the Turkish media, and the context in which Gaza is run, by an organisation with a charter that is simply genocidal.
There is a way forward. The statements made by Tony Blair, the middle east envoy, point a way forward to dealing with the issue of the crossings, but more than that must be done. The most constructive thing would be for Hamas to review its situation, withdraw its charter and state its agreement to accepting the existence of the state of Israel, and join Fatah in negotiations to secure a two-state solution to this tragic problem.
To pick up a comment from one of my hon. Friends about going to Gaza, I have been there—a long time ago, in 1967, just after the six-day war. That was certainly not a golden age for the people of Gaza, which had at that time been administered by Egypt under the armistice agreements of 1949. The people of Gaza were deeply distressed and dissatisfied with the rule of Egypt. They were in poverty and distress. After that war it was hoped that there might be a negotiated solution to the whole conflict, but the Khartoum conference, where the Arab states said clearly “No recognition, no negotiation, no peace” put an end to that. I hope that, whatever our different perspectives on why we are in the current position, we can all make a new start and there can be a negotiated peace on the basis of two states living together in peace and security.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Winding-up speeches will start at 12.10 and three hon. Members have said they want to speak, so I suggest brevity if possible.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Before what I hope will be brief remarks, I point out by way of a declaration of interest that my constituency party has received donations from individuals and organisations supporting the rights of Palestinians, and I made several visits to Palestine, Gaza and the west bank in the previous Parliament.
As to the flotilla, about which we have heard quite a lot in the debate, we clearly have heard very different versions of what happened. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, perhaps for that reason more than any other, an independent inquiry—one that is seen to be independent—is demanded. The way the news came out was entirely predictable—an entire news blackout and suppression of information by the Israeli authorities for the first 48 hours. They gave their version of events, and with regret I must say that some of the highly partisan and unsupported accounts, blackening the name of people who were travelling on that flotilla by way of exonerating the Israeli actions, have been repeated in this debate and yesterday on the Floor of the House. That does not help, and nor does the way the Israeli information services deal with those matters.
Mr Slaughter
I do not think that I have time to take interventions.
Travelling on that convoy were many independent, well-respected people, including an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset, Hanin Zoabi, and Henning Mankell, the respected Swedish author. All those people have given eye-witness testimony as to the brutality and violence of the Israeli forces, who wholly unnecessarily stormed the convoy in international waters in the middle of the night. No real explanation can be given as to why that was necessary. I have heard a number of those eye-witness accounts, which are compelling and have the ring of truth about them. However, the solution to the absolutely black-and-white situation that we have heard described by the two sides so far is an independent inquiry.
I have three sets of questions for the Minister. On the responsibilities of the British Government, the treatment of British citizens needs to be looked into. Issues include the violence and brutality that many of them allege the Israeli forces meted out to them over a prolonged period, and the confiscation of their belongings. There is also the refusal of consular access. There has been great criticism of the embassy in Tel Aviv for not pressing as hard as other countries’ embassies to get access to our citizens. All those matters require answers.
The second issue on which the Government should be prepared to act is the search for a more independent role for the inquiry. It would be useful to hear the Minister talk about the effectively tokenistic gesture of appointing Lord Trimble, who is known as a supporter of the boycott of Hamas and a friend of Israel, and who cannot be seen as impartial, and a judge who does not believe in an international element to the inquiry. That is not an independent inquiry; it is the basis for a whitewash, and it would be useful if the British Government asked for a genuine international inquiry.
Thirdly, the Minister was quoted as saying that he did not think that
“the British Government is talking about lifting the blockade”
on Gaza. That quotation, which was in The Guardian last Thursday, may be wrong, but it would be disappointing if it was correct. We need to lift the blockade on Gaza; we need not to ease the restrictions or simply to see a greater number of supplies going in, but to restore full commercial and civil life to Gaza. Again, that is something that the Government should strongly support.
We are talking not about factional organisations, but about organisations such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which have said clearly and in terms over the past few days not only that the blockade is “illegal” and a “humanitarian catastrophe”, but that it constitutes
“a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.”
I would like the British Government to make similar pronouncements and at last to put pressure on the Israelis to lift the wholly unjustifiable and inhuman punishment of 1.6 million civilians, which they have imposed simply because they have the ability to do so and because the rest of the world is not, at the moment, prepared to stand up to them.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
The firing of rockets from Gaza into the south of Israel presents a menacing and deadly threat. It is completely wrong and it needs to stop because it is taking innocent lives. It is wrong because it provides the justification for Israel’s retaliation, although not for its disproportionate response, which is merciless at times.
The question that I am constantly asked in Bradford East is why the state of Israel is allowed to get away with this. People simply cannot comprehend why international action is not taken. The answer, I have to conclude, is that Israel can get away with it and regularly does. Yes, Hamas is proscribed, but why is the state of Israel not proscribed? Everyone says that a peaceful solution is necessary, but why on earth should the state of Israel agree to a peaceful solution when brutal force has achieved so much for it over such a long period? In my view, the two-state solution is almost an impossible dream. The situation has gone too far. I hope that that is not the case, but I fear that it is.
Why should we take a lead? We should do so because the British are up to our necks in responsibility for the situation in the Palestine region. From 1917 onwards, we gave away something that was not ours; we turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing that took place after the second world war; and now we are participating in the international acceptance of an apartheid state. People say that that would not be allowed anywhere else. In fact, it was not allowed anywhere else—certainly not in South Africa.
Unless things change, they stay the same. We must take a lead with our European partners, as has been said. We must go back to Obama, who started by making a very positive speech in Cairo. However, we must also consider boycotts, divestment and sanctions, because those were the only things that carried any weight in South Africa. Those policies must extend not only to weapons but to sport and academic boycotts as well. The United Nations has made a score or more resolutions. It is not resolutions we need; it is resolve—
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. I apologise, but my earlier plea for brevity failed. I call Ivan Lewis.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this debate and on her passionate, balanced and highly effective contribution, which was an extremely good start.
There is absolutely no doubt that the plight of the people of Gaza is both a humanitarian tragedy and a political crisis. The blockade of Gaza is unacceptable and unsustainable, and it is now essential to remove all obstacles not only to humanitarian assistance but to the materials and resources required to begin rebuilding homes, public infrastructure and the Gazan economy. However, that will happen only if Israel can be assured that systems are in place to ensure that arms and arms components cannot be smuggled or got in any way into Gaza. It is therefore essential that the Quartet and the Arab League work with Israelis and Palestinians to come up with a credible plan to end the blockade while meeting Israel’s legitimate security concerns, which is the basis of resolution 1860. The Opposition warmly welcomes the work of Tony Blair and Baroness Ashton on those matters.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What do the British Government believe should be the EU contribution to such a plan? How quickly can a plan be put in place? Neither in this debate nor in yesterday’s did anyone refer to the Egyptians putting in place security infrastructure to close the tunnels and prevent smuggling. Has that been done and, if so, what effect has it had on the tunnels?
On the Israel defence forces’ raid on the Gaza flotilla, I made it clear during last night’s debate that we welcome the Israeli Government’s decision to set up an inquiry with the involvement of two international observers. However, we will watch closely to ensure that the inquiry meets the tests of independence, transparency and credibility. My questions to the Minister about the flotilla relate to many of my hon. Friends’ contributions. Will British citizens who were on the flotilla have the opportunity to give evidence to the inquiry, and what efforts will the British Government make to facilitate that? What happened to the humanitarian assistance on the flotilla? We hear different accounts.
On aid, this country can be very proud of the aid that we provided to both the west bank and Gaza. The sad irony of this debate, for reasons that many hon. Members have raised, is the contrast between progress on the west bank and in Gaza. We should always pay tribute in such debates to the leadership of Prime Minister Fayyad and to President Abbas for the improvements in security and economic growth on the west bank. We should also continue to support the two-year plan launched by Prime Minister Fayyad towards Palestinian statehood.
I have some specific questions for the Minister. Will the new Government maintain our commitment to £210 million in aid over three years for the west bank and Gaza? Was the £19 million for UNRWA in Gaza announced by the Secretary of State for International Development last week new money, or part of the £210 million that was already committed?
Let me briefly raise the continued detention of Gilad Shalit. I think that all Members agree that his detention is unacceptable and that he should be released without delay or precondition. It was very moving for me to meet his father not that long ago and hear the human misery that the family is going through. What more does the Minister think that the UK and the EU can do to secure the release of Corporal Shalit, particularly in their dialogue and contact with Arab states?
Jeremy Corbyn
As we are on the subject of the release of prisoners, does my hon. Friend think that the Palestinian parliamentarians should also be released?
Mr Lewis
I think that I dealt with that question last night, and my hon. Friend heard my answer then. He probably was not satisfied with it, but I give him the same answer now. Clearly, if people are being held without trial and without charge and there is no evidence that they have committed criminal offences, they should be released. If there is evidence of criminal offences, that evidence should be brought before the courts, and whatever the person’s status—we have recently had a debate about status and parliamentarians in this country—they should be charged. That is my very clear position.
Finally, I have some specific questions about Hamas for the Minister. Do the Government stand by the three conditions laid down by the Quartet that Hamas must meet to be brought into the political process? Are the Government reviewing Britain’s position on that issue, or is Britain arguing within the EU or the Quartet that that position should change? A question that is never sufficiently asked in these debates is whether we have an assessment of the treatment of Gazans in terms of human rights, and of Hamas’s attitude and behaviour towards UN agencies and non-governmental organisations in Gaza. What is the international community’s assessment of the people of Gaza’s experiences of the Hamas Government? How many rockets have been fired into Israel in the past 12 months? Can the Minister give an assessment of where we believe Hamas’s financial support comes from? Some hon. Members have referred to the relationship between Hamas and Iran; it would be useful to know what the British Government’s assessment is of the nature of that relationship.
I also wish to ask a question that nobody has asked for some considerable time. We, as a Government, were giving tremendous support to Egyptian efforts to reunify the Palestinian leadership. I think that we all accept that that would ultimately be in the best interests of a peace process. Things have gone very quiet, however, and it is not clear whether the Egyptians have stopped playing that facilitator role or whether the process is ongoing and the British Government continue to support the Egyptians in fulfilling that role.
In conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North said at the start of the debate, what matters most is political progress towards two states. The current proximity talks are important, but until we move to direct talks on the comprehensive issues that will lead to a fair and just two-state solution, the vacuum is dangerous because it could lead to a return to serious violence. I hope that the British Government will continue to do everything in their power to support the move towards direct negotiations as quickly as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I begin by echoing the thanks of the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) to the hon. Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington North—
Alistair Burt
None of us should forget that. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate and on the balanced way in which she put her case, marking out clearly what she believes, but also making due reference to the needs of Israel and its security on a number of occasions. All of us, I believe, appreciate the way in which she made her points. I also welcome the work that she has done with the all-party group and the report that she has produced, which illustrated her remarks.
I will do my best to cover as many questions as I can, but I will not go through all of them as there are many. It is quicker to ask questions than to answer them, but I will do what I can. I also appreciate the engagement of the hon. Member for Bury South with my office on the debate and the issues that he raised, about which he knows a great deal.
Alistair Burt
Yes, I remember. It is difficult for a while to stop, and the hon. Gentleman is clearly in that mode, but he is doing extremely well.
I shall remark on the incident itself and then say a little about the situation in Gaza. The Government unequivocally deplore the deaths of the nine people who lost their lives as the result of the recent events. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were in touch with the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to offer our condolences, recognising that most of those who died were Turkish citizens. We have consistently made the following point clear to the Israeli Government, both in public and in private: we look to Israel to do everything possible to avoid a repeat of the unacceptable actions.
The hon. Member for Bury South asked about the United Kingdom’s role in the events and the investigation. The UK has played a key role, working closely with the international community, including the EU and the Quartet representative Tony Blair, to stress to Israel the importance of an investigation that ensures accountability, commands the confidence of the international community and includes international participation. The Government have discussed those matters with Israeli counterparts on a number of occasions, most recently on 13 June, when the Prime Minister spoke directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu just before Israel announced a public commission to investigate the incident.
It is important that the investigation ensures full accountability and commands the confidence of the international community. The announcement yesterday by the Israeli Government of a commission headed by a Supreme Court judge and including David Trimble and Ken Watkins, a Canadian, as international observers is an important step forward. We welcome the commission’s international membership and broad mandate. It is important that the inquiry is truly independent and the investigation is thorough. We will watch the progress and conduct of the inquiry before we make any further remarks.
Alistair Burt
I will give way to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), because she has not spoken.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister. Please forgive me, as it is my first time participating in such a debate, but I am a little concerned that we have not heard many details about the remit of the inquiry, particularly on the question of consular access, which was incredibly important to a number of people from Walthamstow, members of whose family were on the flotilla, and on the lack of information that we, as the British Government and as British MPs, were able to get hold of. It does not seem clear to me, as far as we have seen the remit of the inquiry, that the issues about how international citizens are treated in such kinds of incidents and what lessons can be learnt will be covered. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
Alistair Burt
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Clearly, we are not responsible for the remit of the inquiry, but a number of Members have mentioned the consular problems that occurred. I will make some inquiries with the Israeli authorities on that matter. I would like to say a little about the consular problems, because a number of Members raised them.
Alistair Burt
No, because I have only six minutes.
The consular service is one of the most important aspects of the Foreign Office’s work. Our travel advice clearly advised people against travelling to Gaza, and we made that specifically clear in relation to the flotilla as well. I will meet those who were involved in the incident tomorrow. The meeting was set up at my request so that people could discuss their experiences both with me and other consular officials at the Foreign Office. I shall listen to them very carefully.
As far as I am aware, our consular staff in Israel worked tirelessly from the moment that they were alerted to the situation to ensure that they could get access to those involved and that people had everything they needed. We raised with the Israeli authorities the need for immediate consular access, and that was granted the following day. Our officials spent several hours visiting those who were in detention and in hospital before they were deported, and we had a large presence in Istanbul to meet those who arrived there. We are also aware that some people’s passports and luggage have not been returned. We will raise that issue with the Israeli authorities because such goods must be returned.
Richard Burden
Does the Minister believe that the Israeli Government’s inquiry has the confidence of the international community? Furthermore, Does he believe that it should be an international inquiry rather than an internal inquiry with an international dimension?
Alistair Burt
No, the inquiry meets the United Nations Security Council resolution requirement of an independent and impartial inquiry with an international element, but we will wait to see how it evolves. We believe that it has met the initial requirement set out by the international community, which was not for an international inquiry or a UN inquiry; it was exactly as the UN resolution delivered. The point is we should not be distracted by the remit or the structure of the inquiry. The important thing is what it looks at and what emerges from it to give some credibility to the assessment of what happened. We know that there are competing versions of events out there, and we know that the world will not be satisfied unless there is a process that gives everyone the chance to say what they saw and what conclusions they came to. The state of Israel understands that as well as anybody else, and we have made that point very clearly. We should not get hung up on the structure of the inquiry, because, in testament to those who died or who were involved, we should let the inquiry get on and see what emerges, and that is what we are concentrating on.
It is very important to see the incident not in isolation, but as part of the continuing misery and drama of Gaza. We and other members of the international community have underlined the need to lift current restrictions in United Nations Security Council resolution 1860. As for the blockade itself, the UK’s position is that there is a role for the EU, both diplomatically and as part of the Quartet, in dealing with the easing of the restrictions.
In terms of semantics, when I talked about not lifting the blockade last week, I meant not lifting the blockade to allow completely free access to Gaza of everything that anybody wants to bring in. No one is talking about that. If conventional wording means to allow the unfettered access of goods that are both humanitarian and necessary to help with the reconstruction of Gaza, but not including arms, that is what I meant, so there should be no disagreement between us there. We support the attempts that have been made to change the nature of the blockade and to get the right goods in.
As far as our support for the UN work is concerned, we announced £19 million for UNRWA’s work with Palestinian refugees across the region. That is part of the tranche of money that was already agreed. In relation to the question of the hon. Member for Bury South about continuing that flow of money, such a decision is subject to the same concerns about Government expenditure generally. None the less, I share his belief that that support is necessary and should continue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government’s commitment to international aid and development.
The position of Hamas was raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and a number of others. Hamas does play a part in the whole tragedy of Gaza; it is wrong to ignore it or to ignore its part in that tragedy. There is no suggestion that the United Kingdom will change its position in relation to contact with Hamas; we intend to keep that as it is.
The hon. Member for Bury South asked a number of questions about Hamas, but he also called for the unconditional release of Gilad Shalit and asked what we can do about that. We in the Conservative party have also pressed for the unconditional release of Gilad Shalit for a number of years. As a Government, we will continue to do that—
Lymington River
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I feel almost like a country parson reading the banns of marriage—“this being for the third time of asking”—given that this is the third time I have dragged a Minister to Westminster Hall to answer for the actions of the Government on the protection of the Lymington river.
Furthermore, as with the controversial actions of country parsons in respect of changing hymns and modern unpopular liturgies, I find that my own actions in my assiduous dedication to this task have proved equally unpopular. While I was going about my duties in Lymington on Friday, a charming but forceful lady took me aside and demanded to know why I was so “anti-ferry”. Actually, I am not “anti-ferry” at all. My starting point is that there is a critical need in both the Lymington and Yarmouth economies for the ferry service and I want to see that ferry service preserved. However, there are other interests that have to be balanced against those of the ferry service, not least the protection of the European Natura 2000 sites, the importance to the local economy of the yachting interest in Lymington, and indeed the long-term survival of Lymington as a harbour, which is protected by the local mud flats. The diminution of those mud flats poses a long-term threat to the future of Lymington. So, all those interests have to be balanced.
It is the law that provides protection and balance. The fact that we are now having a third Adjournment debate on this issue and that we have had two spats in court, both of which the Government lost, is down to the failure to implement the law properly. The Government gave all sorts of commitments in signing up to the relevant European directives, but then failed properly to transpose those directives into English law.
I do not want to repeat the entire history of this subject; those who are interested in it can read the Official Report of the two previous Adjournment debates. However, I shall give a potted history now. We have always been led to believe the received wisdom that the erosion of the Lymington salt marshes was an inevitable consequence of nature—“It’s the weather and there’s nothing we can do about it”. Of course, those salt marshes are vital to Lymington, and the Lymington harbour commissioners have come up with a plan worthy of our Victorian forebears in its engineering prowess. They are going to build a sea wall—a monument to King Canute—to hold back the waves and save at least some of the salt marsh. I am not qualified to say whether that plan will survive current economic realities or whether it will actually work.
However, as a consequence of this controversy, a number of studies have been carried out of bathymetric data—a subject on which I am uniquely unqualified to pontificate. I understand, however, that the findings of the Southampton university team who carried out one of those studies suggest that the salt marshes, if left to nature alone, would actually be accreting—growing and extending—and that it is only the introduction of the particular form of propulsion used by the Lymington ferry from the 1960s onwards that has led to the swift erosion of the salt marshes. That erosion has been even swifter since the introduction of the new “W”-class ferries, a development that has sparked the recent controversy.
These are issues well beyond my competence, as I said, but they are precisely those that must be clearly understood and examined in that appropriate assessment. A principal reason for the court’s determining that the new ferries had been unlawfully introduced on to the Lymington river was that Wightlink was its own competent authority for the determination of that appropriate assessment. Notwithstanding reams of assurances, in correspondence from Ministers and in parliamentary answers to my questions, that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was the appropriate authority, when it came to the crunch it turned out that because the Government had been so cack-handed in implementing the habitats directive, Wightlink was its own competent authority. The judge said it had shown a complete disregard for its public responsibilities, separating them from its own commercial interests, and that as a consequence it was absolutely invalid.
The question is what to do next. Wightlink has said it will rerun the appropriate assessment and, in addition, do a full environmental impact assessment. The difficulty is that Wightlink remains its own competent authority. Wightlink will still be judge and jury in its own court. Wightlink has said, “No, no. We’re going to form a new company—Wightlink CA, or Wightlink competent authority—to judge the appropriate assessment.” Key questions arise. How will the commercial interests of Wightlink CA be different from the commercial interests of Wightlink itself? Will it have a different board of directors? There is a clear need in these assessments for an independent referee.
Wightlink has said it will carry out a full environmental impact assessment. That is a huge undertaking, involving public consultation. It must consider the whole environment, including the increase in heavy goods vehicles traffic through the Forest to take advantage of the greater capacity of the ferries, especially as the bridge restrictions at the mouth of Lymington at the Ampress site mean that those lorries have to travel through the sensitive parts of the national park. All those issues give rise to great local concern about the impartiality of Wightlink, because it already has form on this matter. Why should we trust it now, given that the court could not trust it earlier?
When Wightlink announced that it would do an environmental impact assessment, it set out the details of how it was to be achieved, including the setting up of Wightlink CA, in a letter from its solicitors. The letter concludes by saying what the outcome would be before the assessments have begun. It states:
“Natural England have advised on a rate of erosion of the existing habitat areas in the European Sites that can, in their view, be attributed to the operation of the ‘W’ class ferries. The mitigation works will prevent loss of an equivalent or greater area of habitat (than the loss attributable to the ferries) elsewhere in the European Sites.”
There it is: it has already concluded that the mitigation works it is to undertake will compensate for any erosion. Before the assessments are undertaken to establish the rate of erosion and other facts, we have the conclusion that the mitigation works will take care of it. The conclusion has been announced before the studies have even begun.
Wightlink goes on, in a most extraordinary piece worthy of Alice in Wonderland, to say:
“The effect of the mitigation works is therefore to prevent an adverse effect on the European Sites by reference to their conservation objectives. Consequently, adverse effects on the integrity of the European Sites are avoided and the tests and approach under article 6(4) (and regulation 62 of the Habitat Regulations 2010) are not engaged. The mitigation works will prevent the harm occurring and consequently the works are appropriately considered mitigation and not compensation.”
In plain English, that gobbledegook means, “Notwithstanding the damage we are doing to the Natura site, because we are compensating by dumping some mud somewhere else, no damage has occurred.” This is a most ridiculous interpretation. It did not fool the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. In a classic piece of English understatement, in its letter to me it says:
“We remain to be convinced that on a practical level the proposals have been sufficiently well considered and will deliver the habitat benefits that would be required to provide assurance that the introduction of the new ferries will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site. We also continue to seek clarification as to whether the scheme is in fact compensation rather than mitigation.”
So we have this issue of compensation and mitigation. Natural England has already accepted a measure of damage and adverse effect on the sites. It tends to rather understate it. In its stakeholder response to the study carried out by Natural England, Wightlink says:
“The revised impact requiring mitigation is quantified by Natural England as increasing from 1.05 to 1.55 ha per decade (for explanation see Appendix 5). This predicted impact is still very small year on year (0.16 ha) only building to a more substantial impact and risk of adverse effect over several years.”
When people put things in newspeak, it is an attempt to confuse the general reader. I did not come across “ha”—whatever “ha” is—in my O-level maths, so one feels intimidated and does not ask the question but simply accepts the conclusion that it is very small. I suspect it is a hectare.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
indicated assent.
Mr Swayne
The Minister nods, so it is a hectare. So 0.16 of a hectare is 1,600 square metres, and that is the impact each year. I do not consider that to be very small at all.
Let me outline for the Minister what I think the law states should happen. For the purposes of the habitats directive one has a plan or a project. That was one of the first battles in court. Yes, it is a plan or a project. Will it have an adverse effect? In order to determine that, one needs an assessment. Whether one needs an appropriate assessment or a full environmental impact assessment in addition is a question of law, but one needs the assessments to answer the first question.
If the assessments suggest there is no adverse impact, one can go ahead with the project; if yes, stop. Then, ask the next question. Is there an alternative—a question that has been completely avoided by the current process? There are all sorts of other alternatives, including a smaller ferry with a different means of propulsion that is not so damaging to the river. Nevertheless, is there an alternative? If yes, take the alternative. If no, that is when it lands on the Minister’s desk.
If the answer is no then the Minister has to decide whether there is overwhelming public interest in the project proceeding, notwithstanding the damage it will do to the sites. That is where, if I were the Minister, I would probably take a step back and say, “Well actually, when it comes down to it, we do need the ferry.” But we have not been through that assessment yet; we have not reached that point. It is at that point, if the Minister decides there is an overwhelming public interest in the project proceeding, that he considers compensation and doing something else to build up the salt marshes elsewhere.
The process that has been undertaken in Lymington has put these elements in completely the wrong order. We are already talking about compensation, although an attempt is being made to say that it is actually mitigation: “Don’t mention the word ‘compensation’—it’s really mitigation—because of the implications that arise from that definition.” Clearly, however, that is the process that ought to be followed and I fear that if it is not, we will end up with another expensive spat in court.
Let me briefly describe to the Minister my desired end state. I hope that we end up with a viable ferry service between Lymington and Yarmouth, and that we can come to an accommodation on the basis of preserving the Natura sites and the yachting that is vital to Lymington’s economy. I fear that we will be presented with a fait accompli: regulators were asleep on the watch. Whatever the reason, we now have expensive ferries, built in Bulgaria, operating on the Lymington river and doing damage. How do we get round that? I hope that with some means of determining the compensation and the way forward, we can reach an agreement that Wightlink will go to some lengths to ensure that those ferries are, in a reasonable period, sold on for use elsewhere, or used on another of its routes, while an appropriate ferry for the conditions of the Lymington river is introduced as a replacement. In reality, this is a highly profitable route. It has one of the highest charges per passenger mile of any ferry in the world, a monopoly inherited from British Railways. The company ought to be able to make a go of it. There should be no question of any threat to the viability of the continued service.
I close by asking the Minister to reflect on this. Notwithstanding the failure of Government and the regulators to spot this on the horizon and deal with it effectively, and leaving aside the Adjournment debates that I held in order to raise the issue with Ministers, it has been a small number of local yachtsmen who have had to take the initiative and raise the huge sums of money to take the matter to court. I hope that they are not going to have to do so again.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) on, as he says, his third Adjournment debate, the first to which I have had the pleasure of responding. I know that he feels strongly about the issue. I think he is aware that the matter falls within the remit of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is responsible for marine issues, but unfortunately cannot be here today. I preface my remarks by saying that if, as I strongly suspect, I do not entirely allay all the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would be happy to meet him and go through them in more detail.
On the issue of biodiversity, I was astonished when reading the brief by the scale and significance of the salt flats to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West referred so clearly. Lymington harbour is part of a complex of estuaries in the Solent which supports a diverse coastal ecology. Large parts of the area, as he has said, are designated under a number of directives because of the habitats and species there.
By way of background, for which my hon. Friend will understand the need, the sites designated under the habitats and birds directive enjoy a degree of protection commensurate with their biodiversity importance. Any plans or projects, as he rightly said, proposed in the area are subject to an initial screening to decide whether the plan or project may have a significant effect on the site. Unless a significant effect can be conclusively ruled out, the plan or project needs to be subject to a full assessment via a legal procedure set out in those regulations. That is known, as my hon. Friend said, as an “appropriate assessment” and responsibility for undertaking it rests with the “competent authority”, the identity of which is clearly one of his concerns. It is the body proposing to undertake, or give consent to, the plan or project. The purpose of the assessment is to ascertain whether the plan or project is likely to have an adverse impact on the integrity of a protected site. That assessment includes a detailed study of impacts and mitigation measures, and an assessment of alternatives. In carrying out an assessment, the competent authority is required to “have regard to” the advice of the appropriate statutory nature conservation body, which in this case is Natural England.
Having said that legal bit, I should say that I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about Wightlink’s decision a year ago to introduce larger ferries on the route. I could argue with him about some of the issues to which he referred, although I would be arguing from almost the same position of lack of understanding to which he referred in other contexts. The Department is not aware of having lost two cases, as I think he suggested. There have been two cases in court, one was the judicial review, to which he referred, and the other was an application for an injunction to stop the ferries that was refused. We could debate the rights and wrongs of the issue, but they were fully aired at the hearing in December, which culminated in the judgment handed down in February that is now a matter of public record. I strongly endorse the point made at the outset of his remarks about the importance of the ferry and the commercial need for it in his local economy and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner). Ferries are crucial for both.
We now need to concentrate on the measures being taken to ensure that the protected sites suffer no adverse impacts from the new ferries so that the service can continue as intended. I do not want to open a debate into all the issues covered by the judicial review hearing, but two key points emerged from the judgment. First, the introduction of the type of larger ferry in question was, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West said, a plan or project under the terms of the habitats directive, and, secondly, the judgment confirmed that Wightlink is the competent authority responsible for assessing the impact of the ferries. Although DEFRA has a role to oversee the implementation of the directive in the UK, the court agreed that it would not be appropriate for the Department to assume the role of competent authority, which I think is what my hon. Friend was suggesting, nor did the court suggest that the fact that Wightlink is a private company disqualifies it from discharging its duties as a statutory harbour authority.
Some of the faults that my hon. Friend described, and his desired final outcome, are issues that Wightlink itself, as the competent authority, should take into account, particularly the consideration of alternatives. I fully understand his desire for those alternatives to be considered. Since the judgment, Wightlink and Natural England have worked very closely to assess the potential impacts of the new ferries and to consider what mitigation works would be needed to avoid any adverse impacts. Both parties have invested considerable time and money in that process and used their own expert consultants. That assessment includes mapping evidence to assess changes to the navigational channel, consideration of sediment movement and a review of other influences on the navigation channel. The work also considered propulsion and ship wash modelling, and other likely effects from the increased size of the new ferries.
My hon. Friend referred to the damage that he believes has already been done by the ferries. My understanding is that the studies into the loss of the salt flats and salt marshes go back much longer; apparently, the Keyhaven marshes experienced a 50% loss between 1971 and 2001, and the Lymington marshes experienced a 63% loss between 1946 and 2001. No study to date has been conclusive on the cause of the loss. I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concern at those losses. Having grown up in a similar area on the east coast, I fully understand the importance of the salt marshes, but we need to have a sense of perspective and not necessarily to blame everything on what has happened recently.
My hon. Friend had a little tease about the meaning of the word “ha”, and I think he understands that it is, as he implied, a hectare. Natural England has quantified the predicted habitat loss and deterioration caused by the ferries and requiring mitigation as 1.6 hectares of inter-tidal habitat per decade. My hon. Friend suggested that the organisation had come to a decision before the assessment, and we can argue about the precise detail, but it is important that we start with a marker as to where we need to be on mitigation.
Wightlink and Natural England have had detailed discussions about mitigation works that Wightlink could undertake to ensure that the operation of the ferries has no adverse impact on the protected sites and can thus continue without breaching the Government’s obligations under the directive. A programme of work has been proposed that involves taking material acquired from the regular dredging of the local moorings and depositing it in an area of deteriorating and eroding salt marsh. That would prolong the life of the salt marsh and mudflat habitat and offset the possible increase in the erosion of the mudflat attributed to the ferries. That work will of course be undertaken and funded by Wightlink, and it will require the consent of other regulators. I understand that Wightlink intends to start the work next spring.
Let me address my hon. Friend’s point about whether the proposals comply with the habitats directive. I am satisfied that it is acceptable to take into account proposed mitigation works when coming to a conclusion about whether a plan or project would have an adverse impact on the integrity of a protected site. I am also satisfied that works intended to avoid an adverse impact should be regarded as mitigation rather than compensation. I understand that Wightlink and Natural England have taken counsel’s opinion on the issue.
Clearly, this is a complex area. Like my hon. Friend, I do not pretend to be an expert on it, but we need to look at what we can do to counter the risks. First, the ferries are being monitored. As he said, the Lymington harbour commissioners undertake regular bathymetric surveys, which will pick up any long-term erosion. Wightlink has also placed graduated stakes at various points to work out whether there is any evidence of ferry thrusters affecting the mudflats. So far, there is no evidence to suggest that the impacts will be different from those already predicted. However, we are clearly in an unknown area, and the science suggests that any erosion will be gradual and cumulative, so it may take several years to build a firm picture. That is why the monitoring is designed to give early warnings, which will enable us to move quickly if we need to.
That brings me to my last point, which relates to my hon. Friend’s question about what happens if Wightlink and Natural England have got things wrong. Ultimately, the most important safeguard is the Secretary of State’s power to control the operation of the ferries. If, at any stage, Natural England provides advice that there is evidence to suggest that the operation of the ferries is likely to damage the site, the Secretary of State has the power under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 to make a special nature conservation order and to serve a notice on Wightlink requiring it to stop any operation specified in the notice. I must repeat that Natural England predicts that the impact of the ferries is most likely to be gradual and cumulative. On that basis, it has advised that provided that Wightlink successfully delivers mitigation works starting next spring, it will avoid any adverse effect on the integrity of the protected sites. As things stand, therefore, we have no clear scientific basis on which to support a decision to stop or suspend the ferry operation at the moment.
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject, because the debate opened my eyes to an issue with which I was not familiar. Clearly, our main priority is to comply with our obligations under the habitats directive and to protect these important habitats, and that is what we want to achieve. If we can do so while catering for the commercial needs to which my hon. Friend referred, that will satisfy us all. If he wishes to pursue the matter, he can talk to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. If all else fails, the Government ultimately have the power to stop the ferries, but I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West and I would like to think that we can work things out without having to do that.
Building Schools for the Future (Barking and Dagenham)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Sheridan, for giving me an opportunity to say a few words. I wish to make a few comments and raise a few questions about the future of the Building Schools for the Future programme in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham. To begin with, I shall refer to a couple of recent statements emanating from the new coalition Government which imply that different positions on the future of the programme are being developed in the Department for Education.
First, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) at the first Prime Minister’s questions following the recent election, the Prime Minister said:
“I know that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to see that in making the £6 billion in-year reductions—many warnings were given about what that would mean—we have protected the schools budget, and ensured that schools and Sure Start are protected. In terms of building schools for the future, let me be clear: our plans—and our passion, when it comes to education—are to ensure that new schools are provided so that we have real excellence, in the secondary sector in particular. That is what it is about. Building schools for the future is exactly what our plans involve.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 430.]
That was, of course, very good to hear and very welcome in our part of London.
Given that response, I was slightly unnerved to come across some recent press coverage which implies that a slightly different approach is being developed in a different part of the Government. I refer the Minister to a report in Building magazine of 4 June headlined “Government to halt BSF projects within weeks”. The article states:
“The government could announce a formal halt to the £55bn school building programme within weeks, amid growing pressure from contractors for clarity over the future of the scheme. It is understood that the Department for Education is likely to make an announcement alongside or before the Budget on 22 June in response to uncertainty about the status of projects under the Building Schools for the Future initiative…officials are preparing to put all schemes that have not reached preferred bidder stage on hold…These include about £2bn of projects approved by the previous government as far back as last July…It is understood that all projects that have received financial close and virtually all those at preferred bidder stage will progress as planned, although sources have warned there may be ‘some grey areas’.”
Since the report in Building and the Prime Minister’s welcome words a couple of weeks ago, the Department seems to have gone quiet on the subject. The only trace of formal comment I could find was a 10 June press release from the Department which was headlined “Department for Education statement on BSF”. It stated:
“The Department for Education has not taken any decisions on the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. The Department is reviewing BSF to ensure that when we build schools for the future, we do so in a more cost-effective and efficient fashion. Any future rollout decisions will be announced in due course.”
Therefore, today I search for a bit of clarity on the status of the programme, with specific reference to the situation in east London. This is a vital issue for all residents, parents and political representatives in the council and here in Parliament.
Before last month’s elections, Barking and Dagenham was due to receive some £275 million of capital investment in secondary schools through the BSF programme. The programme included £250 million for school buildings and £25 million for information and communications technology investment. The BSF programme will enable the council to modernise all its secondary schools, including Trinity special school, and to build a new secondary school that will include special school provision in Barking Riverside, which is a major regeneration site in east London. The programme includes the modernisation of all the ICT provision in schools, and two schools—Dagenham Park Church of England school and Sydney Russell school—are sample schools for the procurement process.
The outline business case was approved by Partnerships for Schools in July 2009. Since that date, the council has been involved in the procurement of a local education partnership—LEP—to build schools and provide facilities, and a managed ICT service provider partner, to provide a managed ICT service for the schools.
Contracts were advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union in August 2009, which named the London borough of Havering and Thurrock council in Essex as contracting authorities, as well as ourselves in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham. That means that both those bodies can use our LEP when formed should they choose to do so, although they will fund their own developments. If they use the LEP, as shareholders in the LEP we would reap a shareholder return.
Let me mention a few specific points. On 8 June, the borough cabinet approved a recommendation for the ICT selected bidder. Yesterday, the cabinet approved the LEP selected bidder. Notwithstanding the fact that we do not yet know the Government’s position on the future of the BSF programme, and assuming that we are able to continue the process, we would expect to achieve financial close in late summer or early autumn—a matter of weeks away.
Given the press coverage that I alluded to earlier, we must assume from those reports that the £55 billion national BSF programme is under threat from the new coalition Government, as part of their public sector cost-cutting drive. If the Government decide to scrap the programme in the next few weeks—as has been rumoured—that will have a huge impact on Barking and Dagenham. Critically, if BSF is cancelled or significantly delayed, from 2012 there will be a significant and growing shortfall in school places in our borough.
Council projections suggest that the borough will need an additional 2,250 secondary school places by 2015, rising to 2,875 places by 2017. Perhaps the Minister is aware that this part of London has been subject to extraordinary demographic change over the last few years, much of it off the radar of the state because it has occurred since the 2001 census. Those changes should not be underestimated in terms of the sheer velocity of movement into the borough.
Local councillors are also worried that, in addition to BSF funding, the primary school capital programme could be hit by Government spending cuts in the near future. The number of primary school places needed is estimated to rise to 11,595 by 2017. Over the past few years, the rate of increase in births in the borough has led to a significant rise in the demand for school places. For example, in 2000-01 there were 2,380 births in the borough. By 2007-08 that number had risen by over 50% to 3,541. In addition to the extra pressure on school places due to the higher birth rate, the borough remains a significant area of economic regeneration. It has the lowest-cost housing market in Greater London, which has acted as a magnet for young families moving into the borough over the past few years. The housing represents good value and is attractive to young families, which in turn places additional pressures on our school places and buildings, and on the physical infrastructure across the borough.
The current coalition Government place great store in their new politics, in greater transparency in public policy making, and in ensuring that they give the public a major say in where the cuts should be made. I am sure that I speak for many parents in Barking and Dagenham by saying that one area where we do not want to see cuts is in money that is desperately needed to modernise our school buildings to make them fit for the 21st century.
If BSF funding is cut for the borough’s schools it will have huge implications, not only for our schools but for the regeneration agenda, which I touched on briefly. If we do not receive BSF investment, the knock-on lack of school places will have a big impact on housing development across London and at the heart of the Thames gateway. Without investment in our schools, we will not be able to meet demand. We will have a shortfall in school places which, in turn, will make the borough a less attractive place for young families to move to.
Last week, the council leadership wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to seek assurances on BSF funding. The council now intends to step up the campaign at local level to save funding for the borough’s schools by organising an online local residents petition to the Prime Minister. It is also urging local people to write to the Prime Minister, calling on his Government not to abandon BSF investment. I can fully understand both initiatives. The stakes, for BSF and local education provision, are high.
The possibility of major cuts to the BSF programme must be seen alongside other cuts at local government level. Following announcements in the past two weeks by the Chancellor and the Department for Communities and Local Government about the Government’s economic savings plan, local councils across the country are being required to find an extra £1.165 billion in savings, amounting to 20% of the Government’s £6.2 billion in cuts to public expenditure this year.
That means that the borough of Barking and Dagenham will have to find additional savings of between £4 million and £5.8 million in the next year, on top of savings of approximately £14 million this year to offset some of the losses, especially in the operation of the housing revenue account, which have put great pressure on the authority’s budgetary process.
The precise amount of the cuts will not be known until the new Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition reveals its full emergency Budget next week, but there are already worries that housing money and Government cash normally reserved for local authorities in charge of areas with significant deprivation will be cut.
There are also concerns at local level about the future of funding for the 18 children’s centres in our borough. I understand that the funding grant is secure until the next comprehensive spending review in March 2011, but the future is uncertain after that. Moreover, although BSF does not affect primary schools, a primary capital programme exists, and there is concern for the future of that funding string as well.
Overall, therefore, BSF is vital to the overhaul of the secondary schools in our borough to help us meet the extra demands created by the birth rate and patterns of migration in east London. BSF is a major investment programme that will totally modernise all schools in the authority, including our special school. Works will vary from major rebuilding, remodelling and refurbishment to combinations of the three. The only exception among the secondary schools is the recent new-build Jo Richardson community school, which will receive ICT investment.
The borough has a selected bidder for the ICT, as well as an LEP-selected bidder. We hope to finish the whole process by late summer, assuming no policy change at the national level. We therefore seek reassurance for the project as a whole. The BSF LEP-selected bidder has passed the various stages of the BSF LEP evaluation process. The BSF programme is a key element of improving the well-being of children in the borough, reducing inequalities and ensuring integrated children’s services, given the guidance that we received under the Childcare Act 2006.
BSF will bring many benefits to the borough, including extended schools, raised attainment and expanded education services as the school-age population in the borough grows. I therefore return to the two quotes that I reported at the beginning of my contribution. I welcome the commitment to the BSF programme that the Prime Minister made clear among his first parliamentary answers. I hope that the Minister can support the programme in Barking and Dagenham, not least because we have concluded the selected bidder part of the process and are nearing completion of the total process, which is why the report in Building magazine caused such concern locally. We seek reassurance that our scheme will not be put on hold. The magazine stated that
“all those at preferred bidder stage will progress as planned, although sources have warned there may be ‘some grey areas’.”
I simply seek reassurance that we will proceed as planned and that we are not one of the grey areas. The borough’s changing demographic profile, birth rates and existing pressures on the education sector combine uniquely, with the result that this capital programme is vital for our residents and children. I look forward to the Minister’s response and, hopefully, to some reassuring noises.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) on securing this important debate. He speaks eloquently on behalf of his constituents. He has emphasised the importance of the BSF programme to the borough of Barking and Dagenham, including its importance to issues such as extended schools and raising educational attainment. I pay tribute to him for his fight against extremism and the British National party and his commitment to campaigning against poverty.
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, including his forecasts for secondary school places and a 50% increase in the birth rate, rising from 2,380 in 2000-01 to 3,541 in 2007-08. He is right to emphasise the importance of the fabric of a school building to the issue of raising attainment. Our ambition is to raise standards throughout the education sector, to improve outcomes for the most disadvantaged, to restore confidence in our qualifications and exam systems, and to ensure that children leave school with the knowledge that they need to succeed in further education and the world of work. Our coalition agreement sets out a progressive programme of reform to achieve those aims, based on the fundamental principles of more freedom for teachers and professionals, more choice for parents, more help for the most disadvantaged, and less bureaucracy and process.
If we are to effect real change and recast Britain’s education system as one of the best in the world, our focus on raising standards in all schools, reforming the curriculum and securing the best and brightest for the teaching profession must be relentless. We must also retain a focus on the school estate, ensuring that schools provide an environment conducive to education, with high-quality technology and facilities, space that supports different types of education—from one-to-one tuition to whole-year groups—and, importantly, a pleasant environment where children want to be. I welcome the opportunity the hon. Gentleman has given us to debate the issue, and congratulate him again on securing the debate.
Building Schools for the Future was a flagship programme of the previous Government, who had high ambitions to rebuild or refurbish every school in the country by 2023. Of course, there are many schools that need to be rebuilt and many are in a very poor condition. With a rising birth rate in parts of the country, including, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, his constituency, we will need to make more places available, and both those issues will require capital spending. We shall clearly need to build schools in the future.
The hon. Gentleman rightly quoted the Prime Minister as saying that building schools for the future is something we shall continue to do. However, that does not mean that we must go through the bureaucratic and wasteful procedures that were the previous Government’s approach. I understand that the process in Barking and Dagenham started in 2007. Here we are in 2010 and the diggers have not yet moved in; £250 million was spent before a brick was laid or earth was moved. Of that, £60 million was spent on consultants or advisory costs. Let us be clear: the previous Government said they were spending money on schools; but in the seven years since the scheme was announced only 95 new schools have been built out of 3,500 secondary schools. In the current financial climate, where front-line services are under pressure to do more with less, we cannot afford to direct lavish amounts of money away from pupils, teachers and children’s services into the pockets of consultants and bureaucratic processes.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education stated in the debate on the Gracious Speech that for the remainder of the financial year there will be no cuts in front-line funding for schools, Sure Start and sixth forms. We have secured additional funding from outside the education budget to fund the pupil premium, which will ensure that more money reaches the most disadvantaged pupils, who already start out with a financial and knowledge deficit in comparison with their peers. Capital programmes and investment in the school estates are very important to the coalition Government, but we must ensure that those programmes represent good value for money.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out in his opening remarks, we are reviewing the Building Schools for the Future programme to ensure that we can build schools more effectively and cost-efficiently in the future. We definitely will not halt projects that have been started, where diggers have been engaged and holes have been dug in the ground, as the Labour Government did when the college building programme had to be put on hold because of “catastrophic mismanagement”. Many colleges stood to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds. Indeed, the Association of Colleges said that some stood to lose millions following the abrupt cancellation of projects. It said that 24 colleges stood to lose between £2 million and £5 million; indeed, 17 stood to lose more than £5 million.
I know that the hon. Gentleman was not part of the previous Government—indeed, he was an effective and constructive critic of them—so he cannot be blamed for what went wrong, and he is right to raise the issue of the Barking and Dagenham BSF plans today. However, he will appreciate the financial backdrop against which this debate is being held—an inherited budget deficit of £156 billion. As a result, the previous Government had already committed themselves to reducing capital spending across Departments by more than 50%, with a reduction of 17.5% in each of the next three years. The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the former Secretary of State for Education and now shadow Education Secretary, admitted to the House that school capital spending was not protected in those plans. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman’s first port of call should be the shadow Secretary of State, in order to find out from him what he had planned to do if their party had won the last general election.
Jon Cruddas
I want to put it on the record that we had this row about the BSF plans in Barking and Dagenham with the previous Government. There was a controversy in the first phase of the BSF programme, in that we were on the list and were taken off it because of some difficulties with the imposition of academies. So this is an argument we have had with Governments either side of the aisle.
Mr Gibb
I am grateful for that intervention and I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. He also gives me an opportunity to correct something I said earlier. I think that I gave a very disparaging view of the previous Government when I said they had completed only 95 schools in the seven years since the project began; they actually completed 97. So, for underestimating their great achievement in completing 97 schools out of 3,500, I apologise and set the record straight.
We will be looking extraordinarily sympathetically at two sets of circumstances as we review the BSF programme: deprivation and particular need. I know the projects in Barking and Dagenham are very important to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and especially to the pupils and school staff who will be affected, but I am afraid that that is all I can say at this point; I cannot give specific guarantees at this time about particular projects. Nevertheless, I promise to keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman as we continue to review capital spending. I know that that will not be enough to satisfy him or his constituents, but I am afraid that that is all I can say at the moment.
I reiterate that capital programmes are important to our programme of school improvement, but they must be delivered efficiently and cost-effectively, and must also be focused on where spending is most needed and will have the most impact.
Constituency Boundaries (Islands)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
First, I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office. I have known him for many years. The Prime Minister quickly recognised the many qualities that I know he possesses, and the people of the Forest of Dean also knew a good thing when they saw it: they had the wisdom to elect him in 2005, and again last month with an increased majority. I know that he will bring common sense and good judgment to his office.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss constituency boundaries for islands. Not many of us are greatly affected by the issue, but it is extremely important to those of us who are. Islands come in many shapes and sizes. There are those with a tiny population, such as the Scillies with scarcely 2,000 residents. There are islands joined to the mainland by road or rail, such as Anglesey and Hayling island, and even Portsmouth. Most important for this debate is that there are islands with significant populations that remain isolated, with no physical link to the mainland. They include Na h-Eileanan an Iar—more commonly known as the Western Isles—Orkney and Shetland, and my own constituency of the Isle of Wight.
Last month’s election was fought on boundaries with average constituency sizes of 71,000 electors in England, 66,000 in Scotland, 56,500 in Wales and just over 63,000 in Northern Ireland. The UK average was 69,500. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that England as a whole is under-represented in the current system, particularly since devolution has introduced another layer of politicians in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. With roughly 110,000 electors, my constituency is the largest by quite a margin. The constituency of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), whom I am glad to see here today, has fewer than 23,000. His, at a fifth of the size of mine, is the smallest constituency, again by a significant margin.
The coalition Government intend to increase the size of constituencies generally, creating fewer, more evenly sized and, in the majority of cases, more populous ones. I understand that the aim is to have an average electorate of 77,000, which would reduce the number of MPs by 10% and cut the cost of politics. The principle of greater equality is good, the aim of reducing the cost of politics is laudable and, from experience, I know that it is perfectly possible to represent a large constituency. My noble Friend Lord Norton of Louth’s excellent report from the commission to strengthen Parliament found that larger constituencies may foster
“a closer, longer-term relationship between member and constituents”.
We must, however, remember and examine the practicalities.
We can learn from the wisdom of those who have looked at the issues in depth before us. The Boundary Commission last reported on the Isle of Wight constituency in 2007, using figures from 2000. The electorate in 2000 was 103,000, 33% larger than the average. The commission considered severing part of the island and putting it with a mainland constituency, but concluded that to do so would
“disregard the historic and unique geographical situation”
and
“create confusion and a feeling of the loss of identity”
for islanders. It also stated that
“communications would be difficult both for the electorate and the Member of Parliament.”
We were on the point, under the current system, of having two MPs, which I would have supported, but I understand that that proposition is no longer on the table.
If the island had one MP with 77,000 electors, 32,000 people or 12 electoral wards on the island would need to be included with a mainland seat. I have looked at all the possibilities. It could mean either a ferry from Ryde, with a hinterland from Wootton to Arreton to Bembridge, or a ferry from Yarmouth, with a hinterland from Cowes to Ventnor—the southern most point on the island—or from Cowes, East Cowes and Newport. I have to say that all of those proposals are barmy.
Experts from the Boundary Commission for Scotland have looked carefully over the years at the case for merging the Western Isles with Skye. The commission found in 1981 that that would be “unworkable or intolerably difficult”, and, in 2004, it came to the same conclusion, saying that the arguments against change
“remained as strong now as they were then.”
To get anywhere near an electorate of 77,000 would mean the Western Isles being lumped in with a huge part of the Scottish mainland. If including Skye in the constituency would prove “unworkable or intolerably difficult”, how on earth would merging the Western Isles with the mainland work in practice?
Such difficulties are even more acute in Orkney and Shetland, a constituency with a population of more than 32,000. Meeting the new quota would likely entail a union with the nearest mainland constituency, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Such a drawing of boundaries would result in a constituency that was hundreds of miles from end to end.
Part of the problem is geographical. The only access to the Isle of Wight is by sea. There is no tunnel, bridge or scheduled air service, and crossing the Solent can be expensive and time-consuming. The even bigger problem, however, is that islands and islanders are very different from the mainland and mainlanders. Those who live on islands are, by definition, more insular. The word “insular” means being of or pertaining to an island or islands, but it also means being detached, standing alone or isolated. It is clear to me why the word is used in both ways, but one must live on an island to really understand. Many people on the Isle of Wight travel to the mainland only rarely. The Solent is much more of a barrier, both physical and psychological, than any other English county boundary. If any part of the island were to be merged with the mainland, it would be reasonable for the mainland MP to live on the north island. After all, that is where the majority of his constituents—about 46,000—would live. He would not, however, be considered a part of the island community. I suspect that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar recognises that feeling in the communities that he represents. It would be a very sad outcome if people were made to feel more distant and remote from their elected representatives.
There are good reasons why both the largest and smallest UK constituencies are island constituencies, and those reasons should be respected. We should not simply disregard the work of those who have looked at the issues before, sacrificing workable and sensible proposals on the altar of principle, however good and well-intentioned that principle might be.
It might seem odd that I am arguing for more rather than less work than other Members of the House, while at the same time arguing for the continued existence of the smallest UK constituency. However, it is because I live on an island that I understand the unique nature of islands. They are very special communities and special places that need special consideration. I understand that these matters are still being deliberated and that final decisions have yet to be made about how the policy is to be implemented. Will the Minister please give me an assurance that, when the Government move forward with plans to equalise constituency sizes, they will recognise the unique nature of island electorates? I hope that his common sense and good judgment will applied in spades to this question.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Today, we see an alliance of islanders—an alliance that was perhaps created by the Daily Mail. During the election campaign, the newspaper sent one of its reporters, Mr Robert Hardman—perhaps all the reporters from the Daily Mail are hard men—to both Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the Isle of Wight. Whether his aim was to create some mischief, I do not know—far be it from me to cast aspersions on such an august publication as the Daily Mail—but we were chosen because I represented the smallest constituency in terms of the number of voters, and the Isle of Wight is, of course, the constituency with the largest number of voters. The Daily Mail succeeded in uniting us in a common cause. The largest and the smallest numerical constituencies in the UK are of one mind: their islands are indeed special.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) spoke eloquently and forcefully for his constituency. I will confine my remarks to my constituency, other than to point out to the Minister that it is odd for a democracy to be looking to cut the elected element of Parliament while almost daily—certainly monthly—we have news of further appointments to the unelected portion of Parliament. Does that mean that, when the Government leave office, the percentage of Parliament elected by democratic means will be far smaller than when they entered office? Quite how that makes the UK look internationally, other than like a laughing stock, I am not certain. Quite how the Government feel about that, other than queasy, I shall not speculate.
My constituency is the length of Wales. The Prime Minister might want to give me a territory the size of the Yukon, but that would not serve voters well at all. Areas, of course, need coverage. When a population grows in an area, a constituency with a maximum headage is usually created, obviously with some sensible anomalies, such as the Isle of Wight. That is to ensure an equality of treatment so that all voters have the same kind of representation and access to their MP as voters have in a more urban and populated setting. I speak particularly from my own perspective in Na h-Eileanan an Iar.
To give the Minister a small example, last Friday I conducted what I consider to be a small surgery on part of one the islands in my constituency, on the west side of Lewis—actually, we went down to Harris for part of it. We had an ordinary day. We covered 279 miles that Friday—a distance just a little longer than that between Glasgow and Liverpool. That is what I have to do to serve people in a remote island rural setting. I mention that just to give an idea of what has perhaps not been considered when people look on a purely numerical headage basis.
I think that it is right that people in rural areas have the same services and access as those in an urban setting. In the islands, we are used to a poor broadband service—British Telecom has a number of exchanges in the area that it has not upgraded yet, although I hope that it will—and I would hate to see democracy and people’s expectations of democracy reach the same standards. In a democracy, everybody requires equality of treatment, representation and access to their MPs.
Finally, I wish to make a more political and perhaps more constitutional point. The Union is supposed to be a union between two nations; it does not mean having a 50:50 split of MPs between Scotland and England, as the Minister is no doubt aware. Obviously, as a Scottish National party Member, I would like there to be no MPs at Westminster who represent Scottish constituencies, but we live with the present situation and the way in which the cards have been dealt. In the meantime, I cannot allow what is proposed to proceed without protest and without making common cause with the Isle of Wight in the far south of England and alerting the Government to the dangers of exactly what the Prime Minister and his Liberal Democrat friends might do if they cut the representation of the highlands and islands.
I am sure that the Government will not do that. They will reflect, particularly on the strong arguments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, and act with thought and consideration. They will make sure that Scotland does not lose any more MPs, because that would be a retrograde step for people in the highlands and islands and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out earlier, it would be almost impossible to represent the Western Isles and Skye. We hope that such a mistake is not made, that the Minister will listen and that the right decision is reached. In the meantime, until the day of independence, I shall continue to make common cause with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Sheridan, in my first outing on this side of the House—strange though it seems, but very welcome. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) for his generous opening remarks and for how he represents his constituency so ably. I want also to mention, in passing, how he pronounced the constituency of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) better than I just did. The hon. Gentleman will remember when I tried to pronounce his constituency in the House of Commons four years ago. I mangled it a bit then, but he gave me credit for at least trying rather than just copping out and calling it the Western Isles so I am sure that he will forgive me if I make a mess of it again.
When researching for the debate, I was interested to note that, before the Great Reform Act of 1832, the Isle of Wight was represented not as ably as it is now by my hon. Friend, but by more Members of Parliament. Indeed, eight Members of Parliament represented it in the House. The three boroughs of Newport, Newtown and Yarmouth each elected two Members of Parliament, and the rest of the island outside those boroughs was represented by the two county Members for Hampshire. The world has indeed moved on from a rather over-represented island to one that is probably under-represented given the number of Members of Parliament, but outweighed by the quality of its one Member of Parliament.
My hon. Friend is right that the Government have set out proposals for fewer and more equally sized constituencies. He is also right in saying that no decisions have been taken. He said that the Government were planning on having a quota of 77,000 electors with a 10% cut in the number of Members of Parliament. That was the policy set out by the Conservative party before the election, but Ministers are currently considering both the size of the House of Commons and the electoral quota that flows from it. As yet, no decisions have been taken by the coalition Government. I thought that it was worth putting that information on the record in case people assumed that the Conservative party’s proposals were being automatically rolled forward. My hon. Friend welcomed the general thrust of our proposals to reduce the number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and to reduce the cost of politics. He is a demonstration, as are other hon. Members who represent constituencies with larger than average electorates, that it is perfectly possible to represent them very ably in the House of Commons and make sure that they receive a good service.
It is now worth picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar about the unelected House of Lords. He is right that several peers were appointed to that House in the previous Government’s dissolution honours list and that more peers might be created. He will also know that that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has set up a cross-party Committee charged with bringing forward by the end of the year a draft Bill to introduce either a wholly or a mainly elected second Chamber, which will deal with the issue that he highlighted about the number of unelected Members in that House. Those proposals will be scrutinised by a Committee of both Houses and will be taken forward. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is real, but it is in hand.
It is also worth saying that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, the work on considering boundaries, setting the size of the House of Commons and deciding on the guidance that the boundary commissioners will have as they set about their work needs to be approached with great care. Many Members of Parliament have already been lobbying me on what they think the rules should be and making cases both in the House and privately for their own constituencies, and I am listening to them intently. However, we must balance against the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman the fact that, at the moment, electors’ votes are worth different amounts depending on where they live. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in the main Chamber, it is the ultimate postcode lottery that some electors’ votes are in effect worth more than others because it takes fewer of them to elect a Member of Parliament.
Mr MacNeil
Surely the way to address that anomaly is through proportional representation and perhaps the single transferable vote. Even if there are numerically even constituencies, some voters will still be worth an awful lot more if they happen to be in a swing seat. In a safe seat, the power of the voter is not as great as it would be in an area or a country where the single transferable vote is used.
Mr Harper
I am sure that you, Mr Sheridan, would not want me to be tempted into a discussion of the various electoral systems that we could have, so I will not be tempted by the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, when the Government introduce their Bill on the alternative vote and boundaries, there will be ample opportunity in the House, both on Second Reading and in a Committee of the whole House, to debate electoral systems. I am sure that he will take part in those debates with his normal vigour and good spirits, so we shall leave that question until then.
With regard to both the points that have been made, it is important, when we consider the rules and the framework that will be set for boundaries, to consider how Members of Parliament are able to do their jobs and the accessibility of their constituencies. I have looked carefully at the constituencies that are entirely constituted of islands and those that have significant islands as part of them, and it is worth saying that they do raise a number of issues, which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman outlined clearly and which Ministers are considering carefully.
We will consider carefully how the process of the boundary reviews will be undertaken. We will listen to colleagues and, when we have published our proposals in a Bill, which we expect to introduce in the House before the summer recess, we will listen to colleagues’ representations in the Chamber. They can be assured that it is a constitutional measure, so it will have its Committee stage not in a Committee Room, but on the Floor of the House. Therefore, if hon. Members are not happy with the proposals when we have published them, they will of course have a full opportunity to debate them and raise them with Ministers on the Floor of the House.
Mr Harper
No, there would be a Boundary Commission. The decisions for Ministers are on, first, the size of the House of Commons—the Government have yet to reach a decision on that; we are considering the matter carefully—and secondly the instructions and guidance that the Bill will set out for the four Boundary Commissions for the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom as they set about their work. That will be about the quota for the constituencies, the number of electors that each constituency should have; the amount by which the Boundary Commission can vary from that number—the margin, if I can put it like that; whether there are any other considerations, as there are now, that it can take into account; and the extent to which those other considerations, such as the island nature of constituencies and the geography, are allowed to override numerical equality. We are currently considering those matters, which we shall bring before the House.
Mr MacNeil
May I extend an invitation to the Minister? If his mind is wavering and not fully made up and he would like to come on a fact-finding mission, he is more than welcome to be my guest in Na h-Eileanan an Iar. We could drive from my office to my house, which is a distance of about 150 miles, using two ferries, or we could get two flights. That would perhaps underline the issue of geography in the Minister’s mind, because when a person is pondering something on paper, it may not be understood as easily as it is during a five-hour drive or two flights.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman tempts me with his very generous invitation, and I will bear it in mind. None the less, I understand the issues. I have been to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on a number of occasions, and I have grappled with the ferry, so I know how difficult it is to get to. One of the other island constituencies affected is Orkney and Shetland. I visited the Shetland islands a few years ago, and have spoke to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the matter. I recognise the problems of constituencies that are accessible effectively only by air and at significant expense. Such points were made very ably by the hon. Gentleman, so I have an inkling of what the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has to grapple with when he meets his constituents in surgeries and has to visit different parts of his constituency. I will bear in mind his very generous invitation, but he can rest assured that I have a pretty good idea of the issues involved because of the visits that I have made to other island constituencies. This will not just be a paper exercise that takes no account of the realities. The hon. Gentleman can also be reassured that Ministers considering the matter are constituency MPs who recognise the work that colleagues have to do when they represent their constituents. We will think about our own constituencies and how those challenges are magnified in the particular circumstances that were set out.
I hope that the two Members who have spoken will recognise that no decision has been taken. Their constituents can be satisfied that they have very ably set out the unique nature of island constituencies and some of the challenges that they face in representing them both in the House and outside. Ministers will listen very carefully to those arguments as we frame the legislation and as it is introduced on the Floor of the House. We will take these very delicate matters forward with great care and attention. I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for setting out those points and for giving the House the opportunity to consider them at an early stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Luxembourg on 8 June 2010. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury represented the UK.
A-points
Council agreed legislative A-points on VAT administrative co-operation regulation, regulation on the quality of statistics, and the European Investment Bank (EIB) external lending mandate. Given that Parliament has not had the opportunity to clear these documents, the Government abstained on these items at ECOFIN and entered a statement to the minutes to that effect.
Convergence reports and enlargement of the euro-area
The Council took note of reports from the Commission and the European Central Bank on the fulfilment of economic and monetary union (EMU) convergence criteria by the nine non-euro area member states with an EMU derogation. It also noted a proposal for a Council decision aimed at enabling Estonia to adopt the euro as its currency on 1 January 2011, following positive signals that it has met the entry criteria. The final decision will be taken at the July ECOFIN.
Stability and Growth Pact
The Council adopted an opinion on an update by Cyprus of its stability programme. There were also discussions following announcements from Spain and Portugal of their fiscal consolidation measures. Ministers from several member states updated the Council on their domestic austerity measures. The Government outlined the savings package of £6.24 billion for financial year 2010-11 announced on 24 May.
Preparation of the 17 June European Council
a) Broad economic policy guidelines
Ministers approved a report to the European Council on the broad economic policy guidelines for Member States and the EU as a whole. The treaty on the functioning of the EU provides that member states are to regard their economic policies and promoting employment as matters of common concern and co-ordinate them within the Council. As these have not had a chance to complete scrutiny, the UK abstained, and the Government made clear they reserved their position on some aspects of the substance of the proposals. The guidelines will go for discussion at the 17 June European Council before returning to ECOFIN for formal adoption in July.
b) Europe 2020 Strategy
ECOFIN agreed conclusions on the Europe 2020 strategy to feed in to discussions at the European Council. The conclusions cover proposed headline targets for the strategy; the broad economic policy guidelines; national bottlenecks to growth; and enhanced economic policy co-ordination and timing. The Government will continue to encourage a focus on specific, meaningful steps the EU could take to promote growth.
c) Progress report on financial reform
ECOFIN discussed a progress report on financial reform to the European Council covering crisis management (including levies and funds), financial supervision, credit rating agencies, derivatives and financial exit strategies. The Government outlined their priorities for the reform of European regulation of financial services and the need to ensure international consistency and pursue non-discriminatory policies. The Council will now work with the Commission to take forward the ambitious programme it has proposed.
d) Fiscal exit strategies
The Council approved a report to the European Council on progress made in the development of an exit strategy for the unwinding of budgetary stimulus measures introduced in response to the economic crisis. The Government support the strategy, which is in line with announced plans for an additional £6.24 billion spending cuts in the UK.
e) Preparation for the G20 Summit
Ministers prepared an EU position for the June G20 summit in Toronto, where Presidents Van Rompuy and Barroso will represent the EU. The Government supported the agreed terms of reference, which reflect the agreements reached at the 5 June G20 finance ministerial in Korea. The final position will be adopted by the European Council.
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 7 and 8 June in Luxembourg. The health and consumer affairs part of the Council was taken on 8 June. I represented the UK.
At the meeting, following an exchange of views on the draft directive on patients’ rights in cross-border health care, political agreement between member states was reached. This text will now be forwarded to the European Parliament for their consideration.
A policy debate on the proposed regulation on the provision of food information to consumers focused on two aspects of the proposal. Member states considered the clarity of food labelling and discussed who might bear responsibility for the information provided on food labels.
Council conclusions on health inequalities and reduction of salt intake were adopted. The presidency also provided an update on progress of the proposals in the pharmaceutical package.
Vetting and Barring Scheme
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am announcing today that the commencement of voluntary registration with the new vetting and barring scheme (VBS) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which was due to begin on 26 July, will be brought to a halt as of today.
The Government have made clear their intention to bring the criminal records and vetting and barring regimes back to common-sense levels. Until this remodelling has taken place, we have decided to maintain those aspects of the new scheme which are already in place, but not to introduce further elements.
The safety of children and vulnerable adults is of paramount importance to the new Government. We will therefore maintain the current arrangements under which the Independent Safeguarding Authority is able to bar from “regulated activities” those considered unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults, and appropriate cases must be referred to them. Criminal records checks will also remain available for those eligible to receive them, and will continue to be required for certain posts where regulations are already in place.
However it is vital that we take a measured approach in these matters. Vulnerable groups must be properly protected in a way that is proportionate and sensible. The remodelling of the VBS will ensure this happens.
The terms of reference for the remodelling of the VBS and of the criminal records regime are currently being considered and a further announcement will be made in due course.
International Anti-Corruption Champion
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
On 10 June 2010 the Prime Minister appointed me to become the Government’s international anti-corruption champion. The continuation of this central role demonstrates the coalition Government’s clear commitment to transparency and accountability. The role is also in recognition of the significant cost of international corruption, both to individuals and to our economy. The appointment of anti-corruption champion is a personal appointment by the Prime Minister.
As champion I will hold a key co-ordination role for Government and be answerable to Parliament on corruption issues. I recognise that the interest and impact of corruption is felt not only by all Government Departments but also by British businesses and individuals, particularly those working overseas. I will therefore be working closely with colleagues across Departments, devolved Administrations, law enforcement, prosecution authorities and regulatory agencies to ensure a coherent and joined-up approach to combat international corruption. The champion role sends out a clear message that the UK coalition Government will not tolerate bribery or corruption and that we will work together to stamp out these practices across the board.
My first priority in this role will be to ensure the effective implementation of the Bribery Act 2010, legislation which will help to achieve the highest in international standards and which demonstrates cross-party commitment to the fight against bribery.
I will make further information on the detail of my role available to the House shortly.
Office of Government Commerce
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am today announcing a machinery of Government change affecting HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office.
Responsibility for the Office of Government Commerce and its executive agency, Buying Solutions, will transfer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and the organisations will become part of the Cabinet Office’s efficiency and reform group.
Property functions in the Office of Government Commerce and the shareholder executive will combine into a single unit responsible for property efficiency and will be based in the shareholder executive within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It will report jointly to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and to the Chief Secretary as part of the efficiency and reform group.
South East Airports Task Force
(13 years, 10 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 aviation makes a vital contribution to the economy of this country and to the lives of our citizens. The aviation sector contributes some £11 billion to GDP and directly employs some 200,000 people. Its true economic value is much greater than this when we consider the importance of air travel to the global economy and to UK competitiveness. But we cannot simply allow growth to continue at the levels it has in the past. Doing so risks unacceptable consequences in terms of noise and local air quality, quite apart from the global impacts in terms of CO2 emissions.
We need to start a new chapter in aviation policy—one that promotes a competitive aviation industry, supporting UK economic growth, while recognising the need for restraint. We have already begun that by making clear our opposition to adding yet more runways at Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick. Instead, we must explore different ways in which to improve the efficiency of these key components of our national transport infrastructure.
Improving the passenger experience is at the heart of this Government’s vision for UK aviation. We announced in the Queen’s Speech our intention to reform the economic regulation of airports to deliver better outcomes for passengers. But I believe that there are also other things that Government and the industry can do together, and so today I am announcing the establishment of a South East Airports Task Force with key players from across the industry to explore the scope for other measures to help make the most of existing airport infrastructure and improve conditions for all users. The group will be chaired by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) and its initial focus will be on action at our three biggest airports—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
I am confident that, by working closely with the aviation sector, alongside our regulatory reforms, this will help deliver improvements for all.
Government of Wales Act 2006 (Section 104)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
The National Assembly for Wales passed a resolution on 9 February 2010 calling for a referendum under the terms of the Government of Wales Act 2006. The First Minister notified my predecessor of this resolution on 17 February 2010.
I have a statutory duty to respond to that notice within 120 days of the date of the notice, either by laying a draft referendum order, or refusing to do so and giving reasons for the refusal.
I have today notified the First Minister that I am unable to lay a draft referendum order before Parliament within the 120 days, and have set out my reasons. I have also made clear that our aim is for a referendum to take place before the end of the first quarter of next year.
A copy of my letter to the First Minister is available in the Vote Office and has also been placed in the House of Commons Library.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Bishop of Derby
Elected Mayors
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they propose to carry out a consultation about the role and number of elected mayors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the Government have made a clear commitment to create directly elected mayors in the 12 largest cities, as set out in the coalition agreement. The Government believe that mayors are an effective model, but it will ultimately be for local people to decide what is best for their city.
Baroness Quin
I thank the Minister for her reply and congratulate her warmly on her appointment. Will she confirm again that the Government have no intention of imposing elected mayors on authorities, particularly given that many good local authorities and many areas of the country have shown little interest in the system? Does she agree that it would be inconsistent for the Government on the one hand to declare the merits of, and their belief in, localism, and on the other to adopt a “government knows best” attitude in this matter?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I can confirm that localism is one of the major planks of the Government’s policies, our intention being to put things down to as low a level as we can. With regard to the 12 cities that have already been named, we expect to engage with local government and other interested parties as the policy is considered. The policy on locally elected mayors will be subject to confirmatory referendums each time.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment. Her many years of experience in local government will be a great help to this House and to the Government. Does she agree that the creation of single-person executives requires close attention to be paid to checks and balances to prevent abuse of power? What discussions are being had on term limits such as those in other countries?
Baroness Hanham
I thank my noble friend for her very kind comments and welcome. The intention is to give mayors powers, but those powers will be subject to scrutiny by elected councils, which will have full scrutiny over what is being done. The terms of mayoralties have not yet been finalised.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I add to the congratulations to the noble Baroness on her appointment. I fondly remember working opposite her on many occasions when she was a stout defender of traditional London boroughs and structures of local government. The Mayor of London today has made a power grab to take over the London region of the Homes and Communities Agency, the Olympic Park Legacy Company, the Royal Parks Agency and the Port of London Authority. It has also sought greater powers over traffic control and awarding rail franchises on routes into London and the allocation of the adult skills budget in London, and to have a greater say in health provision in the capital. Are those proposals supported by Her Majesty's Government and, if so, will they be the powers on offer to the other prospective city mayors?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I appreciate that the Mayor of London is looking for greater powers and devolved policies. As the noble Lord will know, we welcome the contribution that the Mayor of London makes, and the new Government have already committed to genuine decentralisation of power. That may mean transferring further powers to the mayor, but that matter is still under consideration.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the noble Baroness to her position. She has great experience in local government and the health service, and we warmly congratulate her.
The noble Baroness talks about the Government’s commitment to localism; she has mentioned that twice already. In the past three weeks, the Government have introduced legislation to take education powers away from local authorities. The Secretary of State has announced that council tax will be capped. Local authorities are being required to publish minutiae of information; if they do not, legislation is promised. The 12 largest local authorities will essentially be forced to go down the elected mayoral route. Is not the only freedom that the Government are giving to local authorities the freedom to do what they are told by their boss?
Baroness Hanham
Again, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. No, I do not think that what he said is true. Local authorities will find that they have greater flexibility and power once localism is introduced. We have already indicated that there will be a freeze on council tax for two years. That is something that local authorities have known they would have to implement for some time. I do not accept that there is more central control. There could hardly be more central control than there was under the previous Government, and we certainly expect to make it less.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Does my noble friend remember that health control for the whole of London by the regional assembly has been considered for many years, going back even to LCC days? Certainly, it was greatly considered in GLC days. Does she not think that it is more suitable for this regional authority to have an interest in public health but not necessarily for it to be running the health service, which is quite capable of running itself in London?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not sure whether any decision has been made on running health services in London. That is in any case beyond me and in the hands of another Minister.
Lord Filkin
My congratulations, too, to a good local government friend in the Minister. Does she agree that turkeys do not vote for Christmas—and, if so, does she think that there is a need for someone to make the case for change to the leadership structures of local government?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am slightly confused by the question. If it relates to the mayors—I just raise my eyebrows and look at the noble Lord—then of course discussions are going to take place. This policy is newly announced and discussions need to take place with local government, as I have already indicated.
Parliamentary Constituencies: Boundaries
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the estimated time required for a full review of parliamentary constituency boundaries.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government have announced that legislation will be introduced to provide for the creation of fewer and more equal-sized constituencies. Further details will be announced in due course, and we will of course seek to frame the legislation in a way that ensures that the boundary commissions can complete their task in a timely, fair and thorough way.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, that was an Answer to a question but not to the one that I asked. The Question was what the Government’s estimate is of how long it will take to undertake a full review of parliamentary constituencies—a simple and straightforward question, I would have thought. Is the Minister aware that the previous review took six years and eight months? That was quite proper; it gave local people the opportunity to appeal and for full local inquiries, part of the localism that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly referred to as being a crucial part of this Government’s objectives. I appeal to him to ensure that there is no short-circuiting of local democracy and no denial of local people’s rights to appeal. If there is any short-circuiting of the appeals procedure in the established parliamentary Boundary Commission, then if this is the new politics, I for one prefer the old.
Lord McNally
The Answer drafted by my department was even vaguer than the one that I gave, so I feel rather hurt because that one was all my own work. It answered the Question, too: the previous review lasted nearly seven years but this one will be done in a timely, fair and thorough way. We will see when it ends whether it has fulfilled those criteria; I suspect that it will.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
Is my noble friend aware that many people are confused, sometimes to the point even of failing to vote, by the frequency with which constituency names are changed? Is he further aware that, remarkably, the constituency of Aberavon has borne the same name over at least the 42 years for which it was represented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, after he had defeated me in 1959? More than that, is he aware that it bore the same name when Ramsay MacDonald represented it in the 1920s, and that it bears the same name today? Will he pass that observation on to the Boundary Commission?
Lord McNally
I fully endorse that. I have great confidence in the independence of the Boundary Commission. I have to say, with some bitterness, that when the Boundary Commission decided to put Stockport Town Hall, Stockport market and Stockport’s major municipal buildings into Denton and Reddish in 1983 I doubted its sanity, but I am sure that the message about consistency in names and the preservation of historic names is important.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
Would the Minister give an assurance that the interests of the constituency in terms of geographical area covered will be given due regard by the Boundary Commission, because some constituencies could be almost half the size of Scotland? Could he also give an assurance that the Boundary Commission will be asked to have regard to those areas of dense population where everyone knows that the number of people who register is far below those entitled to vote, because those not failing to register are not necessarily spread evenly across the country?
Lord McNally
Yes, of course the Boundary Commission will be taking all those considerations into account. I understand the concerns about registrations to vote, which are extremely important. As I think was mentioned in a question yesterday, 92 or 93 per cent registration is not bad as an aim, but there is no doubt that there is difficulty about registration. My brief says that,
“non-registration was higher among private renters … unemployed … those without qualifications and those in non-permanent employment”.
There are similar bad figures for ethnic minorities. Those have to be looked at, and I am quite sure that that and other considerations will be taken into account by the Boundary Commission.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
The Minister will recollect that, during the general election, much was said about seeking to achieve an equal number of constituents in each constituency. How harshly is that rule to be applied? Does it mean that a time will come when mountain ranges, rivers and county and borough boundaries will count for nothing, and that there will be total arithmetical correctitude but no soul, no character and no history for such constituencies?
Lord McNally
No, that would be an absurd objective, but we have to come to a realisation that when a Government are elected on 36 per cent of the vote but are given a healthy 60-seat majority in the House of Commons, the electoral system has got out of kilter. I might also mention that when 23 per cent of the electorate return only 57 MPs, there are signs that perhaps that system is in need of examination. Of course, when the Boundary Commission comes to look at this, the kind of historical and geographical issues to which the noble Lord referred will be taken into account. I am actually quite surprised at the scepticism from some parts of the House. There is nothing up the sleeve; this is a rational approach to a distorted system.
Lord Tyler
As my noble friend has indicated, this is part of the general objective of trying to make sure that there is equal value for every citizen’s vote, as is the electoral reform to introduce a fairer voting system. Can he reassure us that the Government intend to make sure that this exercise and electoral reform proceed in tandem, and that the programme or timetable to which he refers will indicate an outcome and complete the process before the next general election?
Lord Bach
My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Conservative-Liberal coalition’s plans to reduce the size of the Commons will make it smaller than at any time since the passing of the Great Reform Act in 1832? I remind him that the population is now 61 million; in 1832 it was 17 million. Does he, as a former Member of Parliament, as he mentioned, and as a Liberal Democrat really believe that the citizens of the United Kingdom have suddenly become overrepresented in the House of Commons?
Lord McNally
The size of the constituency is a matter for discussion. In the present House of Commons, as is well known, it ranges from around 100,000 people to just over 20,000. There are reasons for those extremes but within them there is plenty of room for discussion of what would be a reasonable size of constituency for a Member of Parliament to look after. As well as the differences in population since 1832, there have been great changes in the communications and facilities open to Members of Parliament, and to the staff and assistance that Members of Parliament get.
Transport: Savings
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to implement savings of £682 million in 2010-11 in the transport sector in the context of their intention to create a greener and more sustainable transport sector.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I can reassure the House that this Government take their environmental obligations very seriously. The Department for Transport is focusing on improving efficiency while protecting priority areas, including green initiatives. The savings will include £112 million from direct departmental spend, £100 million from Network Rail, £309 million from local government grants, a proposed reduction of £108 million from the Transport for London grant and the deferral of £54 million from lower priority schemes.
Lord Berkeley
I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that breakdown of the first cut of the big cuts. I refer him to the coalition’s programme for government, which confirms what he said—that there is a joint ambition to create a low-carbon economy. Could he then tell the House why, in that list of cuts he quoted, there was nothing about a Highways Agency reduction in construction? Will we see road building continue while all the sustainable forms of transport are cut?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I can reassure him that the Highways Agency will take its fair share of reductions in the DfT’s direct spend, including £37 million from the deferral of planned spend in 2010-11 on a small number of Highways Agency schemes. Together, these savings represent a reduction which is in proportion to that being made to Network Rail and local government funding.
Lord Bradshaw
Does my noble friend the Minister recollect that two weeks ago, in the debate on the Loyal Address, I put forward a large number of economy schemes which do not affect front-line services? I have had no response to this and I would obviously like one. When people take part in debates in your Lordships’ House, can they expect prompt and proper answers from the Government?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I hope to encourage the usual channels to give us a major transport debate, when I will be in a position to answer all the noble Lord’s questions.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment. There was a time when the name Attlee brought transports of delight to this side of the House, so I look forward with optimism to the future. Will he confirm that in striving for a greener economy, it ill behoves the Government to cut the number of new carriages to be made available to Thameslink and the carriages that would therefore become available to the hard-pressed north-west railway system? Does he recognise that cutting back on rail transport will produce discomfort for passengers and do nothing to reduce carbon?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s concern and will write to him on the detail. However, he will recognise that ring-fencing or protecting expenditure in one area only increases the reductions required elsewhere.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Further to the point made by my noble friend Lord Davies on carbon, is it not the case that the transport coefficient of growth is very positive, and that if we want to reduce the transport coefficient of growth, the price of carbon may be part of the answer? However, the price of carbon is a sort of poll tax on wheels because it is very regressive. Will the Government publish information on the regressive nature of different forms of carbon taxation?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think that I will have to consider very carefully before answering that question.
Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I declare my interest as the president of BALPA. How is aviation affected by the cuts proposed? Where do the Government consider that airports should be extended and new airports sited?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we have decided to cancel the third runway at Heathrow and will refuse to allow additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted because they are not sustainable.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I join those who have congratulated the noble Earl on his appointment and thank him for the courtesy he extended to me when I was sitting in the place that he now occupies. Perhaps I may start with an easy question for him. Does he agree that the maintenance of the commitment to electrify large parts of the railway system, as announced by my noble friend Lord Adonis, and the commitment to build High Speed 2, are both very sustainable and green forms of transport which the new Government will follow?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are committed to High Speed 2, but the noble Lord will understand the problems with expenditure on electrification in the current economic climate.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, does the Minister understand that certain services in the north of England, particularly commuter services around Manchester and those based in Leeds, already have a totally unacceptable degree of overcrowding? That does not take place just in the London area. Is it not absolutely essential that new carriages are provided?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I accept that new carriages are desirable, but we have an affordability problem due to the current economic climate.
Housing: Market Renewal Partnerships
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what basis they determined the reduced allocations to the Housing Market Renewal partnerships.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind the House of my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Due to the unprecedented deficit, the Government announced savings of £6 billion to government spending in 2010-11. Much of the housing budget is already committed, and as such the necessary cuts will fall on areas where less has been committed for 2010-11. As part of the £6 billion savings package, therefore, the Government are consulting with pathfinders on achieving a saving of £50 million, approximating to a 17.5 per cent reduction across the pathfinders programme.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on her appointment. We had some good campaigns together in opposition and I hope that we will have some good campaigns together on this side of the House.
I understand the problems that the Government have and the position that the country and the Government are in and the need to make savings. However, does the Minister understand that the £50 million of savings required from the housing market renewal pathfinders and the councils in those areas are, in the proposals put forward to the pathfinders and councils, concentrated entirely on the capital programmes on the investment for the regeneration side of the pathfinders rather than on the revenue? The revenue is much smaller, but would it not be sensible to allow pathfinders and councils to make savings in revenue spending, which goes partly on administration and, in my view, on some top-heavy and unnecessary bureaucracy, rather than in all cases in the investment in regeneration projects, which the pathfinders are about?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, capital is capital and revenue is revenue in local government terms, and seldom the twain shall meet; there really is not an option to move between capital and revenue in this instance. That will not provide flexibility. However, the Government announced on 9 June the removal of ring-fencing, so there will be flexibility in local government to deal with issues such as this.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, will the Government require housing market renewal partnerships to desist from pulling down old houses to which people are very much attached and which it would be less disruptive and cheaper to refurbish rather than replace?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this has been an issue ever since the pathfinder programme was set up under one of the previous Secretaries of State, John Prescott, when there was a great overexuberance in some parts of the country for felling old houses. It is entirely up to each pathfinder and local authority as to what they do, but the message must have gone out very clearly that some people love old houses. If they can be put right and the neighbourhood maintained, that would seem to be a reasonable answer.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, what progress is being made in reducing the number of families in temporary accommodation? I ask, in the context of these cuts, whether those families are still being given priority.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that went a bit wider than this Question. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I shall reply in writing.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment. In the light of the cuts announced in the Homes and Communities Agency’s budget, what has changed about the demographics of the United Kingdom which means that fewer people need affordable housing? Is cutting back on affordable housing an example of the shared values of the coalition Government?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we keep mentioning the situation of which the noble Lord will be aware, whereby the previous Government left us with an enormous hole to fill. Unfortunately, there are areas where savings will have to be made to these programmes. Social housing remains high on the agenda and will continue to be built under the new regime. The way that those funds are allocated may differ slightly, but I can assure noble Lords that there is no relaxation on social housing.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, why does the Minister keep repeating this nonsense about the inheritance, given that the Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out clearly that the deficit inherited by the Government is far less than was predicted? Will she give an estimate of how many jobs will be lost as a result of this announcement? What will be the effect on the need to achieve growth in the future, which was the one area that the Office of Budget Responsibility said was absolutely necessary?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I shall stick to the Question that I was asked, which was about pathfinders. The noble Lord is making trouble for me and I shall not fall into his trap. The proposals for a 17.5 per cent reduction in relation to the pathfinders will be considered, they are out for consultation and I anticipate that there will probably not be much drawing back on the programme as a result.
Lord Naseby
Will my noble friend remind the House of what happened to affordable housing production since the previous Government came into office in 1997? I seem to remember that it began to decline as soon as they took power.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not have the figures in front of me, but I believe that the previous Government’s efforts on affordable housing throughout their time in office resulted in less housing being built than during the previous 10 years.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that people need affordable housing not just in cities, and that young people in rural areas find it extremely difficult to find any sort of accommodation, let alone affordable housing? What specifically is being done for them?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, there is a clear recognition that country areas suffer quite a lot from reductions in housing and other things that make it difficult for young people to stay. Policies are being developed relating to housing on farms, which will be ready for discussion in due course.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [HL]
The Chairman of Committees
That this House resolves that the promoters of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [HL] which was originally introduced in this House in Session 2007–08 on 22 January 2008 should have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session in accordance with the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150B (Revival of bills).
That this House resolves that the promoters of the Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [HL] which was originally introduced in this House in Session 2006–07 on 22 January 2007 should have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session in accordance with the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150B (Revival of bills).
House Committee
The Chairman of Committees
House Committee
That Lord Alderdice be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Addington, resigned.
Liaison Committee
That Lord Alderdice be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Addington, resigned, and that Lord Campbell-Savours be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, at a convenient point after 3.30 pm, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will repeat a Statement on the Saville inquiry.
Korean Peninsula: Human Rights
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of security and human rights issues on the Korean peninsula.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I greatly welcome the opportunity to question the Government about recent developments on the Korean peninsula, especially as they relate to security and human rights questions. In doing so, I express my thanks to all noble Lords who will participate in the debate and I remind the House of my non-pecuniary interest as chairman of the all-party group that considers North Korean issues.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of war on the Korean peninsula. That war led to the loss of between 2 million and 3 million lives, including the lives of 1,000 British servicemen. The immediate cause for seeking today’s short debate, however, was the sinking in March of the South Korean naval vessel “Cheonan” with the loss of 46 lives. This was a shocking and tragic development, which has led to a massive deterioration in relations between South Korea and North Korea; it was reckless belligerence, which could have calamitous consequences. The folly of indifference—this is a faraway country about which we know very little—is self-evident.
History rarely repeats itself exactly, but we need to see the dangers for what they are. The sinking of the “Cheonan” represents one of the worst breaches of the armistice that ended the Korean War 57 years ago. Before this unprovoked attack, the Korean peninsula was already a tense and dangerous place. North Korea has the world’s fourth-largest standing army, comprising over 1 million troops, who are on a war footing. There is the added danger of nuclear capability.
In this jittery climate, it is easy to see how the two sides could slide into combat. America has an estimated 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea, who would be sucked into the conflict, while simultaneously China might find itself in a stand-off against the Americans and South Koreans. That would make the Korean peninsula the most dangerous place on earth. The prospect of two great world powers being dragged into direct conflict should give us all pause for thought.
In assessing these events and what to do about them, the United Nations Security Council and the British Government must not countenance impunity. That would merely tempt the North Koreans to go further. Crucial to finding a way forward will be the leadership and involvement of the Government of China. With China’s active involvement, we should seek the establishment of a United Nations commission of inquiry to investigate crimes against humanity. We should press for a referral of the sinking of the “Cheonan” to the International Criminal Court and we should call for an evaluation of the egregious violations of human rights in North Korea. I hope that the Minister will spell out to us today precisely how we have used our seat at the Security Council and what we have done to engage the Government of China.
When on 2 June I pressed the Government to say whether they would instigate a referral of North Korea to the International Criminal Court, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, replied:
“North Korea is not a signatory to the ICC”.—[Official Report, 2/6/10; col. 250.]
Sudan is not a signatory either, but that did not prevent the indictment by the ICC of a sitting president, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity in Darfur. Furthermore, this crime was committed against South Koreans in South Korean territory and South Korea is a signatory to the ICC.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also doubted whether China would be willing to support joint international action. However, if North Korea went into freefall or if there were to be a new war, China would have more to lose than anyone. Millions of refugees and the danger of two world powers being sucked into such a vortex would threaten China’s stability and development.
The international award-winning human rights lawyer Jared Genser, writing in the Wall Street Journal on 3 June, addressed the issue of the ICC’s jurisdiction. I sent a copy of the article to the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock. Genser says that a case can legitimately be brought before the ICC because one of the war crimes that can be prosecuted in the ICC is,
“killing … treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army”.
He says:
“Merely conducting a sneak attack itself is not considered treachery under the laws of war, as surprise is often used in wartime. What was actually ‘treacherous’ is that North Korea signed the 1953 armistice and committed unequivocally to ‘order and enforce a complete cessation of hostilities’”.
He argues that:
“In this case, North Korea invited the confidence of South Korea that the armistice was in force ... That confidence was intentionally betrayed to sink the vessel and kill its crew. The laws of war make very clear that while an armistice merely suspends active fighting and can indeed be broken, notice must be provided to the other side first”.
I repeat that, although North Korea is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, South Korea is, and this offence took place against South Korea and against a South Korean vessel. The United Nations special rapporteur on North Korea, Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn, who will be speaking at a meeting in your Lordships’ House on 21 June, has also called for a referral to the ICC. As in the case of Omar al-Bashir, the ICC’s investigation would underline the ultimate accountability of all political leaders before judicial authorities, demonstrate that there is no impunity and leave open the possibility of a day of reckoning.
Thus far, China has been right to urge restraint, but it would help if she were more outspoken and insisted that those responsible are brought to justice. China correctly described North Korea’s decision to test a nuclear weapon as “brazen” but this is of a similar order. Both our countries must stand with the victim and condemn the aggressor. A common front could transform the situation in North Korea and deliver reform and hope for its beleaguered citizens—and they are beleaguered. The BBC journalist, Sue Lloyd-Roberts, was recently in North Korea and South Korea. Among the defectors that she traced and interviewed—and others whose lives are documented by Barbara Demick in her brilliant new book, Nothing to Envy—were men and women who gave first-hand accounts of enforced disappearances, executions and arbitrary detentions. Here are the stories of religious persecution, the lack of freedom of movement, the lack of labour rights, the non-implementation of legal codes, the lack of a fair trial, the lack of judicial oversight of detention facilities and the severe mistreatment of repatriated persons—mainly repatriated from China, which remains reluctant to give the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees access to the border areas.
The violence against women in detention facilities is appalling, and the accounts of life in prisons and labour camps are chilling. The individual stories bring home the enormity of the suffering that lies behind individual statistics: the 2 million people who died in the famine during the 1990s, and the 300,000 people who are estimated to be in the gulags today. One such story was recounted here in the Moses Room, at a meeting which I chaired, by a remarkable young man whom I invited to Westminster. Shin Dong-Hyok, who is 26, was born in, and spent the first 23 years of his life doing forced labour in, North Korea’s political prison camp 14. He watched as his mother and brother were publicly executed.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he can tell us what is known about current conditions in North Korean prisons and camps; what individual cases we are pursuing; what is known about food supplies and the humanitarian situation; and what discussions we have had with China about refugees.
Finally, we should reassess the strategic approach being adopted by Her Majesty’s Government and our allies. The 1994 US framework document, the more recent agreements brokered during the six-party talks, and the stop-start initiatives of the Bush Administration have all been too narrowly focused on arms control issues alone.
When, with my noble friend Lady Cox, I first visited North Korea in 2003, among the recommendations in our report, Finding a Way Forward, was the need for a Helsinki-style approach which links security and human rights issues. We called for the formal ending of the Korean War, the creation of an American diplomatic presence in Pyongyang, and a sustained elevation of human rights concerns. In 2009, after our second visit and our report, Carpe Diem—Seizing the Moment for Change, we reiterated these recommendations along with a series of other proposals.
Making human rights a pivotal issue has also been advocated by the American North Korea expert, David Hawk. In his 2010 report, Pursuing Peace While Advancing Rights: The Untried Approach to North Korea, he says:
“It is the approach that has yet to be tried in North Korea”.
Throughout the Cold War, alliances were formed between dissidents, religious leaders, democrats and human rights activists. The Helsinki principle of critical engagement, dialogue, strong deterrence of attempted aggression and the insistence of respect for human rights defeated tyranny. We need Helsinki with a Korean face.
I believe that there is a Korean proverb, Karure tanbi, may there be sweet rain in a drought—the cherished hope that something longed for may come about. For 60 years, the Korean peninsula has longed for a lasting settlement based on justice, peace, reconciliation, coexistence and mutual respect. Instead its people have experienced suffering, division and threats. In this 60th anniversary year of the outbreak of the Korean War and in the aftermath of the terrible loss of life on the “Cheonan”, we should redouble our efforts to bring about a lasting settlement. I beg to move.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. His knowledge and his work in the area of the conflict and the situation in Korea is acknowledged and respected by the whole House. If Her Majesty's Government or the United Nations were ever looking for an envoy to dispatch to the Korean peninsula, his would be a fitting name to put forward.
I also welcome my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire to the Front Bench. We are looking forward to his contribution not only in this debate but also in future debates on this matter. I have two points to raise: the first is a specific case of human rights and the second relates to some of my own thoughts about the way forward on the Korean peninsula and some of the issues faced there.
I want to ask the Minister specifically about what more can be done to ensure that human rights abuses in North Korea are put firmly on the international agenda. The House may remember that Robert Park, a 28 year-old American human rights activist, was arrested after entering North Korea on Christmas Day. Happily, as a result of international representations and after being detained for 43 days, he was released. Park had crossed the border from China, carrying a letter to North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-il. He had attempted to draw attention to tens of thousands of political prisoners held in the communist state.
Since then, Aijalon Gomes has also entered North Korea in the hope of shining a light on some of the 154,000 political prisoners who are believed to be held in six camps across the country. In a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, last week the Government said:
“We are aware of Mr Gomes' case. The Swedish embassy in Pyongyang, which is the consular protecting power for US nationals in North Korea, is handling his case. We are in touch with the Swedish embassy and stand ready to offer assistance if they request it”.—[Official Report, 8/6/10; col. WA 39.]
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us what response he has received from the Swedish embassy and what is currently known about the whereabouts of Mr Gomes.
The House will also recall that two American journalists were also held in North Korean prisons last year. Laura Ling and Euna Lee were imprisoned in March 2009 after they strayed across the border between North Korea and China while on assignment for Current TV, a company owned and operated by the former American Vice President, Al Gore. They were intending to make a report on the trafficking of women across the border. North Korea sentenced them both to 12 years hard labour. Former President Bill Clinton intervened on their behalf. He flew to Pyongyang and, after five months in prison, they were released. Their arrest had not only been entirely unexpected but the Chinese authorities and missionaries working in the region had been warning for some time that North Koreans were looking for high profile foreigners to use as bargaining chips. Their reason for being on the border was to highlight the plight of refugees trying to flee from North Korea. It was also to highlight the dangers facing those brave Chinese families who have been assisting refugees and who face arrest for doing so.
Can the Minister tell us what is being done to persuade the Chinese Government to allow access to the border areas to United Nations agencies that work with refugees? How does he respond to the report published by Anti-Slavery International into the suffering of many women who make the border crossing in order to earn money to support their impoverished families? The United Nations estimates that 400,000 people have died in the camps in the past 30 years. Many of the stories that have emerged of escapees reveal the primitive brutality that has been experienced there. Many of these barbaric practices were pioneered by the Japanese during their occupation of the Korean peninsula.
In conclusion, I should like to make two points. First, we need to be very careful about demonising North Korea. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in The Gulag Archipelago, reminded us that the line between good and evil does not lie between nation states or even across the 38th parallel but within each and every human heart. It is not that the people of the north are evil and the people of the south are good. There is good and evil in all. That needs to be recognised. The people of the north have suffered a level of brutality which is unimaginable, not just over the years of the regime which has been in place for the past 50 years but for almost a century since they came under brutal Japanese occupation.
I know that, like me, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, have had the opportunity to visit both north and south of the border and have experienced the depth of feeling that remains there. The experience of Japanese occupation is taught in primary schools and from kindergarten. People experience that day in and day out; they have a living history of that brutality, and it is drummed into them. Not surprisingly, therefore, they view the external world with some suspicion and fear. That was added to by the short and brutal engagement of the Korean War, which is also scarred on the consciousness of every primary school child and every family in North Korea. If it were not so, there is no way that the country of North Korea could keep within its extensive porous borders to the north with China its population of 21 million. We need to place this in the context of the great crimes against the Korean people, and especially the North Korean people, which have been perpetrated over the past century, and seek some truth, justice and reconciliation for them.
The only way forward is the peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula. The Korean peninsula is artificially divided because of Cold War politics. It is a leftover of Cold War politics. It is a lingering injustice. Long after Germany has seen its reunification, the Koreans are still waiting for theirs. Why does it not happen? In part, people may say that that is a result of the north and the south, but it is not simply a matter of the north and the south getting together. We know that there are external pressures and that great powers are at play. Japan, China, Russia, and the United States all have interests there. They were represented in the six-party talks which followed North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2005.
Every effort has to be made to bring about that reunification. North Korea is economically virtually on its knees. Its GDP per capita is about $1,800, which makes it the 193rd poorest country on the planet. Just across the border in South Korea, there is a GDP per capita of $28,000, making it one of the richest countries on the planet. The total GDP of the north is $40 billion; the total GDP of the south runs to $800 billion. The inconsistencies between the two are vast. They are known and they are commented on.
Somehow, the international community needs to correct that injustice by creating a framework in which those two countries currently separated by that artificial division can begin reunification talks. When it was proposed that that might be on the agenda, it was at the six-party talks. When German unification took place there were not six-party talks, there were the four external powers, the Allied powers, but they were called four plus two talks. Germany was allowed to talk freely between east and west with other Allied and interested parties in the room. So it should be in North Korea. There should not be six-party talks; there should be two plus four talks. The agenda of peaceful reunification of a demilitarised and once again proud Korean nation standing there in east Asia should be an objective of us all.
Saville Inquiry
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I hope that it will now be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement being made in another place by the Prime Minister on the Saville inquiry. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement.
Today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry, the tribunal set up by the previous Government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972—a day more commonly known as Bloody Sunday. We have acted in good faith by publishing the tribunal's findings as quickly as possible after the general election.
I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our Army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve.
But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt. There is nothing equivocal. There are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong. Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of Support Company who went into the Bogside,
‘did so as a result of an order ... which should have not been given’,
by their commander; that, on balance, the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army; that:
‘None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm’;
that:
‘There was some firing by republican paramilitaries … but … none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of the civilian casualties’;
and that:
‘In no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire’.
He also finds that Support Company,
‘reacted by losing their self-control ... forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training’,
with,
‘a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline’.
He finds that:
‘Despite the contrary evidence given by soldiers … none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers’,
and that many of the soldiers,
‘knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing’.
What is more, Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while,
‘crawling … away from the soldiers’.
Another was shot, in all probability,
‘when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground’,
and a father was,
‘hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to ... tend his son’.
For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says:
‘The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries’,
and, crucially, that,
‘none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting’.
For those people who were looking for the report to use terms like ‘murder’ and ‘unlawful killing’, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal or for us as politicians to determine.
These are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say, but you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. So there is no point in trying to soften or equivocate what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal's authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified.
I know some people wonder whether, nearly 40 years on from an event, a Prime Minister needs to issue an apology. For someone of my generation, this is a period we feel we have learned about rather than lived through. But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and hurt of that day, and a lifetime of loss. Some members of our Armed Forces acted wrongly. The Government are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the Armed Forces. And for that, on behalf of the Government, and indeed our country, I am deeply sorry.
Just as this report is clear that the actions of that day were unjustifiable, so too is it clear in some of its other findings. Those looking for premeditation, those looking for a plan, those looking for a conspiracy involving senior politicians or senior members of the Armed Forces—they will not find it in this report.
Indeed, Lord Saville finds no evidence that the events of Bloody Sunday were premeditated. He concludes that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland Governments, and the Army, neither tolerated nor encouraged,
‘the use of unjustified lethal force’.
He makes no suggestion of a government cover-up, and he credits the UK Government with working towards a peaceful political settlement in Northern Ireland.
The report also specifically deals with the actions of key individuals in the Army, in politics and beyond, including Major General Ford, Brigadier MacLellan and Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. In each case, the tribunal's findings are clear. It also does the same for Martin McGuinness. It specifically finds he was present and probably armed with a ‘sub-machine gun’, but concludes that,
‘we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire’.
While in no way justifying the events of 30 January 1972, we should acknowledge the background to the events of Bloody Sunday. Since 1969 the security situation in Northern Ireland had been declining significantly. Three days before Bloody Sunday, two RUC officers, one a Catholic, were shot by the IRA in Londonderry—the first police officers killed in the city during the Troubles. A third of the city of Derry had become a no-go area for the RUC and the Army. In the end, 1972 was to prove Northern Ireland's bloodiest year by far, with nearly 500 people killed.
Let us also remember, Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service that the British Army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007. This was known as Operation Banner, the longest continuous operation in British military history, spanning 38 years and in which over 250,000 people served. Our Armed Forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible. And over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives to that cause. Without their work the peace process would not have happened. Of course, some mistakes were undoubtedly made. But lessons were also learnt. Once again I put on record the immense debt of gratitude we all owe those who served in Northern Ireland.
I also thank the tribunal for its work and all those who displayed great courage in giving evidence. I would also like to acknowledge the grief of the families of those killed. They have pursued their long campaign over 38 years with great patience. Nothing can bring back those who were killed, but I hope, as one relative has put it, the truth coming out can set people free.
John Major said that he was open to a new inquiry. Tony Blair then set it up. This was accepted by the then Leader of the Opposition. Of course, none of us anticipated that the Saville inquiry would last 12 years or cost £200 million. Our views on that are well documented. It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness, but let me reassure the House that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past.
But today is not about the controversies surrounding the process: it is about the substance, about what this report tells us. Everyone should have the chance to examine the complete findings, and that is why the report is being published in full. Running to more than 5,000 pages, it is being published in 10 volumes. Naturally, it will take all of us some time to digest the report’s full findings and understand all the implications. The House will have the opportunity for a full day’s debate this autumn, and in the mean time, I have asked my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Defence to report back to me on all the issues that arise from it.
This report and the inquiry itself demonstrate how a state should hold itself to account, and how we are determined at all times, no matter how difficult, to judge ourselves against the highest standards. Openness and frankness about the past, however painful, do not make us weaker—they make us stronger. That is one of the things that differentiates us from terrorists. We should never forget that over 3,500 people—people from every community—lost their lives in Northern Ireland, the overwhelming majority killed by terrorists.
There were many terrible atrocities. Politically motivated violence was never justified, whichever side it came from. And it can never be justified by those criminal gangs that today want to drag Northern Ireland back to its bitter and bloody past. No Government I lead will ever put those who fight to defend democracy on an equal footing with those who continue to seek to destroy it.
But neither will we hide from the truth that confronts us today. In the words of Lord Saville:
‘What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland’.
These are words we cannot and must not ignore.
But what I hope this report can also do is to mark the moment when we come together in this House and in the communities we represent: come together to acknowledge our shared history, even where it divides us; and come together to close this painful chapter on Northern Ireland’s troubled past. That is not to say that we must ever forget or dismiss that past, but we must also move on. Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years, and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern Ireland to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future.
It is with that determination that I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement from the Prime Minister. As he said, it is more than 12 years since the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, set up the Saville inquiry to establish the truth of what happened on what became known as Bloody Sunday. For the 14 families whose loved ones died and the 13 individuals who were injured, for the soldiers and their families, and for all those whose lives would never be the same again as a consequence of Bloody Sunday, this report has been long awaited. There is no doubt that, for all of them and indeed for the future of Northern Ireland, the Saville report is of great consequence. The Leader of the House, in repeating the Statement from the Prime Minister, has described the conclusions of the report as “shocking”. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the report, but it is clear from the Statement that the conclusions of the report are indeed shocking. They are appalling conclusions.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships’ House of what Tony Blair said to the other place on the day that the House agreed to establish the Saville Inquiry. He said:
“Bloody Sunday was a tragic day for all concerned. We must all wish that it had never happened”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/98; col. 503.]
Perhaps I may also reiterate two further things that Tony Blair pointed to when the inquiry was established: the dignity of the bereaved families whose campaign was about searching for the truth, and the recognition of the thousands of lives that had been lost in Northern Ireland through terrorism.
I also restate our sincere admiration for the way in which our security forces have responded over nearly four decades to terrorism in Northern Ireland. They have operated in difficult and dangerous circumstances and many have lost their lives. Nothing in today’s report can or should diminish the record of service given by so many brave men and women from our Armed Forces.
Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that the setting up of the Saville inquiry was necessary because of the inadequacy of the inquiry concluded by Lord Widgery 11 weeks after Bloody Sunday? The inadequacy of that report deepened the sense of grievance and added to the pain of the families of those who died or were injured. Will the Leader of the House join me in reminding your Lordships’ House that establishing the Saville inquiry to search for the truth played an important part in the peace process, which has done so much to transform Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement? As Tony Blair said in the other place, the aim in setting it up was,
“not to accuse individuals or institutions, or to invite fresh recriminations, but to establish the truth about what happened on that day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/98; col. 503.].
The issue of the considerable cost of this inquiry should not be confused with its value in both establishing the truth and strengthening the peace process.
Because this report is extensive, the Government are seeking in the other place a full day’s parliamentary debate on it. We will in this House wish to reflect on how best your Lordships’ House can consider the report, but I urge the Leader of the House to join me in seeking time in this Chamber for a similar consideration of the report.
The Prime Minister and the Government have had only 24 hours to consider the report. I of course understand that the Government will need to give the report further detailed consideration before they are able to make clear what action they are proposing to take arising out of it. The Leader of the House has said that the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence will report back to the Prime Minister on all the issues involved. But, ahead of that, in terms of the process by which the Government will reach decisions on their next step, can the Leader of the House tell us when he will be in a position to say what, if any, action will be taken in government as a result of the findings of the Saville report; what will be the decision-making processes; and, as the Government take through those actions, whether they will be as transparent as possible commensurate with national security?
The Government have given in their Statement a clear apology. We welcome that and we share in it. Does the Leader of the House agree that this will be of great importance for the families who have grieved all these years, not only for the loss but for the sense of injustice?
I hope that these findings can be a further step towards peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The peace process is a great achievement by the people, as well as the politicians, of Northern Ireland. It is built on the values of fairness, equality, truth and justice. Parliament, not least in agreeing to the Saville inquiry, has played its part. But we must never take for granted the peace process and its foundations. The Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement and, of course, this year the Hillsborough Castle agreement are all great milestones in the journey towards a lasting peace. The completion of devolution only a few weeks ago is relatively new and fragile and still requires great care.
The Statement by the Leader of the House says that the Government believe that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable—it was wrong. We agree. We agree, too, with the Prime Minister’s view that you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. However, our response to Saville must be as measured as it must be proportionate. We have sought the truth and now we must have understanding and reconciliation. I conclude by hoping that while people will not forget what happened on that day, this report can help them to find a way of both living with the past and looking to the future.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the tone of the Leader of the Opposition was statesmanlike and entirely appropriate to the Statement I repeated a moment ago. The conclusions of the report truly are shocking. As the Prime Minister’s Statement says, the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear—the events of Bloody Sunday were unjustified and unjustifiable.
The report speaks for itself. The conclusions made painful reading for those—and I include all noble Lords in this—who want to measure the actions of the state and our Armed Forces by the highest standards. It is a long report, but there is an admirably written list of conclusions which I hope is now available in the Printed Paper Office.
The noble Baroness asked whether I thought that the Saville inquiry was necessary. Indeed we do; it was most necessary. It was entirely right and appropriate and, as the noble Baroness will remember, we supported it at the time it was set up.
History will no doubt take its own view of what happened to the Widgery report. It was of course written in some haste very shortly after the event and during a period of some parliamentary distress at what had happened. That does not necessarily excuse it, but the report which we have today is definitive and certainly draws a line under our knowledge of what occurred on that day.
I am readily happy to accept that there could be a debate on this subject and its aftermath, perhaps after a few months when noble Lords have had an opportunity to read the report. If the Opposition were to make such a request, I am sure that it would be met most positively by my noble friend the Chief Whip.
Specifically, the noble Baroness asked about the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland, who have been invited by the Prime Minister to revert to him on their view as to what the next steps should be. The decision process will be influenced largely by reading about what happened. I think that the noble Baroness was asking indirectly what would happen to the soldiers who have been identified in the report. Everyone knows that Ministers do not control prosecutions, and they certainly will not determine the outcome on this matter. The issue of prosecutions is solely for the Public Prosecution Service acting independently. I am informed by the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland that the Director of Public Prosecutions, together with the Chief Constable, will consider the report and determine whether any criminal investigation is required.
That is the process that should now take place. I know that all who are involved, whether it is prosecuting authorities, former members of the Armed Forces or the families affected, will take trouble to read and look carefully at the findings of the report.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House is to be thanked for repeating this grave Statement. It makes this a solemn day in your Lordships’ House and in my own part of the United Kingdom, not only because it recalls to our minds the terrible events of Bloody Sunday but also because it was a watershed event in the history of the Troubles. As my noble friend repeated in the Statement, so many people lost their lives in 1972, which was the worst year, and in the years following. It reminds us of all those who lost their lives or who were injured and grief-stricken by the events which followed that terrible time.
My noble friend referred to the length and detail of the report—it is 5,000 pages long. There is much reading to be done, so I am gratified by his indication that, after some time to read and study the report, there will be the opportunity for us to debate the matter in your Lordships’ House in a properly reflective frame of mind and at an appropriate time.
However, is my noble friend aware that the most important part of the Statement today is not just the reflection on the findings of the report in general terms or even the fact of the report? No less important is the fact that it clearly exonerates as innocent those people who were injured and killed on the day, for a pall has hung over them and their families during those many years. However, most important of all is the fact that the British Government have given a clear, fulsome and unequivocal apology to all the communities involved. That is perhaps one of the most important potential contributions to the healing which we all now hope will begin to be seen in Northern Ireland.
Lord Strathclyde
My noble friend is right to talk about the healing process. Of the many noble Lords who have been involved in the history of these troubles over many years, my noble friend is one who can claim to share a large part of that experience. My noble friend referred to the civilians who were affected. It is worth quoting from the report itself. The noble Lord, Lord Saville, says, in paragraph 3.70:
“None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description. None was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury. In no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire”.
I think that that answers my noble friend’s point on lifting any question of doubt in the minds of families who lost loved ones on that day, when there has been some potential stain. That today is completely removed. I entirely agree with what my noble friend said: the apology made by the Prime Minister on behalf of us all is unequivocal. We must all hope that it is part of the process that continues to heal the wounds in Northern Ireland.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
While I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement in this House, as someone who was on duty on 30 January 1972, I deeply regret the death of 13 people in Derry on that day. However, I cannot be as magnanimous or one-eyed as I feel that the Saville report has been—and, I am sorry to say, this Government have been in how they have received it. Before Bloody Sunday, 180 people died in Northern Ireland, victims of terrorism. The 13 deaths are regrettable, but no more regrettable than the other 167—the 94 per cent of those who died that year. In the year 1972, 490-odd people died. The deaths in Derry have been investigated at the cost of almost £200 million, when we all knew the answer and that a huge error had been made. Those 13 deaths represented 2.5 per cent of the deaths in 1972.
As someone who, as a soldier, ran the gauntlet of planned IRA assassination and personal attack, I say to noble Lords that it is very easy to be humble on an occasion such as this—but one has to remember the many people who were not rioting and who had not broken away from a peaceful parade to confront soldiers who themselves had never been trained for that sort of confrontation in an urban guerrilla warfare situation. That is the background against which I hope noble Lords and the Government will view this report overall. I hope that we will not dismiss those many deaths into which there has not been an inquiry costing £200 million.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord speaks from tremendous experience and knowledge, as he has shown today, and he is right to acknowledge the background to the events of Bloody Sunday. The report is clear that the circumstances of Northern Ireland and Derry in 1972 were tense and bordering on chaotic. It was the bloodiest year of the Troubles. However, we should not allow Bloody Sunday to define the 38 years of the military operation in Northern Ireland in which so many of our brave service men and women served, as well as noble and gallant Lords. We cannot doubt the courage and professionalism of the vast majority who worked to uphold democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that all noble Lords will want to associate themselves with my remark that our Armed Forces today continue to display great character in adversity.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, the publication of the report is a sad, sad story, and how it has taken so much time is beyond my comprehension. I was the Attorney-General when it began, and it was never contemplated that it would take a fraction of this time. But the report’s findings of accountability are clear, and I welcome that. I wish to place on record the enormous time and energy that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, has put into the work of the report.
In view of the time that has elapsed and the number of amnesties that have been given, will Her Majesty’s Government invite the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland to give an early indication of whether it is now in the public interest to prosecute?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was involved at the time when the inquiry was set up. Although he did not quite say it, I would agree with him that today is perhaps not the time to look at how long it took or how much it cost rather than at the fact that it has at last reported, and in an unequivocal way.
I do not think it would be right for the Government to direct the prosecuting authorities. The prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland will have seen what has happened—they will no doubt have their own copy of the report—and they must make their own assessment. So much water has gone under the bridge over so much time that it would be far better now to let the prosecuting authorities come to their own judgment in their own time and make their views known, as I am sure the House will agree they are all capable of doing.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, the Leader of the House is right in saying that it is clear that on Bloody Sunday 14 innocent people were killed, that the killings were all individually wrong and that mistakes were made in the planning and conduct of the operation. As he also says, however, lessons were learnt, and we saw the fruits of those lessons over the years.
The noble Lord is also right to point to the context. As has been mentioned, there was a serious terrorist campaign already in existence well before Bloody Sunday. That campaign was launched within a mature democracy where there were plenty of opportunities for people to seek reform and change through peaceful and democratic methods, but those who were perpetrating the campaign—the Provisional IRA—knew that their objects could not be achieved by democratic methods. It would be a perversion of what happened on Bloody Sunday if those events were then used to try to justify the wholly unjustifiable campaign that the Provisional IRA launched in 1970.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, no one seeks to justify the campaign of paramilitaries, whatever side they came from, or indeed the deaths that have occurred over the past 40 years in Northern Ireland as a result of that campaign. We have moved a long way from that stage. A number of agreements have been struck, and we now have a great opportunity to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland, which I know my noble friend wholly supports.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I was a Minister in Northern Ireland when the report was initiated, and I have waited a long time for the results as we have seen them today. There cannot be many countries that could be quite so honest about wrongs that they had committed in the past, and I hope that that will be a signal to other countries as well when they look at what we have done.
It is important that at least one clear conclusion has come out: that the civilians who were shot were unarmed and in no way a threat to peace and law and order in Derry on that day. Above all, we need time to consider the report and I hope that we can resist the temptation to come to too many conclusions at this stage. Otherwise, we are doing an injustice to the work that has gone into the report and, indeed, to the many witnesses who have given evidence. However, I have three particular hopes on which I hope the Leader of the House will agree.
First, I hope that the families of those shot will find a sense of relief and closure after the many years of pain that they have suffered; if the report achieves that, it will have done a great deal. Secondly, I hope that everyone will acknowledge the enormous progress that has been made in Northern Ireland since 1972. It is a quite different place from what it was on that tragic day when those people were shot. Thirdly, I hope—and I trust that the noble Lord will agree—that the result of this will be that the peace process will be strengthened. That will be of benefit to all the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of Ireland.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. As a former Minister, he is right about what he said about the inquiry and right that we should not rush to early conclusions. This is an enormous report to read. Having said that, the document on the conclusions is unequivocal and I know that he will take the trouble to read it, as we all need time to read it and to think about its implications. But it must be right for all of us that this is part of strengthening the peace process. It will be up to individuals, the families, defenders of the Armed Forces and others to recognise what has happened, and we should look forwards, not backwards. As the noble Lord rightly says, the Northern Ireland of 1972 is entirely different from that of 2010, and none of us can wish to go back to that period.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader is absolutely right that the Northern Ireland of today is very different from that of 1972, but since then terrorists from both sides of the divide have been released from prison and from long sentences there. Indeed, convictions have not been pressed as part of the peace process. People will find it very difficult to understand that the same threat of prosecution is not withdrawn from our troops for offences that, let us face it, may have been committed the best part of 40 years ago.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that is a matter for the prosecuting authorities and not for politicians, but if any soldiers are accused of these crimes they will of course be supported by the Ministry of Defence, who will provide them with the legal advice that they need so that they can defend themselves properly. It is right that these decisions are made by the prosecuting authorities rather than by us.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, the Saville inquiry, which has been published today, looked into 13 deaths—there were actually 14, because one died later. However, this House should take note that we are perhaps setting a hierarchy of victims here and be aware that in south Armagh, for instance, over 300 murders remain unsolved today. Should this House not be aware that the Saville report has the potential to set Northern Ireland back 30 years rather than take it forward? Is every death in Northern Ireland not important to this House? Why should there be a particular inquiry into 13 plus one deaths—that is, 14—when countless hundreds of deaths have not been resolved? There are many issues relating to that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, had at his disposal some £200 million to bring about this report, yet the historical inquiry team, which looks at all the issues in Northern Ireland over the past 35 years, has at its disposal some £30 million. Is there not an inequality here?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there is no hierarchy of victims and no inequality whatever here. What happened was an extremely rare case of soldiers who killed by opening fire on a march when they had no belief that they were under threat. That is what sets it apart from everything else. It is why Bloody Sunday has cast such a long shadow down the ages. Every death is to be deeply regretted, wherever it occurred, but today we are dealing with the results of the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
Lord Clinton-Davis
The Government ought to be congratulated on making this courageous response to the Saville report. I thank the Leader of the House for the way that he has reacted to this very sad situation, which does not divide the House apart from a few figures. What has happened today is capable of opening a new chapter in the sorry history of Northern Ireland.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord said and hope that he is correct in his conclusion.
Lord Bew
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the clear way in which he laid out for us the painful conclusions of the tribunal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. I declare an interest since sometime in the last century I was a historical adviser to that tribunal.
There was one point in the noble Lord’s Statement that I would like to pick up on. He reminded us that our security forces lost 1,000 lives in Northern Ireland. That is around 28 to 30 per cent of the total amount of life lost. The security forces were responsible for about 10 per cent of the fatalities suffered. On the other hand, the Provisional IRA and its allies took slightly less than 60 per cent of all the lives that were lost and accounted for only 12 to 13 per cent of the total fatalities suffered. In other words, our security forces were much more likely to fall in the line of duty than those who had the advantage of surprise. This is my question: does the noble Lord concede that the Widgery report—much inferior as it undoubtedly is to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville—sent a signal to the Army about reckless firing on the day; that our Army understood and internalised that message; and that that helps to explain the professionalism and restraint shown by the British Army in Northern Ireland since Bloody Sunday?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I cannot possibly speculate as to the effects of the Widgery report on the British Army. The history of the past 38 years stands for itself. However, we are now where we are; we now have, fortunately, a Northern Ireland that is more peaceful today than it has been for many years, with a democratic, directly elected Government and the possibility of genuine unity across the communities, leading to that long-term peace, stability and prosperity that we should all want. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, and others who have spoken from the Cross Benches have great knowledge and experience of, and influence in, what happens in Northern Ireland. I know from what they have said today, and from speaking to them privately, that they want what all of us in this House want—for that peace in Northern Ireland to continue.
Korean Peninsula: Human Rights
Lord Soley
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for putting his important debate on North Korea before the House today. One reason why I wanted to speak is because we know that North Korea is an area where extreme actions are being taken by a dictator which are dangerous to world peace, dangerous to the people of Korea and, above all, extremely brutal to the people of that sad country. Therefore, it is right that we speak about it today; the noble Lord has a good record in doing precisely that.
I want to intervene relatively briefly because for many years I regarded North Korea as just about the worst of the failed regimes on the planet. By all accounts it is brutal in the extreme and is certainly dangerous. If you look at the effort it is putting into producing nuclear weapons and the rockets to carry them, and bear in mind that it has also been suspected over the years—with good evidence—of producing other weapons of mass destruction, and indeed testing some of them on its own people, you recognise just how extreme this regime is and how dangerous it is to the peace of the world.
In this context, China’s role is profoundly important, as has been said. It is incredibly frustrating that it does not use the pressure it undoubtedly has to bring about change in North Korea. I have great respect for what China has achieved in recent years. It is clearly determined to develop the rule of law and to develop its economy in a much more free and open way. However, it is still a bit ambivalent about democracy. One of its senior politicians asked me, “What advice do you give us, Mr Soley, to develop democracy in the country?”. I thought that we had enough problems here with a population of 60 million and wondered how you defined democracy with a population of more than 1 billion. However, China could do a lot worse than to look to its neighbour, India.
At the time of the cyclone in Burma, which led to the deaths of many people, I put it to the Chinese ambassador at a meeting in this House that China, along with India and Thailand, could, if it so wished, have told the Burmese regime that the aid ships that were sitting outside the cyclone area must be allowed in—that they would have been allowed in if those three countries had insisted on it. A similar incident occurred as regards China and North Korea. Only a few years ago, by all accounts at least a million people, perhaps more, starved to death in a famine. China did not let them cross the border and did very little, if anything, to help. When I put these dilemmas to the Chinese ambassador, she replied, “The problem is, you haven’t had the experience of colonialism”. That was the excuse given for non-intervention. There is something bizarre about all this, because it was the Europeans who defined a treaty of non-intervention several hundred years ago under the treaty of Westphalia. That has been abandoned more and more rapidly ever since, particularly since the British intervention to end the transatlantic slave trade, about which I have talked in this House on other occasions. Certainly since the formation of the United Nations, intervention has been seen as right and proper in certain situations.
China and some other countries are still very reluctant to think of imposing any form of intervention or pressure on a regime to make it change. However, China must be deeply troubled by what is happening in North Korea. Even if it is not concerned about human rights—both previous speakers have mentioned that—the sheer instability of the regime and the danger it poses to others, as shown by the sinking of the South Korean naval ship and the firing of missiles into the Sea of Japan, must make China worried about the nature of that regime. Its approach still appears to be that of, “We can’t do anything, we won’t do anything and it runs against our principles, too”.
One of the ways that the United Nations offered us great hope after the Second World War—a hope which has sadly not materialised, but which we must never lose sight of—was in its recognition that nation states and their Governments had a duty to treat their citizens well and not to ride roughshod over their rights. That led increasingly—particularly after the end of the Cold War—to intervention programmes, most of which were very successful. We regard the intervention programmes in Sierra Leone, Papua New Guinea and Kosovo as successful. The intervention in Iraq was possibly successful, but was carried out in a way which, post-conflict, led to far too much misery and loss of human life fully to justify that type of intervention. It was right, but badly carried out.
Could you do the same in North Korea? There is no doubt that if China chose to intervene and change the regime there, I for one would stand up to say, “I am pleased”—just as I remember welcoming Vietnam’s intervention in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the intervention by Tanzania into Uganda to remove Idi Amin, and the Indian Government’s decision to move into the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. I welcomed all those interventions. Although I am not a great fan of the Chinese form of government, almost anything would be better than what is happening in North Korea.
What can we do? Some suggestions have already been made, but by far the most important is to persuade the Chinese that following the treaty of Westphalia in Asia, 300 years after it was written, is not necessarily the best definition of a good and humanitarian foreign policy. It is certainly not one for which you can make the excuse of having had a colonial experience in order to justify it. We all know that what is happening in North Korea is abhorrent in the extreme and intensely dangerous. We have to be very clear in telling that over and again to the Chinese Government. At the end of the day, only they can change this situation.
If it comes to a war between North Korea and South Korea—which, for what my judgment is worth, will not happen; there is too much to lose by them, and China would indicate that it would be an unacceptable step—the consequences would be horrendous. That is the only other way that change could happen. In fact, change in North Korea needs to come from China. The United Nations must keep asserting the importance of national Governments behaving in a civilised manner towards their own citizens. We must never lose sight of human rights and the importance of democracy and the rule of law in order to preserve stability, peace and tranquillity between and within nations.
For all those reasons I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his debate.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton on this timely debate, on his dedication to the promotion of well-being for the people of North Korea through his chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group, on which I serve as vice-chair, and on his unfailing commitment to justice and human rights in North Korea and many other troubled parts of the world.
My noble friend reminded the House that on two occasions we have travelled together to North Korea and that the reports we published recommended a Helsinki-type approach based on constructive critical engagement. We intend to travel to North Korea for a third time later this year.
Exactly 10 years ago, Britain and North Korea first created diplomatic relations and there is no doubt that despite the considerable issues which divide us —exacerbated by the sinking of the South Korean vessel, the “Cheonan”, with such a terrible loss of life—keeping open lines of communication is important. Part of the “small steps” strategy we advocated after our first visit in 2003 was the establishment of the British Council in Pyongyang. This strategy does not represent any lack of concern for the suffering of the people of North Korea from violations of human rights inflicted by their rulers; rather, it reflects the policy that it is better to build bridges, not walls, and to extend a helping hand for initiatives to alleviate that suffering, as well as to convey critical concerns such as those already emphasised by my noble friend.
In 2009, my noble friend and I were again in Pyongyang, where we met the British Council teachers. At Kim ll-sung University we met students and discussed life in the UK and some North Korean students coming to the UK to learn English and see our way of life. We were able to bring the Speaker of the North Korean Assembly, Mr Chae Tae Bok, to Westminster, and to have constructive discussions with him and other key officials during our visits. At every opportunity we raised security and human rights concerns.
We also raised the issue of religious liberties and were pleased to note that, since our first visit, a very beautiful new Russian Orthodox church has been built, served by two North Korean priests who studied at a seminary in Moscow, along with a much-enlarged Protestant church and a seminary—although we are sad that still no Catholic priest is allowed. We are also acutely aware of the nature of the Potemkin-style show churches and neither of us naively believes that there is religious freedom or political pluralism in North Korea. However, any opening up of a closed society is to be welcomed. Moreover, we believe that it is important to challenge and engage. Margaret Thatcher—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—and President Ronald Reagan understood and implemented that policy in the case of the former Soviet Union and, in 2009, President Barack Obama said:
“No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door”.
On account of its isolation and closed borders, North Korea is often referred to as the Hermit Kingdom—George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is the only country in the world that is not connected to the internet and where cell phones are confiscated on arrival at the border, as ours were. For years, the communist leadership clamped down on the flow of information or news from the outside world. Anyone caught attempting to leave the country can expect to be sent back to one of the country’s prison camps or executed. The regime knew that, if ordinary Koreans were able to travel freely or to converse with visitors, they would rapidly discover that much of their misery is inflicted by their own rulers rather than by American or South Korean aggression.
However, the Peterson Institute recently reported that around two-thirds of North Koreans are now able to access information not controlled by their Government. Free North Korea Radio believes that up to one in 10 listens to its programmes, which are broadcast to North Korea for five hours daily and can be heard on transistors dropped into the country from the air.
During our last visit to Pyongyang, we were able to see two of the small markets that have been established in the capital—the first sign of free enterprise and a market economy. Illegal technology such as VCR machines, televisions, radios and cell phones, which can pick up signals from South Korea and China, were openly on sale. The regime was recently reported to have tried to close these markets, but there was popular unrest and the markets continue to trade, giving the country’s citizens some small windows through which to peer into the outside world. However, in the BBC report by Sue Lloyd-Roberts, whom my noble friend mentioned, a government adviser, Ri Kong Song, claimed that,
“when socialism is victorious, these markets will disappear”.
I am sure that your Lordships will all agree that we should never allow our dislike of a regime or ideology to deny the need for compassion and love of ordinary people. Therefore, will the Minister tell the House what calculation the World Food Programme currently makes of the level of food and humanitarian aid available in North Korea and whether the latest embargos and sanctions will result in food being used as a weapon of war? What assessment has been made of the numbers who might die as a result? Will another casualty of the current stand-off be the stopping of video reunions, which have allowed separated families in the north and south to be in touch with each other? Surely these poignant opportunities for families, separated for so long, to have some contact should not be denied because of the increase in political tensions.
The most valuable source of information and knowledge about North Korea comes from the North Korean escapees who migrate across the border into China to buy goods and return or to begin the arduous and dangerous journey to South Korea. Sarah Page of Compass Direct recently reported that non-governmental organisations say that anything between 30,000 and 250,000 refugees from North Korea are currently living in China. Will Her Majesty’s Government do more to persuade China to accept the humanitarian case for allowing escapees to have safe passage to South Korea?
Among those escapees are political dissidents, people driven to despair by poverty and hunger and religious believers, including Christians. I was very moved by the evidence given at Westminster to our all-party parliamentary group by one Christian woman, Jeon Young-Ok, aged 40. She said:
“I was put in a camp where I saw and experienced unimaginable things … The women were forced to strip. A group of us were thrown just one blanket and we were forced to pull it from one another as we tried to hide our shame … I didn’t want to live. They tortured the Christians the most. They were denied food and sleep. They were forced to stick out their tongues and iron was pushed in”.
In June 2009, North Korea publicly executed Ri Hyon-Ok, who had returned to Ryongchon, a city near the Chinese border, and had Bibles in his possession. One escapee said that the regime regards,
“having faith in God as an act of espionage”.
National Geographic reported that most escapees to China, who are usually not Christians, pass on the advice to “head for a cross”, knowing that the most likely source of help will be a Chinese church. However, China still refuses to give the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees access to the border areas, so a secret underground railroad has been created by Chinese Christians—like that used by the plantation slaves of America to take them to safety. When did Her Majesty’s Government last raise with the Chinese authorities their refusal to allow this access?
Chinese officials know that anyone caught and returned to North Korea is likely to face the most terrible retribution. There are reports that on 29 May 13 North Korean refugees hiding in a safe house in Dangdong in China were arrested by Chinese border area guards. Three children aged five and six years old were released. However, 10 adults were deported to North Korea on 3 June. The group consisted of two men in their 50s or 60s and eight women in their 20s or 30s. As is well known, there is a high possibility that these defectors, trying to escape to South Korea, will be taken to a prison camp accused of “betraying the mother country”. These prison camps are internationally infamous for their death rate. Survivors have said that they would rather die than live in the camps, where prisoners are beaten and tortured, pregnant women are forced to have an abortion, and new-born infants are killed in front of their mothers. Many prisoners die because they cannot bear the malnutrition and intensive labour.
The DPRK is a state signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and should therefore abide by Article 12, which states that everyone is free to leave his own country and choose a place of residence. Will Her Majesty’s Government therefore urge the DPRK immediately to release these people, proving to the international community that it is fulfilling its international obligations?
In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government will consider embarking on the strategy which my noble friend and I have advocated since 2003: linking aid to human rights and security issues—a strategy which we have described and to which my noble friend has already referred as “Helsinki with a Korean face”. We can begin by holding to account, through the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court, those responsible for the deaths of South Korean sailors on the “Cheonan” and the countless victims in North Korea itself. I hope that the Minister’s reply will demonstrate Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to justice and human rights, and that that will bring some hope to those suffering from injustice and oppression in this beleaguered land and troubled region.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the dedication and commitment that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, shows in relation to North Korea and to many other issues that we debate in your Lordships’ House.
The issues that we are discussing today certainly demand a more comprehensive, more strategic, more persistent and well co-ordinated response from the European Union, the United States and the United Nations. The door must be firmly open to negotiation and to a serious dialogue that is perceived to be flexible, pragmatic and fair.
I believe that it is time to move away from what amounts to crisis management of North Korea to what has been described as the unavoidable triangle between denuclearisation, diplomatic normalisation and human rights dialogue. Our objective must be to seek agreement to country visits by the UN special rapporteur and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. That would indeed be the progress that we seek.
A decade and a half of food aid has not resulted in food security; nor has energy assistance resulted in economic growth or sustainable development. Continuing with the same approach has meant that the nuclear problem shows no sign of going away; nor does the suffering and misery inflicted on the people of North Korea by such a vindictive and callous regime.
Therefore, can the Minister say whether the Government will press for a European Union troika and/or the high representative to visit North Korea? The last visit was in March 2009, when wide-ranging discussions took place between the EU troika and representatives of the regime in North Korea. Post Lisbon, we should be pressing for more progress and for a troika to go there as urgently as possible.
Also, the European Union should ensure that refugees who seek safety in European Union diplomatic representations should be given every assistance, including transfer to European Union states or to other chosen destinations. The United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Norway have admitted hundreds of North Koreans, and now we need to ask the Government to urge that there be a stronger European commitment to a strategy to implement that as a European Union-wide policy.
As alluded to by other noble Lords, China remains North Korea’s patron and economic lifeline. Turning a blind eye to the transgressions of such an unreliable ally has, for China, been outweighed by the fear that the regime in North Korea could collapse. The Chinese preference is for maintaining the status quo, which is a reason for the European Union and others, as a matter of course, to raise in all discussions with the Chinese our concerns about the situation in North Korea. The UN special rapporteur has described the human rights situation as both egregious and endemic. I believe we can agree with that analysis, which was made by someone who, for his six-year tenure monitoring human rights as an independent expert, has never been allowed any access to North Korea. However, he has described the effects on the people: the food shortages, the public executions, the torture, the arbitrary detention and much more. He has called for North Korea to stop punishing the people in that way, to stop punishing those seeking asylum elsewhere and to institute democratic processes.
Does the Minister agree that an independent, international commission of inquiry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred, should be set up and should send a clear message that the international community is prepared to deal with what is occurring in North Korea? If we look at the severity of the abuses of human rights that continue with impunity—that is an important word to use—surely we should now be deducing that what is happening in North Korea amounts to crimes against humanity. We must demand accountability and justice, and we should cite the growing global consensus that perpetrators of such crimes should be held to account individually by the International Criminal Court. The victims need to know that they are not forgotten; they need to know that they are being given recognition and that they can expect justice and compensation.
I draw particular attention to the plight of North Korean women. Of those who flee to China for food, medicines and income for their families, 70 to 80 per cent are young women. Many are taken to China by traffickers, and because of their fear of repatriation they are sold to Chinese men, many of whom have no wives because of the effects of the one-child policy in China. If they are returned to North Korea and are pregnant they are forced to have an abortion. The North Korean authorities do not want half-Chinese babies. For those whose pregnancies are too far along, they are forced to witness the infanticide of their prison-born babies. They are subjected to terrible brutality and sexual humiliation.
I believe that we should focus on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on violence against women and urge the new commissioner responsible for implementing that resolution to look very seriously at what is occurring in North Korea. In any peace and reconciliation process that is proposed, the women of North Korea, who have suffered so terribly, should be part of any initiatives undertaken between North Korea, South Korea, the United States and others.
Until and unless we do something about the challenges that we face from North Korea seriously, conscientiously and urgently, we will stand here for years to come repeating the mantras that we have repeated today about the appalling situation in that country. We have to understand that by focusing on the nuclear issue—as we rightly do—but not focusing on the human rights issue, we are in many ways putting the cart before the horse. We need to look through the paradigm of human rights. That is the only way that we can build the kind of reconciliation, peace and security which the people of North Korea so desperately need. If we do not take that audacious approach, I fear that the process that we are encouraging to bring that peace and reconciliation will continue to stutter and stall.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, has reminded us, is about both the security situation and human rights in North Korea. As she rightly says, the focus of the international community has been rather more often on the whole question of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the illegal trade in weaponable materials smuggled out of North Korea, but we are all also concerned about the human rights situation.
It is quite remarkable that the Government of North Korea continue to permit the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to visit. I suppose that we should take some moderate optimism from their willingness to talk to outsiders who clearly do not share their views. We work very hard to try to open up the hermit kingdom. Her Majesty's Government maintain an embassy in Pyongyang, as we have for 10 years. It is one of the embassies which serves the six-power talks, because neither the United States nor Japan—nor South Korea, which remains formally at war with North Korea—has representation there. That provides Britain with some limited useful opportunities to talk to people there, to influence at the margins what happens, to discover a little bit—but not enough—about what is happening outside Pyongyang and, as the noble Baroness remarked, to undertake some very limited British Council activities and a very limited aid programme. The European Union attempts to operate similarly within the very sharp confines of what any outsiders are permitted to do.
I shall report on recent developments since the tragic sinking of the South Korean naval vessel. The UN Security Council held a meeting yesterday, 14 June, with South Korean and North Korean delegations to hear their accounts of the incident. The UNSC will continue to consult members on an appropriate response. Her Majesty's Government believe that we should work for the strongest possible response consistent with maintaining the unity of the permanent five members of the Security Council. The South Korean Government have shown remarkable restraint in their response to date, and we hope that the rhetoric is now cooling on both sides. Everyone will be aware that South Korea had formally asked the UNSC to consider a response to the sinking of the “Cheonan” on 4 June.
All of us recognise that China remains the key player in securing an appropriate UN Security Council response. China is, after all, the only outside state with direct influence over events inside North Korea. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend Jeremy Browne raised the question of North Korean human rights as well as other matters with Foreign Minister Yang and Vice-Minister for Europe Fu Ying respectively on 4 June.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether the “Cheonan” incident warranted a referral to the International Criminal Court. Her Majesty's Government are, of course, in favour of seeing crimes against humanity investigated. However, we all have some sad awareness of the limitations of referring matters to the International Criminal Court and, in this case, South Korea has not yet asked for the International Criminal Court to investigate.
There was a question about whether a UN commission of inquiry should be set up to investigate North Korean crimes against humanity, which raises similar issues of diplomacy as against justice. To establish a UN commission of inquiry or a referral to the International Criminal Court would require the UN Security Council unanimously to agree to that step and North Korea to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC. Regrettably, neither of these scenarios currently looks likely. We believe that there should be no impunity for the most serious of international crimes, but the possibility of establishing a UN commission of inquiry is low, so we are left, unhappily, with our UN and EU partners to focus on activities that are more likely to produce results that will improve matters at the margin.
We are, of course, concerned with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Resolution 1874 of the UN Security Council was one of the toughest resolutions that it has accepted on sanctions against international trade. The stopping of ships outside is now very strong. We are conscious that one or two ships are still getting through, but those sanctions are biting against North Korea.
The North Korean regime’s treatment of its people is a matter of equal concern. We take every available opportunity to raise human rights abuses with the North Korean Government. We do so through our embassies in the region and the relevant embassies in London. During the UK/China human rights dialogue in March, FCO officials raised with the Chinese Government the treatment of North Korean refugees who are returned by China to North Korea. We have also expressed our active support to Japan and South Korea in their efforts to resolve the abductions carried out by North Korea in the years since the Korean War. We are active bilaterally with our partners in the EU and within the UN. We took part in the UN Universal Periodic Review of the human rights situation in North Korea in December 2009 and in March this year. We are disappointed by how little change there has been in the response from North Korea. We supported retaining the mandate of the UN special rapporteur on human rights but, as the noble Baroness remarked, he has unfortunately not yet been able to visit North Korea. Our embassy in Pyongyang tries to engage practically so far as it can. Last year, it provided assistance to a nursery, a hospital and an association for the disabled. We also invite a number of North Korean teachers of English to visit Britain each year, so we are working as far as we can.
We are unfortunately unable to discover reliable information about what is happening inside prisons in North Korea. We thus rely, as do those who have taken part in this debate, on what we are told by the very small number of people who have been through those prisons and have escaped to the outside world. We take up individual cases. Robert Park was mentioned. He has now been released. Mr Gomes is sadly still in jail. The embassy was able to provide some assistance to the two American journalists who were imprisoned last year and who have now been freed.
The European Union continues to raise human rights with the North Korean Government at every opportunity, including during the troika visit to Pyongyang in November last year. The EU continues to lobby for the resumption of the human rights dialogue with North Korea, which was suspended seven years ago following the decision of the EU to co-sponsor a UN resolution on the human rights situation there. The EU is fully seized of the situation in North Korea but, yet again, we have the problem of how far the North Korean Government will accept the need for an effective dialogue.
Let me say a little about food security. The noble Baroness suggested that we perhaps need an embargo strategy. We all know that food security in North Korea is of considerable concern. We are conscious that North Korea prevented external UN agencies from going in last year to get a more accurate assessment of the food situation in the country. We think that several million people are suffering from chronic malnutrition, but of course we cannot be entirely sure. We are conscious that whatever you do with food aid, you are likely to get into a highly compromised situation. If you provide a large amount of food aid, it tends to go to the elite and the military. If you cut off food, it is the poor who suffer most.
The problem with the conditional strategy suggested by the noble Baroness is that it requires a rational dialogue with a relatively rational regime. The Helsinki process worked because the Soviet Union, by the 1970s and early 1980s, was a rational partner with which one could bargain. We are not clear yet, as the North Korean regime enters a very uncertain stage of likely transition from one member of the Kim dynasty to another, that we have a rational partner with which to deal. Sadly, the same caution applies to some of the other issues raised by the noble Baroness; namely, religious liberties, separation of families and the trafficking of women.
The six-power talks therefore remain for us the key way forward. Her Majesty’s Government do not take part directly in those talks, although because we have an embassy in Pyongyang we are able to play a useful ancillary role in assisting in them. We hope that the North Korean regime may move towards a more open situation as the health of its current leader may continue to deteriorate, We recognise that on 25 June we will mark the 60th anniversary of the opening of the Korean War and we will continue to do everything that we can towards encouraging peace, stability, better human rights for all and, in time, a more open society in the northern part of the peninsula.
Poverty
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their proposals for tackling poverty.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, it is a pleasure to sponsor this Question for Short Debate in your Lordships’ House. I start by declaring a non-remunerative, non-operational, non-executive directorship of the Wise Group in Glasgow, which promotes intermediate labour-market jobs for people on benefits. An important reason for having this short debate at this time is to try to get an early indication of how the Government are putting together their strategy for the longer term in terms of the new coalition Government’s programme.
I want to skim across four or five big issues. If the Minister runs out of time, as he did last week, I hope that he will resort to answering some of the questions that arise by correspondence. My first is a short-term issue, but it is signally important. At the moment there is a lot of concern in the poverty lobby about the short-term impact of the upcoming financial cuts and how that might impact on households with low incomes. I seek an assurance from the Minister that those who are most at risk will not bear the brunt of the upcoming cuts. Obviously, there have to be financial constraints. The Government and the country face a serious situation. The rhetoric being used by Ministers about “progressive cuts”, which seems a worrying oxymoron when you think about it, is important.
As I say, we need reassurance that those who are already poor will get some protection from the worst excesses of the austerity confronting the country, not just for the three-year period of the next Comprehensive Spending Review, but for a lot longer than that. In that regard, it is worth recalling that it is crystal clear that levels of household debt, as recorded in the Government’s own State of the Nation Report: Poverty, Worklessness and Welfare Dependency in the UK, are at an historic high. A lot of households out there, even those that are not poor, are carrying high burdens of debt that must be weighed in the balance. We know that the Social Fund was being considered for reform under the previous Government, and a consultation began in March. That the Social Fund is able to make short-term loans to financially stressed households is extremely important. Money advice is also important, and I know that plans were put in place by the previous Government that are essential to trying to get people out of some of this debt. I think that the Government should seriously embrace the prospect of restricting APR loan charges that are sometimes charged by loan sharks in this country at usurious rates to low-income households that have nowhere else to turn for short-term cash. Can we have reassurance that those most at risk will be given special consideration in the upcoming cuts?
I turn to my second issue. Although I think I know the answer even before I ask the question, can we have an assurance that the department will be robust in seeking from the Treasury investment resources for welfare reform? This is a longer-term point—I am talking about the next five to 10 years—that relates to some quite radical plans that Her Majesty’s former Opposition put together in documents such as Dynamic Benefits and others. They are indeed radical and certainly worthy of scrutiny and examination, but it is not reasonable to expect radical reform of that kind to be done at nil cost. People will get hurt and there will be a lot of losers if they try. I would like to think that a case is being made to the Treasury for the resources necessary to facilitate that reform.
Something that has always been a bit of a puzzle to me relates to my suggestion for finding money when money is scarce. The departmental report of the Government Actuary regarding the last benefit uprating statement states at paragraph 1.5 that:
“The balance in the”—
national insurance—
“fund at 31 March 2011 is estimated at £50.2 billion, or 63.8% of the estimated benefit payments (including redundancy payments) of £78.7 billion in the year 2010-11”.
That looks forward over the next 12-month period. As colleagues will know, the recommended balance in the National Insurance Fund is one-sixth of annual benefit expenditure. The figure of 63.8 per cent is not a sixth, so the Government have stored away a huge amount of national insurance contributions. The question is this: why do they not use this money in the short term to get some of us, particularly low-income households, through the immediate period we are facing? I hope that the Minister will go back to the department and ask that question robustly.
In addition, I suggest that the Minister looks at fraud and error for savings, as well as at administration costs. Between them those items cost £10 billion, which is a lot of money, so savings can be made. I want also to ask him about the longer-term plan for the department. I have mentioned the report Dynamic Benefits. What public service agreements can we expect for the upcoming three-year period starting in 2011? Do the new Government expect to bring forward any policy papers on this issue in the immediate future? Are there any Bills in prospect? What will the new Cabinet committee be doing? I am in favour of the new committee, although it is astonishing that it has not been set up before. What are its terms of reference, what will it do and what difference will it make?
Finally, who is doing what? I am a great fan of Mr Frank Field. I have known him for a long while and he is a very interesting character, but what on earth has he been asked to do? When will he tell us what he wants done, and what will we do with his advice when we get it? I ask that because the last time he tried, he did not get very far. It would be good to get an idea about the longer-term departmental strategy in this direction.
On child poverty, it is essential to know whether the framework in the Child Poverty Act 2010 will be continued, sustained and consolidated. We spent a lot of time in this House improving the Bill. It will provide a serious foundation between now and 2020 and I hope that its targets will not be interfered with by Mr Frank Field or anyone else. Can the Minister confirm that the statutory requirement is for the Government to set out their plans by March 2011? Can he give the House an idea of when the commission created by the 2010 Act will be set up and an idea of its terms of reference?
As to the working age strategy, there is some concern about the work programme and the kind of consolidated programmes it will bring. The cancellation of the existing New Deal programmes makes some sense but it took me by surprise that, as I understand it from a ministerial Written Answer last week, the Flexible New Deal phase 1 contracts that were set in place last October are also to be cancelled. So a whole raft of contract cancellation charges and costs could suddenly be visited on the providing community. How is that to be folded into the consolidated work programme in the future? I certainly expected phase 2 to be cancelled but the Flexible New Deal phase 1 cancellation is a surprise.
Related to that, the scale of the new providers for the new consolidated work programme will need to be much bigger than previously. They will need to have very deep pockets and be very big organisations to carry the weight of these programmes until they start producing surpluses in the long term. That is a matter of some concern. As to the terms of the work programme more generally, I hope that the viable work carried out by Professor Paul Gregg in setting up a personalised conditionality rating, which I absolutely support, will not be lost in the course of the rollout of the work programme in the longer term.
Finally—sometimes we all miss this important point; it is very easily missed—we need a society-wide response to poverty now. We suffer too much from the red tops taking a swipe at any family they think are pulling the wool over people’s eyes and swinging the lead—no doubt there will be some who do that—and they are castigated as scroungers and caricatured as no-hope people who hold the country back. We need a new paradigm for that debate. I hope that the new Government will look at all these issues and start building some more positive attitudes towards poverty reduction measures in the future. Unless we do so, we will not have a positive enough atmosphere to secure the kind of reform that we all want to see for our low-income households in future.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, a photograph was displayed in my cathedral church at Blackburn; it was a picture of poverty but it illustrated very much more. It showed a young man sitting in a doorway, head down, his hands wrapped around his knees. You could see his face; he had lost his identity. His vision was limited to his immediate prospects of life on the street. The door behind him was closed, symbolising his exclusion. His poverty was costing him everything, including his hopes for the future.
Blackburn is a town highlighted as one of the most deprived areas of Britain. It also has one of the highest percentages of young people in the country as a proportion of population and, with a large number of single-parent young mothers, it is essential that we sustain Sure Start. I hope that in addressing these particular issues of poverty and trying to bring new hope to communities, Her Majesty’s Government will think seriously about a real partnership with the third sector and faith communities.
County statistics for Lancashire show both the depth of poverty and its dehumanising range. Taking income alone, we see that Lancashire earns 8 per cent less than the national average. Blackpool, for all its image of showbiz glitz and glamour, takes home only 75 per cent of the average pay packet. We have heard of successful new deals for communities in other areas with low-wage economies. Can these be extended? Will government plans emerge to foster grassroots leadership so that people are empowered to address the needs of their poor communities? Again, can we look to a partnership with the faith communities and the third sector in doing this?
One of our greatest concerns in Lancashire is that one-quarter of all children are living in families which are below the poverty line, on 60 per cent or less of average income. They are often in households struggling on benefits or the meagre proceeds of part-time or low-paid work.
We still hear talk of the deserving and undeserving poor, which cannot be helpful. Surely there can be no question of any child deserving to be poor. The Children's Society’s Good Childhood inquiry listened to what children themselves had to say about their lives. It was striking how many children expressed deep concern about the impact of poverty on other children—the lost opportunities, risks to health and shattered expectations. It seems clear that our children have their priorities right. Can we find the courage to make their concern to tackle poverty our political and policy priority?
The experience of my own region shows that some of our communities are on a knife-edge. The risk of a double-dip recession, while it may be avoided nationally, is not inconceivable in some regions where the resources are just not there for recovery to emerge after the withdrawal of public spending. Poverty is the question that we are addressing today, but we will not tackle poverty until we tackle the real inequality between regions and communities.
In front of that cathedral photograph that I mentioned earlier is an image of new life, focused on the sort of young person who could be helped off the streets, away from a culture of ASBOs and exclusion. It is the Youth Zone project within Blackburn’s Cathedral Quarter. It will provide, for 52 weeks of the year, a range of activities and enterprise programmes, in a safe environment, for those aged between eight and 21. It is expected to cater for 3,000 young people a week when it opens next year. The admission cost will be just 50p, and development costs have been supported by £6 million of central and local government funding.
We all know that to reduce poverty is costly, demanding private initiatives supported by public funds. In this coming new age of austerity, let us not walk away from our deprived communities—nor should we let our attention be diverted by domestic deprivation from those places in the international community where poverty is frequently a death sentence.
Lord Adebowale
I start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for my tardiness in being a few minutes late and missing his opening remarks. I was delayed by my need to do my day job. This is a most timely debate, and a most welcome one. My interests in this subject go back many years. I am currently chief executive of an organisation called Turning Point that provides services to many of the poorest in our community, covering employment, mental health, learning disabilities and substance misuse. I want to address the challenges of helping those with complex needs and make a few asks of the current Conservative-Lib Dem Government.
Many of the people that Turning Point sees and many of those at the sharp end of the inverse care law—which states that those who need care most tend to get it least—suffer from complex needs. It is hard to separate those with complex needs from those in poverty. Poverty can contribute to those needs and challenges and hold someone in a life of poverty if those needs are not addressed. Not far from this building, we can see the effects on individuals; they can be seen on our streets and in our communities. The differences in life expectancy and health inequalities are stark. A woman in Liverpool can expect to live 78.3 years, whereas a contemporary in Kensington and Chelsea can expect to live for 87.2 years. Those are the stark realities of poverty in Britain. It is the 60,000 households who were newly homeless in 2009 and the 253,000 people in April still claiming jobseeker’s allowance who are at the forefront of my mind.
In explaining poverty, there is a temptation to see personal character as the main cause. I hope that we do not head in that direction. People living in poverty should just try harder—that becomes the subtext of much of the debate. We know that that approach is simplistic; it focuses on the faults of the individual, rather than considering the systemic weaknesses in society that contribute to social injustice. Social standing, as many of us in this House know only too well, is a result of complex interactions of a number of factors. It is the result of privilege of birth and educational attainment—which can also be related to the privileges of birth—social contacts and personal relationships. Strength of character is only one factor. Social justice can only hope to be achieved if this factor is acknowledged.
Of course, we cannot shield ourselves from the realities of the current economic climate. We have a budget deficit of staggering proportions and we have been told that we can expect to pay £70 billion on interest payments on that debt alone, a figure greater than the amount we spend on schools, climate change and transport combined. These facts, and the statements of the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, have caused a great deal of fear from those whose livelihood is at risk—fear of the legacy of debt we are leaving our children and fear of what our public services are going to look like five years from now. The low-hanging fruit have already been picked, with the announcement of £6 billion of cuts. However, I am greatly concerned that attempts to rein in the deficit will create further pain for the most disadvantaged in society.
At the moment, our limited knowledge of future plans for the welfare system shows that reform will be based on promoting the value of work by ensuring that it pays to be in employment rather than living off benefit. People will have to work their way out of poverty. The benefits of engaging in meaningful work are clear: it helps to promote resilience, in terms of mental health and well-being, while increasing social networks. However, I am concerned that if we have a one-size-fits-all approach we assume that people are not in employment because of the generosity of the welfare system, and that by tapering the loss of benefits when employment is found, there is a greater incentive to return to work.
Underlying that, though, is the notion of the deserving and undeserving poor, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. Once work has been incentivised, those who do not or cannot work are deemed to be irresponsible. If you want to know how to create an underclass, the recipe is very clear: create unemployment and remove the support necessary for those who want to work to move towards work. We know that much.
Unemployment is currently high. We cannot expect people to walk into jobs. This approach is alarming, and cuts to public spending are set to increase redundancies. The TUC has recently reported that 45.9 per cent of women in the north-east work in the public sector. There is no point blaming the public sector for that; it is a fact. Unemployment is set to increase in the area, affecting the whole community. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development suggests that cuts to jobs in the public sector will increase unemployment to 2.95 million, accounting for one out of every eight jobs in the public sector. Personal responsibility does not come into this equation. Unemployment is out of the control of the individual, and we know that every month that someone stays unemployed, their mental health deteriorates—the two are interconnected.
Those in poverty are trapped in a cycle of deprivation, often incurring greater levels of debt. The exclusion from financial services and the difficulty of getting credit, with the high interest rates that can be obtained, mean that those in poverty pay over £1,000 more a year on life’s essentials than they need to.
There is no guarantee that those who work are protected from poverty. Statistics from Barnardo’s suggest that a couple with two children and one parent working for the minimum wage would have to work 60 hours a week to earn the 60 per cent of median income that takes them out of poverty.
I have to be honest—rather than “we’re all in this together”, I am concerned that those communities most disadvantaged are being left on the sidelines. We have seen this before; in the 1980s and early 1990s, long-term unemployment scarred communities and it still does. The effects of unemployment go far deeper than just the individual. It also affects families and community cohesion, often resulting in higher levels of crime, further deprivation and further increased expenditure. We have had a failure to invest in preventive actions to act against the social problems connected to long-term unemployment, adverse effects on mental health and drug misuse. Permitting this degradation of society to occur again is both morally questionable and economically illogical.
We must make sure that the long-term unemployed are given access to support that addresses the obstructions preventing them from entering employment. Communities with high levels of unskilled workers have been disproportionally affected by the high levels of unemployment. We cannot perceive long-term unemployment as being a product of laziness; rather, it is an indication of unmet need in the community.
Those most in need of support are the least likely to receive it. This is for a number of reasons. Staff not recognising the full extent of the problem or believing it is the responsibility of other services—a lack of joining up on the ground, a lack of connectedness in service provision, which is both bespoke and personalised—a lack of confidence and knowledge about the availability of support and a distrust of services can all combine to ensure that those with complex needs do not get the help that they deserve.
Efficiencies can be made by increasing the effectiveness of services. Effective services are designed according to the needs of the communities they serve. We cannot assume that all communities are the same. Rather, people should be given a voice to say what they need from the services, and they should be given the opportunity to design and indeed deliver those services where possible. We must ensure that performance measures are based on the outcomes they achieve for individuals and the wider community.
My own organisation has been working on models that engage communities in designing and delivering services, and auditing the effectiveness of those services in their communities. We have shown that such an approach can give far better access to hard-to-reach groups, and we have found that integrated services offer the best opportunity to improve access to services.
Integration can be through joint commissioning across health and social care as well as whole-system redesign. My view is that the whole system needs redesigning. Slash-and-burn not only will not deliver the savings that we are looking for, but will simply drive more cost into the system for future dates. We can avoid duplication of delivery, which means savings; and many of these services can be made sustainable through a strong partnership with the community.
We have seen the effects of not taking action in the aftermath of a recession—inaction born from the belief that people should be able to resolve their own problems. Instead, we need to recognise that the way that services are currently designed prevents people helping themselves, leading to costly inefficiencies along the way. We need to resolve these obstacles if we are to reduce poverty and achieve social justice.
I end by asking my first two questions of this Government. First, are the Government prepared to report regularly on the impact of the impending spending cuts in public services on our poorest people and communities? Too little is said of the impacts of the economy on our poorest. While I appreciate that Frank Field will be working on measures of poverty, I think that we are in danger of letting the excellent get in the way of the good enough. If you cannot afford to feed your kids, a debate about how to measure poverty will be meaningless to you. I want a “good enough” measure; I am not interested in the perfection of the science. Will the Government report regularly to both Houses, and to the country, on the impact of the budget cuts on the poorest areas and people? Secondly, we have set up an Office for Budget Responsibility. Can we also have an office of social responsibility?
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, whenever there is a time of hardship and deprivation, Wales will suffer as much if not more than any other part. The noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, was of course MP for Merthyr Tydfil for many years; his book, Something Must Be Done, showed the terrible time of hardship in the 1930s in the South Wales valleys. Our hope will now be that if there is a time of austerity, at least the Welsh Assembly Government, working with Westminster, will be able to avoid any similar situation or hardship in this era.
We have to have co-operation between the Government, the devolved Administrations, local councils and voluntary organisations if we are to tackle this problem which is looming at present—we are really in the middle of it. Much of my concern has been with the poverty and deprivation suffered by incomers to the United Kingdom. We could alleviate that situation quite quickly in many respects, because certain Acts could be amended or implemented that would bring about a change in the situation of what I might call the suffering of those particular communities. When migrants from the European Union travel here, some might expect to find that the pavements of London are paved with gold. We have to get into those communities in Poland or Lithuania, or wherever they are, before the people travel here and give them packs of information so that they are aware of the situation ahead of them before they venture here. There is no gold paving the streets of London; there is often hardship and great sadness.
If only we could, as a Government, devise packs of information that would help people to say, “Yes, I am going to venture” or, “No, I am not going to try at this time”. I hope the Minister will consider this seriously. Some will come—of course they will. Young people must venture and be able to see what life is like in other countries. However, we need—possibly with the churches and other voluntary organisations—to establish a national telephone helpline. If people are in great difficulties or circumstances that make their lives a misery sometimes, at least they will know that there is one way to connect with those who might be able to help them.
A while ago I was in the Warsaw Parliament, talking about the possibility of having a benefits system in Europe whereby if a person has contributed in, let us say, Poland to a benefits or national insurance system, that benefit could be drawn upon in any other country in the European Union. This would be a portable benefits system, whereby the contributions in one country could be drawn on in another country within the European Union. I am delighted that in a Written Answer to me a week or so ago, the Department for Work and Pensions said that such a scheme is possible. I ask the Ministers and others who are responsible for this to confirm that such a system exists and that they are ready to publicise it so that those in such circumstances could, instead of finding themselves penniless and on the streets, at least know that there is funding available, which they have paid into in their original country. That, I suggest, is something that we could do to alleviate tremendous hardship.
Failed asylum seekers can come here and become totally penniless, without any support whatever. I have had a message from the director of homelessness services at the Salvation Army. It is a message of despair. So many failed asylum seekers are in total destitution. The letter says that,
“on average these people get £7.50 a week from handouts from churches and charities”.
Can we live, or even breathe, on £7.50 a week? Another report, Underground Lives by Diane Taylor, about destitute asylum seekers in Leeds, was published last year. Somebody in this situation says:
“I wake up hungry and go to bed hungry. I am sleeping on my friend’s kitchen floor. It is very hard and cold but he has given me a blanket”.
That is one existence but there are worse examples which I have no time to mention today.
Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 withdraws all support from failed asylum seekers, leaving them totally bereft of any support whatever. There were two or three pilot areas where the provisions of this Act were implemented. I should like to know what happened in the pilot areas. More importantly still, what happened to the failed asylum seekers in these areas? We can do something to remove an element of poverty. We can do something to remove destitution.
Finally, I know that the 32 London boroughs, in their own way, try to meet these needs, but they act independently and so do not share their facilities and accommodation with those outside their own areas. We urgently need a pan-London approach to homelessness and rough sleeping. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me what proposals the Government have to help to bring this about.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, for his bright idea of initiating this one and a half hour debate. I shall not take up too much of your Lordships' time, but it is too tempting an opportunity to miss the chance to suggest a number of one’s pet priority areas, which I hope the Government may consider adopting in their important battle against poverty.
I am particularly glad that the coalition Government are to continue with the previous Government’s target to eliminate child poverty by 2020. We all know that targets can be overdone but this one is clearly sensible. The same applies to the commitment to continue with Sure Start as originally conceived. The right reverend Prelate mentioned that; it has done considerable invaluable work. I am a total fan of it. However, a major area I urge the Government to consider is further action to prioritise tackling what Keith Joseph 37 years ago called the cycle of deprivation. I wish to emphasise two specific ways in which that could be done.
The first is to ensure that children with special needs are identified early in their lives, so that the relevant extra support they need can be provided to help them fully develop their potential talents and skills for the benefit of themselves and their whole community. It would be even more beneficial if the Government could extend this form of assessment so that all children are assessed before they start their schooling. This, too, could save both money and misery in the long run. Incidentally, it is an area which many of us—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is sadly not in his place—tried to get adopted in a recent education Bill.
My second point is more directly related to the important cycle of deprivation. The Government could undertake—I wish they would do so—an early assessment of potentially delinquent or deprived families with problems. To help identify such families, the Government's plan for more locally based midwives and health visitors will certainly help identify the back-up that may well be needed. Sadly, if prevention is not achieved, offending follows all too often and long-term costs go up considerably—very considerably indeed if a continual pattern of offending is established. Many of these young people who end up in prison have families with a history—often a long history—of parents, grandparents and generations even further back having criminal records. Of course, prison must be the answer for some heinous crimes, but increasingly we are realising that prison does not work for many offenders. Thousands of pounds are wasted each year by sending young offenders repeatedly to prison when they could, with sensible community sentences combined with professional and third-sector mentoring, be reclaimed for a civilised and worthwhile life. Thankfully, if one is to believe anything one reads in the paper, this appears also to be the view of the Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, so perhaps we will see some action in that regard. I hope that the Government will seriously consider a complete rethink. We looked at this in a small committee of Cross-Benchers on penal policy on which I sit, and we all said that it was time to have another royal commission to rethink the whole of penal policy. That might be a thought.
I want to mention another poverty issue affecting us all that I hope the Government will also put on their priority list. A sensible aim of this Government, like their predecessor, is to ensure that welfare benefits go only to those who really need them, but equally it will be essential to give adequate help and retraining to those returning to work after long gaps. If that does not happen, it is obvious that greater poverty will resume. I hope that the Government can reassure your Lordships that sufficient support of this kind will be provided in these difficult times.
Another area of poverty which is unequally shared, yet could produce additional national and individual wealth, if readjusted, is the earnings of men and women. Much of this inequality is due to the assumed and actual caring roles of women, and despite equal opportunities legislation that gap still persists. Will the Government please consider making the right to request flexible working available equally to men and women? Perhaps more challenging would be the right to work either full-time or part-time on a flexible basis. We live in a global economy and work on a 24-hour international basis. Through internet technologies, we can all be constantly in touch with different parts of the world. All of us know that if we ring a company to make a complaint, the phone may well be answered by an employee living in India because it is cheaper for that company to employ—rightly or wrongly—someone living there.
However, if both sexes had such rights, there would be flexible benefits for companies struggling to survive in these harsh economic times, and that would give both sexes the time needed to care for their children, aged parents, disabled family members or friends. They could take a part-time course and stay in employment. There would be other benefits for women— often those who are most in poverty in retirement—because they would be more likely to stay in employment, to be available for selection for more senior posts, and, I hope, to retire on a better pension.
I hope that the Government will give those few thoughts—I am slightly under time—serious consideration.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, for securing this important debate. Previous Governments have tried to tackle this issue with the best of intentions. However, the complexity and scope of this problem have often meant that past strategies have not been successful in addressing this matter. I intend to focus my contribution primarily on poverty among children and the present condition of adult poverty. I care about issues relating to poverty, and the charity which I chair and totally fund provides help and assistance wherever it can.
I welcome the Government’s pledge to maintain the goal of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020, as stated in the coalition agreement. It is widely believed that children often inherit poverty from their parents. Therefore, adult poverty and its causes are of equal importance in successfully addressing child poverty. At present, 5 million adults are illiterate and 17 million struggle with basic literacy. A significant number are parents to some of the poorest children in our communities. Children and young people who live in households where adults do not engage in any form of employment are not only the most deprived in our society but are most likely to follow the same path once they leave full-time compulsory education. The generational cycle of unemployment is a key factor in the rising levels of welfare dependency and poverty in our communities. A significant number of these parents who are in employment are typically in receipt of low incomes. The incomes of the poorest 20 per cent of families have consistently fallen every year since 2004. This situation has contributed to the rising level of deprivation in our society and, most unfortunately, it has removed the incentive for those on low incomes to remain in employment.
Poverty is a complex issue. A multifaceted approach to tackling this problem is necessary, as divergent components add to this injustice. I welcome the Government’s increased emphasis on how the merits of localism can bring about the change that is so desperately needed in our communities. Local authorities, agencies and community groups have the potential to play a vital role in ensuring that individuals and the most vulnerable members of society receive the support that they need. It is only fair that such initiatives should have access to adequate training and resources to enable them to continue to fulfil these duties.
Greater emphasis is required on tackling poverty among the ethnic minority communities. For example, levels of child poverty are higher among the black and Asian communities, at 31 per cent and 42 per cent respectively, compared with their white counterparts, among whom the level stands at 20 per cent.
There is a link between family breakdown and child poverty. Research suggests that children from separated families are 75 per cent more likely to fail academically, 70 per cent more likely to engage in drug abuse and 35 per cent more likely to experience long-term unemployment and to become reliant on state benefits. Does the Minister agree that recognising this pattern may result in reducing the number of children who live in poverty?
Research has proved that child poverty is less likely to be a factor in households where one or both parents engage in some sort of paid employment. It is therefore in the best interests of our young people for the Government to create an effective strategy to support families with children and to identify those who are at risk of losing their jobs. The State of the Nation Report reveals that 1.4 million people have been in receipt of out-of-work benefits for the overwhelming majority of the past 10 years. These figures are compounded by research from the Office for National Statistics that shows a rise in the number of unemployed people by 53,000. That suggests that the number of jobless people is at its highest since 1994.
I strongly welcome plans for the welfare reform Bill as announced in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, with the intention of simplifying the benefits system in order to improve incentives to work. As an employer, I support proposals to provide work incentives and to get 5 million-plus people into work and out of poverty. Poverty among individuals of working age now stands at its highest level since 1961. I also await the findings of the independent review on poverty in the United Kingdom, which are scheduled for release before the end of this year.
It is worth touching briefly on some of the challenges that face our ageing population. Pensioner poverty is most prevalent among female pensioners. I welcome the 30-year rule relating to the qualifying period for the full state pension, which now applies to both genders. This will help to alleviate poverty among women, who generally live longer than men.
Studies by the Leonard Cheshire Disability charity reveal that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as able-bodied individuals. I am confident that noble Lords will all agree that this is a shocking revelation. We have a moral duty to ensure that disabled people have access to a decent standard of living. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships what steps the Government will take to address this unacceptable trend.
We are one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world. We can boast membership of the G7 and G8, and also a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Despite these accolades, too many of our citizens are living in poverty. Successfully ending poverty in all areas of society is one of the biggest challenges facing us today. I am particularly concerned about lifting children out of poverty, as the future success of this country is in their hands. Young people who are poor often have low self-esteem, which can lead to a number of undesirable outcomes, including alcohol and narcotic abuse. We cannot afford to waste the potential of our young people. The poorest children are at a competitive disadvantage, especially in education. We need to adopt a bold approach in addressing this inequality. We have both a civic and an economic duty to deal with the prevalence of poverty in our society, and the Government’s proposals to address this matter effectively are indeed encouraging.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for being a little late at the beginning of this debate, having missed the ending of the previous one. In compensation for that, I shall not speak for very long, which may be of some comfort to the House.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for raising this issue but, unfortunately, I cannot agree with him about the Child Poverty Act, on which we both worked so hard in the previous Session of Parliament. I am afraid that I consider it to be a bad Act and I ask whether the Government will either repeal or amend it. I ask that not because I am in any way opposed to resolving the problems of child poverty or promoting the well-being of children but because that is not what the Act does with any degree of effectiveness.
First, the Child Poverty Act is about family income rather than child poverty. Secondly, it is about inequality rather than poverty. I think that we should decide whether in that legislation we are talking about inequality or poverty, as they may or may not both be evils. Poverty is certainly an evil and I think that there are circumstances in which inequality may be an evil. Thirdly, I do not think that we shall really ever achieve an answer to the problem of child poverty until we effectively take parents into partnership with us. It is not an issue on which parents have the right to do as much they would like, and then the state has to step in and do all the rest. Somehow we seem to have failed to engage the less committed parents in our society. We have failed to help them to understand the obligations of parenthood and to co-operate in looking after their children. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who is no longer in his place, and others have mentioned that the most disadvantaged and the poorest children come from broken and chaotic households.
I mention in passing that a number of noble Lords— including the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh—brought before the House some very interesting statistics, implying that they are perhaps causal, one for the other. One has to be extremely careful about using that argument. Perhaps the House would forgive me if I mention a birthday card I received on my last birthday. It said, “Birthdays are good for you: the more you have, the longer you live”. That is a perfectly convincing fact. We should be looking at child poverty, at the impact on children and on children’s well-being and saying to ourselves, “Can we evolve a better society and a better form of legislation through which to commit ourselves to improving the lot of children in the context of poverty?”.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I realise that I am a mere stand-in for my noble friend Lord McKenzie, who I know would bring his usual incisive, knowledgeable and charming ways to the Dispatch Box, but he is unable to be in the House today, so I will do my best. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for initiating the debate.
Many of the questions that I would like to ask have been put by other noble Lords. During the Queen’s Speech debate, I predicted that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, would hold his Government's feet to the fire on the issues that are dear to his heart and about which he is an acknowledged expert, but I did not appreciate that the first foray would be quite so soon. I feel a little sympathy for the Minister as, during the debate, a large number of very important questions have been addressed to him. The Minister might take some comfort from the fact that this will be the first of many debates on these kinds of issues, so he might be forgiven for not having all the answers immediately—perhaps that is no comfort at all.
Yesterday, Dr John Philpott, chief economic adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, predicted that the coalition Government's deficit reduction measures will stall any recovery in the UK jobs market this year, resulting in a post-recession peak in unemployment close to 3 million, and slowing any subsequent return to low unemployment. He went on to say:
“Given what we know historically about the way in which the social burden of unemployment and stagnant average income growth is shared across individuals and communities, the prospects for those already suffering the most disadvantage seem particularly bleak”.
I turn to two issues to which reference has been made in the debate. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, for his loyalty, but I thought I would add a few statistics of my own to his. Today there are 353,000 fewer people on inactive working-age benefits than there were in 1997. The number of people on incapacity benefit almost tripled under the Tories from 800,000 in 1979 to 2.5 million in 1997. At 5 per cent the claimant count is half the level it was in the 1980s and 1990s. The proportion of workless households is still lower now than in 1997, despite the recession and a big increase in the number of students. As a result of Labour’s welfare reforms, investment in childcare and family-friendly working policies, 365,000 more lone parents are in work than in 1997. Why have the Government announced that they intend to save £320 million by cutting some unemployment programmes, including the future jobs fund? How many jobs will not be funded through that and what will be the impact of the Government’s proposals?
I remind the House that under the previous Tory Government, child poverty doubled and the UK had the worst level of child poverty in Europe. Since 1999, we have made progress in tackling child poverty, halting and then reversing the upward trend. So I join other noble Lords—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—in expressing my anxiety about the suggestion that the Government might drop our target for cutting child poverty. I join the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn in his concern about the future of Sure Start.
The coalition agreement, which I draw to the right reverend Prelate’s attention, states:
“We will take Sure Start back to its original purpose of early intervention, increase its focus on the neediest families and better involve organisations with a track record of supporting families. We will investigate ways of ensuring that providers are paid in part by the results they achieve”.
How will they know, as Sure Start is intended to be a long-term investment in the future of those children, so the results of the success of a Sure Start programme are known not within a year, two years, or three years, but after 10 years, 15 years or 20 years? We know that from the experience of the United States. I also ask the Minister about the intention not to fund free school meals. Again, that is a direct investment in the health and welfare of our children.
Clearly, it is important that we take care to disentangle the causes and consequences of poverty, and some of what I have heard from those on the Government Benches during the Queen's Speech debate and last week during a debate on these issues in another place suggests not a little confusion on that front. As my honourable friend Kate Green MP—a new and very knowledgeable addition to the Opposition Benches in another place—said:
“It is certainly true that lone parents face an exceptionally high risk of poverty, but it is also the case that poverty and the stress of trying to make ends meet can contribute to family and relationship breakdown. It is important that we help to sustain relationships and keep families together, and ensure that they have adequate resources to remove that stress and concern”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/10; col. 544.]
The Government must demonstrate that they have taken account, for example, of those who face a particular risk of poverty and why they do so—disabled people and people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, with their unequal access to the labour market and unequal experience within it. Those are the structural drivers of poverty and it is important that public policy addresses them.
My concern is that both my honourable friend Frank Field, for whom I have the utmost respect, and the Minister, Mr Iain Duncan Smith, sometimes give the impression that they have a view of the “deserving” poor and the “not so deserving” poor, as already mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, which sometimes does not take account of the fact that life for those out of work and on benefits is not a life of luxury. I challenge the House to consider how any of us would manage on a disposable income of £65.45 a week. I suggest that when the axis of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, Frank Field and Iain Duncan Smith are creating their policy they learn from what has and has not worked in the past. I am sure that they will want to do that.
As I said, during the 1980s and 1990s, child poverty doubled, but since 1999, the number of children in poverty has been reduced by 500,000. That is not by accident. Child poverty reduced in the years in which the Government invested in family incomes through benefits and tax credits, and increased in the years in which Governments have not. The Labour Government's policy of seeking to reduce poverty through increases in tax credits and benefits is not a failed policy.
I therefore caution Ministers carefully to consider what the evidence tells them and to take careful account of the significant expertise that exists outside the House and on the Benches in this House. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Adebowale, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie. I was pleased by the almost entirely cross-party support that the Child Poverty Bill secured during its passage through the previous Parliament. The Child Poverty Act 2010, as it became, put in place a recognition of the need to sustain the poverty reduction targets, confirmed the importance of the relative income poverty target and set it once more at the 60 per cent median line.
What are the Government going to do to redefine poverty? Will they, for example, be taking the definition of the Prime Minister when he said that he was concerned about a definition of poverty as,
“people with less than 40 per cent of average household income”,
or “severe poverty”? That definition excludes 2.5 million children from targets of child poverty. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that such a definition is “not particularly accurate” because some people might have low incomes but enough wealth to have a purchasing power well above the poverty line. Indeed, the Child Poverty Action Group called the statistic “dodgy” and pointed out that under that definition poverty increased by nearly 500 per cent under the previous Conservative Government.
The coalition Government appear set to water down our commitment to end child poverty by 2020 by changing the current definition of poverty. It is clear to us that this will be a disaster for low-income families who need help and support so that they are not left behind and will condemn some children to falling further and further behind their peers. The Government have already announced the abolition of child trust funds and have hinted that they may cut tax credits and other benefits further than was promised in their manifesto. Will the Minister comment on whether that is the case?
Everyone in this House is very concerned about the effect of the Government’s proposals on the most needy and vulnerable in our society so, along with many noble Lords around the House, I suspect we will be watching carefully and will be returning to this vital issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who made such excellent contributions and, in particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who brought up this important topic for debate in this House. I welcome the opportunity to set out this Administration’s approach to poverty.
The recently published State of the Nation Report sets out in stark terms the challenge that this Government face in combating poverty. It shows that the UK is a country where worklessness and welfare dependency are much too prevalent. A higher proportion of children live in households where no one works than in any other EU country. In total, more than one in four adults of working age are out of work. That fact underpins the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Sheikh. Furthermore, around 1.4 million people have been on out-of-work benefit for nine or more of the past 10 years and at least 12 million working-age households receive financial support from the Government each week. This costs no less than £85 billion a year.
I bring noble Lords’ attention to the National Equality Panel’s report that was published in January and found that in England the median total household wealth in the most deprived tenth of areas is £34,000, while in the least deprived tenth of areas it is £481,000. Those statistics emphasise the concern that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn expressed about inequality.
However, poverty is not merely about inequality of income or assets. The previous Government spent £28.5 billion on tax credits in 2009-10, yet child poverty has fallen woefully short of the target of halving it since 1997. It therefore seems that simply increasing incomes will not improve the position that this country finds itself in. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that we are maintaining the timetable on the child poverty commission, and that it will be set up, as planned, over the summer. It is equally significant that the health gap between those from high and low socio-economic backgrounds is wider now than in the 1970s and that the gap in educational attainment between children from wealthy and deprived backgrounds remains high.
Neglecting the interconnectedness of the causes that drive poverty is a recipe for failure. It is with this in mind that I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of an independent review of poverty in the UK to be led by Frank Field. The review will look at how we measure poverty and how the home environment can influence educational achievement. Crucially, it will also stimulate debate on the nature and extent of poverty in the UK and make recommendations on how we reduce poverty and enhance life chances for the least advantaged. Without wishing to second-guess the outcome of that review, I am glad today to play some part in that broader debate.
I want to outline four of the most important causes of poverty and give a flavour of the measures that this Government will take to combat them. At the same time I will address the concerns that were so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about a purely income-driven approach.
First, we know that a stable home life can make a huge difference to the health and well-being of our children, which is why this Government will, among other things, bring forward reforms to the current tax credit system, removing the material penalty for claimants who live together. I can assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, of the coalition Government’s plans to take Sure Start back to its original purpose of early intervention, to increase its focus on the neediest families and to better involve organisations with a track record of supporting families.
I should also like to take this opportunity to refer to the early involvement issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. At this important point of reform, we should take the opportunity to ask fundamental questions about the care system we want for children. We know how important the early years of a child’s life are to their cognitive and social development. We should be committed to meeting the challenge of giving the best possible start in life particularly to those vulnerable children who come into care.
Secondly, it is clear that addiction to drugs and alcohol is one of the most damaging causes of poverty. Estimates suggest that almost 80 per cent of problem drug users are on benefits, often for many years and with no realistic prospect of either recovering or finding employment under the current system. My department will bring forward proposals for a refreshed substance misuse strategy that will move away from focusing solely on heroin and crack cocaine and include all drugs and alcohol. These proposals will more effectively support addicts to sustain a drug-free recovery and employment.
Thirdly, a lack of education and skills traps many people in poverty. Improvements in skills can help to reduce child poverty and crime, and improve health and job satisfaction and the ability to perform non-work-related tasks such as managing household finances.
Fourthly, the Government’s work strategy needs to be aligned with the job outcomes we want. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, on the way in which we are accelerating the work programme, which has been welcomed by the industry. The work programme will offer stronger incentives for providers to work with the harder to help. They will be paid out of the benefit payments that will be saved as a result of placing people in sustainable work. It implies that those providers will look for a holistic approach to tackling the problems of those people and they will bring much higher resources to solving some of those problems.
The concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who I am pleased to see in his place, is one of the things that I hope we will see addressed in our approach, which will start to address the complex needs of many people who need support in getting back into the workplace.
Disabled people are at a substantially higher risk of poverty than non-disabled people. Nearly one in four families with a disabled member live in poverty, compared with less than one in six families where no one is disabled. We want to make sure that work is the best route out of poverty for disabled people and non-disabled people alike. Our plans will help more disabled people to find sustainable jobs and thus regain their independence.
We must also ensure that people can enjoy dignity and security in their old age. The legacy we have inherited includes 1.8 million pensioners living in poverty today. As a first step, we will restore the earnings link with a basic state pension from April 2011 with a triple guarantee. In other words, pensions will be raised in line with earnings or prices, or by 2.5 per cent, whichever is the higher. In the long term, this legacy can be remedied only by cultivating a savings culture in which people have access to a good workplace pension scheme backed by employer contributions.
Let me turn to the many questions that have been asked. There were at least 30 of them, so while I will not be able to handle them all, I shall do my best. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, urged me to provide information on the shape of the Budget and where the financial cuts, if any, might fall. I regret to have to tell him that I cannot pre-empt the Statement next week and urge him and the lobbies to which he referred to be a little more patient.
On Frank Field’s review and his approach to child poverty and the recommendations he will make, all I can say is that he is due to report in December. We await his recommendations with great interest and will take them very seriously indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, also pressed me on benefit reforms. This is another area where I would not wish to pre-empt later Statements. We are looking closely at ways to unlock what has been called the “unemployment trap” or the “poverty trap” in order to try to put in place a more coherent system so that we can have what my noble friend Lord Sheikh referred to: incentives to work. We will also look to make the system much more flexible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, urged us to do. She referred particularly to micro-jobs, those stepping-stone jobs that are so difficult for people to take on under the current system. We want to make that much easier.
I turn to another leading question from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. He asked whether any cuts next week, if there are any, will affect the most disadvantaged and whether we will look at fraud and error costs. We are committed to helping the most disadvantaged and I hope that some of the measures that I have just discussed, such as the pensions triple guarantee, have reassured him that we take this issue seriously.
I have to draw my remarks to a conclusion. As I have said, I will write to noble Lords in response to as many of the other questions that have been put to me as possible.
Drugs and Crime
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime discussion paper Treating Drug Dependence through Healthcare, not Punishment.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I rise to ask the Minister about the Government’s response to the remarkable draft discussion paper issued on 2 March this year by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime entitled From Coercion to Cohesion: Treating Drug Dependence through Healthcare, not Punishment. For nearly 50 years, ever since the first UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the UNODC has operated as the defender of the punitive approach to drug addiction as well as to drug trafficking. Some 186 countries have signed up to the three UN conventions, all of which promote a criminalising philosophy. Until relatively recently, virtually all of those countries have followed the criminalising approach without question. For those of us who believe that the war on drugs is misguided and destructive both for individuals and communities, this new UNODC document is indeed a major milestone for the UN and hence for the world drug policy regime.
What does the new document say? A quote from the foreword, signed by none other than Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the UNODC, makes clear the radical shift of policy. Mr Costa himself has for years promoted criminalisation. The fact that he now feels it is right to challenge 50 years of UN dogma must be something of a turning point. Mr Costa now says:
“The aim of this draft discussion paper, ‘From Coercion to Cohesion’ is to promote a health-oriented approach to drug dependence”.
The paper quotes the narcotic drug conventions in support of the health-oriented approach. One of the great strengths of the paper is that it argues the scientific case for treatment as an alternative to criminal justice sanctions, suggesting that the health approach,
“is in agreement with a large body of scientific evidence”,
including epidemiological, clinical and neurobiological.
Many across the world have said these things, but not the UNODC. The paper argues that,
“there is increasing evidence that a health-oriented approach is also the most effective in reducing illicit drug use”.
By the same token, imprisonment often worsens the problem in a variety of ways. In my view, no serious policy-maker can ignore this paper.
There are two explanations for the change of heart by the UNODC. First, the sheer cost and level of destruction caused by the war on drugs has become a significant world problem. Secondly, more and more countries have become disenchanted by the UN conventions as interpreted—until now—by the UNODC and they have taken unilateral action. I would add a third explanation—action by 30 Peers from this House. I shall say a little about each of these.
First, as to the cost, the criminals and gangsters involved in the drugs trade are benefiting to the tune of about £320 billion a year, and I know that a lot of people in this House are aware of that. The most severe consequences of course have been in Latin America and Afghanistan. In Mexico, for example, drug trafficking employs some half a million workers and has involved some 5,600 killings a year. The profits to Latin American traffickers have financed 25 years of civil war in Colombia and devastating social disruption in Mexico, Peru and Bolivia. These profits are aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan and, indeed, funding the killing of British soldiers. That is what we are talking about here. The US spends some $40 billion a year trying to eliminate the supply of drugs; it arrests 1.5 million of its citizens each year; it imprisons half a million of them. We in Britain spend £19 billion or so on the criminal justice system responding to drugs and drug-related crime, most of it a consequence of the criminalisation of drug use.
The second explanation for the 180-degree policy shift of the UNODC is the growing disenchantment with the UN conventions. For some years a number of countries have made it clear that they are not happy with the criminalising consequences of the UN conventions—notably Brazil, Mexico and Bolivia in South America, but also Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, Switzerland and others in Europe, and, indeed, a number of states in Australia and the US. They have explored more civil or health-oriented approaches to drug addiction and have in many case removed criminal penalties for the possession of cannabis or, indeed, for the possession of all drugs. These initiatives have not led, as feared, to increased drug addiction. Rather, countries such as the US and UK, with tougher policies on drugs, have levels of narcotic drug use at least as high as those countries with more liberal policies.
On the role of the House, in 2009, 30 Members of this House signed a letter to the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, urging him to establish an inter-governmental panel charged with the task of examining all possible alternative policies for the control of the drugs trade, including an evaluation of the experience of countries that have experimented with alternative policies despite the UN conventions. In his reply, Mr Ban assured us that the commission on narcotic drugs had on its agenda a review of current policies. We responded saying that we were not aware of any resources devoted to any such review, and so the correspondence continued. It seems reasonable to suppose that interest in an area of failure by the top man in the UN may have been helpful in strengthening the arm of the forces of reform within the UNODC.
I was subsequently invited to the UN Commission in Vienna in March this year and met Mr Costa. Certainly he was well aware of the activities of 30 Members of this House. Since then, Mr Gilberto Gerra, a health policy chief at the UNODC, who was involved in my meeting with Mr Costa, has asked us to do what we can to achieve endorsement of the discussion document by as many Governments as possible across the world—a slightly daunting task, I have to say. I am hoping that our coalition Government will be the first formally to endorse From Coercion to Cohesion. There are strong reasons why they may want to do just that.
As I mentioned earlier, this country spends more than £19 billion on the criminal justice system due to the criminalisation of drugs. The Government want to cut all wasteful public expenditure. There is no more obvious public service area of waste than this—waste of resources on prisons, police officers, court officials, judges and the whole paraphernalia of the system. I should assure the Minister that, by endorsing the UNODC document, the Government would be committing themselves neither to any specific policies nor to any change in the treatment of drug traffickers. This is, not surprisingly, a purely pragmatic document where recommendations, if implemented in some form, would lead to major savings in public spending and to benefits for hundreds of thousands of individuals, for communities and for our whole society.
Let us take just one example of a good policy. The UK’s randomised injecting opioid treatment trial programme showed that heroin-injecting addicts reduced their crimes by more than two-thirds as a result of the programme. Taking heroin-injecting addicts substantially out of the criminal justice system would provide enormous savings to the taxpayer, albeit that some of that money would need to be reinvested in health services. Yet even more savings would be achieved through cuts in the benefits bill as users engaged in therapeutic programmes to help them reduce their drug use, organise their lives and in time return to employment. They might remain intermittent drug users, but if drug use were decriminalised, they could become contributing members of society.
On the supply side, the heroin addicts involved in the RIOTT programme reduced their spending on street drugs by £250 per week, from £300 to £50. It is clear that if countries across the world adopted similar programmes, drug traffickers would lose the bulk of their opium sales. This approach would massively dent the billions of pounds currently earned by the gangsters, who rely on addiction and illegality.
This QSD does not pose an idle question. It represents a real plea for the Government’s endorsement of the UNODC’s most important paper in 50 years. Although many would have liked it to go further, I was delighted to see reference to a review of drugs policy on page 23 of the coalition Government’s programme. They now have UNODC support for such a review. We have the biggest opportunity in 50 years to begin to resolve one of the world’s most challenging and destructive problems. I await the Government’s response with interest.
Lord Mancroft
My Lords, it is my first and very pleasant duty to thank on behalf of the whole House the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, not just for initiating this debate but for co-ordinating the letter to Ban Ki-Moon, working with the UNODC and going to Vienna, which I am quite sure, as she suggested, has had a considerable effect.
I do not think that this is a discussion paper; it is more a positioning paper, which reveals a radical and welcome change in the United Nations’s stance. It is radical because, as we have heard, the United Nations has until now focused almost exclusively on the elimination of drug use and suppression of the drugs trade. Now, suddenly, we see that focus switch towards the only effective way to tackle the drug problem, which is to reduce the demand for drugs by providing appropriate help and healthcare to drug users and addicts. The change is welcome because a growing number of people in public and political life have pressed for a move away from gesture politics towards a more mature and pragmatic policy which will have a significant social and economic benefit.
What has brought this about? It is quite simply a change in the direction of American policy. For years, the United Nations was unable to move even if it had wanted to—which I do not think it did—because its most powerful member and paymaster, the USA, was determined to go on promoting its war on drugs and its “just say no” campaigns.
With the arrival of the Obama Administration, however, that has changed. The language has changed. It seems that—not overnight, but carefully and slowly—the Administration will wind down the war on drugs. It is this change in US policy that has taken the shackles off the United Nations and allowed it to move in this new and very welcome direction.
Crucially, the UNODC is accepting, indeed encouraging, member Governments to act in a way many do already, but, more importantly, in a way which it had previously argued was in breach of the conventions. This paper invites us to take a position started by the previous Government. In reality, very few people in the UK are sent to prison for possession of drugs alone. We remain in the position, however, where an enormous proportion of those currently in prison, probably over 50 per cent, are there for drug-related crimes. This paper invites us—and I am confident the new coalition will accept this—significantly to increase both the availability and the quality of treatment in the criminal justice system and the wider community, with the specific objective of getting people off drugs rather than maintaining them on drugs indefinitely, giving them appropriate support when they leave prison, and helping them to lead healthy and, I hope, happier lives as positive members of society.
Throughout this paper, the UNODC reiterates that drug dependence is a health and social problem, but health and social problems cannot be solved by using the criminal justice system. We therefore cannot say, “We will give you the help you need until the moment you need it most, when you relapse, whereupon we will withdraw that care unless and until you get yourself arrested”. That is a pretty good summary of what happens in too many cases in the UK.
The paper also raises some interesting points about coercive treatment. I agree that this is an unattractive route and I hope the Minister will confirm that that is not within the Government’s thinking.
I make two other points in passing. The first concerns the difference between users and those addicted to, or dependent on, drugs. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic. If you do not believe me, go and look in the Bishops’ Bar this evening. Not everyone who uses drugs is an addict. Addicts and alcoholics are ill. They need treatment, even if they do not always want it. At some stage whether we like it or not, society is going to have to get used to the idea that large numbers of our fellow citizens have made informed decisions to use drugs in the same way that their fellow citizens use alcohol. The vast majority do not have health problems and do not commit crimes and, on balance, they behave better in public than many of their fellow citizens who drink. That is for another day, but that other day is coming.
Lastly, I draw attention to the comments in the paper about drug courts. They exist in the UK to a limited extent, and it would be very interesting to hear the Minister’s views.
We are barely a month into this new Government and it would be unfair to expect a detailed response from my noble friend on the Front Bench today. Indeed, it is a pity we are not having this debate in a few months’ time when we could reasonably expect a more detailed answer. If that is the case, perhaps I could ask my noble friend to come back to the House at a later date and make a fuller statement on the Government’s policy. Even so, I hope he will say that the Government welcome this paper and that it is, indeed, the general direction in which the Government would like to move.
If the Obama Administration, the United Nations, the Public Accounts Committee and the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office in the report that was published by the Public Accounts Committee in April find common ground on a policy issue of this complexity, you can reasonably conclude that a consensus is starting to form. It seems there might be a consensus forming in your Lordships’ House this evening, and I very much hope that Her Majesty’s Government will join, if not lead, that consensus.
Baroness Afshar
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Meacher for placing this debate on the agenda. I strongly support her position of decriminalising drugs, and that of the UN. I would also like to disclose my membership of the UK Drug Policy Commission, as a commissioner. However, everything I say here is entirely my view and does not express the view of the commission in any way.
I would like to begin with what would happen if we thought the unthinkable and decriminalised drugs at the point of production. Coming from Iran and being familiar with the Middle East, I can assure the House that decriminalisation of drugs in general, and poppies in particular, would have an enormous impact on the conflict in Afghanistan, and in particular on the support given by farmers to the Taliban. Although during the Taliban era poppy production was banned, it gradually began to seep back in and has taken huge momentum since the departure of the Taliban, for the simple reason that these people live on arid land with very little water. About the only two things worth growing are poppies and cotton. Any economist in his right mind would know that growing poppies might actually ensure survival when growing cotton is very unlikely to do so. In simple economic terms, there is not very much choice for these farmers.
What can be done is to recognise that poppies can be used for medicinal purposes and that they can be contracted to produce poppies for pharmaceutical reasons. That has been done in India and Turkey. In the 1970s, when I was a member of the Iranian Co-operative and Rural Affairs Ministry, it was done in Iran. We found that legalising poppy production helped pharmaceuticals and did not increase the numbers of addicts in the country. Recently there has been a similar agreement between pharmaceutical companies and farmers in Didcot, with Macfarlan Smith. Clearly, as my noble friend indicated, that has not resulted in a marked increase in addicts, but it has increased the number of happy farmers in this country. Legalising production of drugs would help us internationally. As for the national economy, it would be hard to do better than as presented in my noble friend’s explanation with regard to cost-benefit analysis.
My personal experience of working with young people shows that, unavoidably, most dabble with drugs in their early years. I must admit that, although I do not drink, I certainly did smoke pot in the 1960s. It was great fun. I did not do anything to anybody when I was high; I danced a lot and listened to music. I lived to tell the tale, and I assure noble Lords that I am not a criminal. Criminalising drugs “otherises” a whole category of people, many of them young people with a bright future in front of them. The difficulty of being labelled as a criminal, even for those who do not actually go to prison—though many do—is that once you are regarded as an addict to heroin or crack you are no longer employable. A great deal of evidence suggests that only those who are well supported by their families and have a context of support, healthcare and pathways to employment survive their occasional experimentation and possible addiction. It is a great loss of opportunity for improvement. Prisons are universities for drug-dealing and those who come out of prison—and even those who go in—come out with absolutely no alternative but to join the black market. It is a costly alternative. Surely it would make sense to see drugs as a problem exactly like alcohol and others and to treat those people rather than criminalise them.
Lord Rea
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, deserves double congratulations, both on bringing this important United Nations report to our notice and to the Government’s and, as she has described to us, on playing such a significant part in initiating the process that eventually led to its publication.
Its observations and recommendations are not revolutionary in themselves. Most of its points are already well known and understood by those, like myself, who have been involved in helping problem drug users. What is remarkable, as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, have pointed out, is that this reasonable and humane paper has emanated from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, a body that up to now has been on the draconian wing of the worldwide debate on drugs. This was thought to be largely due to the strong influence of the United States, with its tendency to use custodial sentences for drug users, thus having the highest prison population in the world. As well as the other reasons given by the noble Baroness, though, perhaps the change of heart has something to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned, with the change of the American Administration.
The paper is the distillation of a discussion between 20 international experts held in Vienna last October. In his foreword, Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the UNODC, says:
“This paper outlines a model of referral from the criminal justice system to the treatment system that is more effective than compulsory treatment”—
I emphasise, more effective. What the paper advocates,
“results in less restriction of liberty, is less stigmatising and offers better prospects for the future of the individual and the society”.
A useful feature of the paper is the list of references to the recent research on which its conclusions are based. I recommend that those in the Home Office and the Department of Health who are responsible for drugs policy pay careful attention to the papers that are cited.
The central message of the document is that drug abusers should be regarded as sick or sad people rather than bad people. This is not to say that they do not get involved in crime or become skilled liars in order to obtain the substances on which they are dependent. The document points out that treating drug users as criminals does not deter them from continuing their habit, and that treatment for drug abuse in a coercive setting is less effective than in a negotiated voluntary setting.
I look forward with interest to the contribution of my noble friend Lady Massey, under whose leadership the National Drug Treatment Agency has greatly increased the availability of treatment. I suspect that she is in sympathy with the approach of the UN document. The National Audit Office reports that numbers in effective treatment in the UK rose from 134,000 to 195,000 between 2004 and 2008. I hope that the noble Baroness can give us some figures on the effectiveness of this and on whether there is evidence that drug-related crime rates have fallen.
There has been increasing and welcome use of the drug rehabilitation requirement, the successor to drug testing and treatment orders, for drug users who have committed an offence. However, the NAO reports a lack of consistent research into its effects. Perhaps better results might be obtained if the social needs of drug offenders, particularly housing and employment, were given more attention. I am aware that the Government are aware of this, but implementation is erratic.
An innovation mentioned in the UN paper is the establishment of special drug courts in some countries. These can be staffed by personnel who are familiar with the special needs and characteristics of drug users, especially their tendency to relapse several times before finally giving up fully.
I commend this report to the Minister, and I hope that its contents will be scrutinised carefully and used to improve not only the lives of drug users but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has said, society as a whole.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this debate on treating drug dependency through healthcare, not punishment. It will be interesting to hear the Government’s response. We are discussing a huge worldwide problem. For some years, I chaired an organisation called Phoenix House, which has several drug rehabilitation houses in the UK; it also operates in Germany and the United States. It can be an alternative to prison, but it is a drop in a very large ocean. Drug abuse reminds me of King Canute, who could not stop the sea coming in. This debate makes me think: how can the worldwide tide of drugs be stemmed? How can the effect of drug abuse be lessened?
I have served on the parliamentary All-Party Group on Drugs Misuse for many years. Some years ago, a god-daughter of mine died of an overdose of drugs and alcohol. She was a graduate of Oxford University. Drug abuse covers all strands of society and causes much heartache and despair. A co-godmother asked me at the funeral, “Couldn’t you have done something to stop this happening?”. I am sure that many of us try to do our best, but being a Member of your Lordships’ House cannot solve all these tragic situations.
For many years, I served as a member of a board of visitors, now called monitors, at a young offender institution. We used to get the odd case of drug abuse, but always alcohol problems. Now, the majority of the young inmates have taken drugs as well as alcohol. The situation is rocketing. Some people will say that you have to get a prison sentence to get treatment, as there are not enough centres for treatment in the community—and of those that there are, many are very expensive. On Sunday, I met a doctor who runs an A&E department in Middlesbrough and asked him how the situation relating to drug abuse is there. He said, “Rough”, but also that as long as it is criminalised it will go on going up. Recently, there have been murders of prostitutes, all of whom were on drugs. Prostitution was the only way that they could afford their addiction.
As a member of the parliamentary groups on prison health, hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, I am pleased that the discussion paper mentions the problem that while,
“people continue to inject drugs and engage in other high-risk activities for the spread of HIV and hepatitis in prison, the prison environment is highly conducive to HIV spread”,
and to TB. It continues:
“The lack of continuity of HIV treatment on entering and leaving prison increases the risk of developing drug resistant strains”,
of the HIV virus and drug-resistant tuberculosis.
Which type of tuberculosis did the prisoner who died in Cardiff prison this April have? Also, what happened to the prisoner with extensively drug-resistant TB who was treated in St George’s Hospital, Tooting, and referred there from Pentonville prison? He originated from Georgia. If these people do not continue taking their drugs, they are exceedingly dangerous to the community where they land up. The mobile X-ray unit that finds and treats hard-to-reach people who may have TB in London, many of whom take drugs, may lose its NHS funding this year. That would be an utter disaster. Many people are already doing vital work treating and helping people with complicated dual-health problems. They need support and funding, as this discussion paper suggests. Health promotion needs expanding. Can the health service and the third sector do it all? That is debatable.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on introducing us to this important discussion paper. I declare an interest as having, over many years, represented and prosecuted in many drugs cases, involving the use and possession of drugs, drug-related crime and the importation of drugs.
The paper accords very closely with Liberal Democrat policy, as set out in the report of the commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Walmsley some years ago. It is a serious problem that costs the economy a huge amount, as the noble Baroness herself pointed out—some £19 billion a year. However, the punitive approach has not proved successful for drug addicts and alternatives must be found to the sanctions of the criminal justice system.
Drug dependency is brought about by a multitude of factors, as set out most clearly in the report. They include a history of social and personal disadvantage; temperament and personality traits; prenatal problems; poor education; adverse childhood experiences that lead to non-existent self-esteem; a lack of bonding within the family that creates social isolation; and, sometimes, psychiatric disorders. Drugs are seen by many such individuals as a panacea to relieve adverse conditions—a form of escapism. We are dealing, in most cases, with vulnerable and damaged individuals.
Heroin does not cause people to become violent, as alcohol does, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, said, it does make people unemployable. It has that great impact on our society, accordingly, of carrying these people along. I remember one defendant being asked, when cross-examined severely by the prosecution for having administered drugs to his girlfriend, who had died, “How do you know she liked it?”. He said, in a chilling way, “Everybody likes heroin”. It was freely available to him, and more available, he told me, in prison than it was outside. That is one of the factors that we must grapple with.
I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in referring to people who take recreational drugs in a moderate way. Those who think that taking cocaine socially is clever should remember that their affluence is promoting the importation of drugs by very serious and dangerous criminals, who do not hesitate to use violence to protect their trade in the cities of this country. As for cannabis, I am afraid I missed the 1960s; I was bringing up a family at the time. However, I recall prosecuting three men for growing cannabis. In fact, what they were growing was agricultural hemp and they had to smoke 10 spliffs to get the effect of one. Nevertheless, they got three years’ imprisonment for it and what that did for them I cannot imagine. Imprisonment exacerbates all the problems. It exposes the individual to older criminals, gangs, illicit drugs within the prison estate—which I referred to—and a worsening addiction which, on release, can be the root cause of further reoffending.
It has been demonstrated that more than half of the prison population in the United Kingdom uses drugs, whether it is heroin or crack. If they are there for just three months, or serving a short sentence of that sort, they cannot be dealt with in any constructive way. No treatment can be effective within that period. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, prison presents additional health problems from HIV to TB to other factors due to overcrowding and prisoners being locked up for substantial periods. These worsen the psychological factors that led to the original drug dependency.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to drug courts, as mentioned in the report. We on these Benches have watched the pilot scheme under which drug courts have been rolled out in England, particularly the west London drug court. Its statistics are impressive. According to Judge Julian Philips, a stipendiary magistrate since 1989 who was appointed judge in the west London drug court in 2005, there has been a drop of 20 per cent in shoplifting in the area. He said that his methods have been extremely effective. Perhaps others can speak about that. A confirmed addict needs £100 for one day’s worth of drugs. That means that he has to fence £400 or £500 worth of stolen goods to feed his addiction. An average addict will commit 127 crimes a year. Following the approach adopted in west London, some 60 per cent of addicts do not reoffend during the course of a court order, and 20 per cent remain drug free. That compares with an average over the country of 3 per cent, as reported by national treatment agencies.
A complete review is needed of how the resources are used. We should not waste money sending drug addicts to prison but use those resources in a positive and constructive way along the lines that this most helpful paper sets out.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I, too, welcome the UNODC discussion paper, and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on securing this very timely debate.
Large numbers of offenders of all ages commit drug or drink offences. I believe that something like 80 per cent of the prison population has a connection with drugs or drink. I do not think that drug dependency is treated in most prisons, so the rate of reoffending is inevitably high and those people are less likely ever to be able to reintegrate into the community. As we all know, drugs are widely available in prisons. I was very shocked to be told yesterday by a barrister who does a lot of prison visiting that prisoners who go in taking cannabis move to heroin because it is less obvious in the blood stream when testing is carried out. They come out of prison heroin addicts. That is a terrible indictment of an element of our prison system.
As regards the human suffering of those who take drugs and those who live with, or are connected with, those who take drugs, there is, of course, a huge effect on families. As the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said in the previous debate, 80 per cent of drug users are on benefits and are, presumably, unemployable. The point that I particularly wish to bring to the attention of the House—it has not yet been referred to—is the effect of drug use on children. They are affected in all sorts of ways. When parents are on drugs, they do not give their children love, care and attention. Children who truant, commit crimes and move into gangs come from dysfunctional families. A substantial group of dysfunctional families in this country are those in which one or both parents take drugs. Children as young as 10 to 12 are recruited as runners and by the time they are 18 are dealers on housing estates. By the time they are 18, they are dealers. That is a terrible aspect of life in some parts of the country.
I do not how many noble Lords know about cannabis farms. Do you know that private houses are rented out to gangs who turn them into cannabis farms? They create one by pulling out all the interior, taking the electricity and water for the spray and heating system, and using polythene. Fortunately, the smell is extremely strong and the police can detect it using infrared technology in helicopters. Thereby, many of the cannabis farms are found. The police discovered a number of cannabis farms in private houses near Heathrow that were being tended by Vietnamese children as young as eight or 10. They had of course been trafficked into this country and all they did was tend cannabis farms in private houses.
It is difficult to know the best way to deal with drug abuse and whether drugs should be decriminalised. One thing is absolutely certain, which encouraged those of us who signed the letter sent by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to Kofi Annan—the present system around the world is not working. It is certainly not working in the United Kingdom. It is costly, time-consuming and is, overall, ineffective, as the noble Baroness told us. The successes in the discovery of loads of drugs only highlight the huge difficulty of keeping up with the inflow of drugs to this country and through this country to other countries. We all know that sentencing, however severe, does not seem to have any deterrent effect on drug abuse.
One possibility might indeed be to decriminalise, but one would have to be extremely brave as the Government of a country to do that in light of the 180 countries that deal with sentencing severely. One only has to go to Singapore and walk into the airport to be told that to carry drugs means death. We are a long way from making Singapore decriminalise drugs.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, said about Afghanistan. For a long time I have wondered why this country, perhaps in concert with other countries, does not buy the entire Afghan production of opium. We know that there is a world shortage of morphine and I should not have thought that it would be difficult to sell at a profit. If we bought it, we would do down the Taliban at one stroke—certainly to a large degree.
The proposals of the UNODC are extremely interesting. There seem to be two ways in which one could go on this: either by keeping the criminal system, whereby offenders go through the courts but do not go to prison; or, preferably, by diverting entirely from the prison system. I cannot believe that setting up a large number of clinics in the United Kingdom could be anything like as costly as keeping the drug addicts in prison and releasing them to reoffend whereby, again and again, they are a charge on the state.
I should like the Government to try out further pilot projects that divert from prisons to alternative remedies. It would be crucial that clinics were free, freely available and properly set up to deal with drug offenders. I urge the Government to do something such as that and see by how far they could cut out the people in prisons.
Lord Adebowale
My Lords, after not speaking for some time in this House, I find myself on my feet twice in the same afternoon. It is a privilege to take part in this debate. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on initiating it. This is a different debate from the usual one we have on substance misuse. It draws our attention to the discussion paper, which is a step forward—but only if we do more than just read it. We have to act on it, of course.
I declare two interests—first, as chief executive of Turning Point, which is probably one of the largest providers of substance misuse services outside the NHS, and as a member of the Government’s ACMD, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
Our current system is questionable; indeed, I think that it is broken. All the evidence points in the direction that substance misuse is best treated through health and social interventions. Substance misuse has roots in an individual’s psychosocial state. For treatment to be effective, the whole of the person needs to be the starting point of intervention. My organisation is incredibly ambitious for our substance misusers. It is a mistake to assume that providers of treatment for substance misusers allow them to languish on methadone without any intention of moving them towards work. That is wrong, certainly in the case of Turning Point and many of my fellow providers of treatment services, both within and outside the NHS.
We know the numbers, but it is worth repeating them. There are 400,000 problematic heroin and crack users in the UK, while 1.5 million people will be significantly affected by a family member’s drug use. I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on her remarks about children. About three years ago, Turning Point produced research showing that one in 11 children goes home to parents who are misusing alcohol. We must not forget the impact on children, as the problem is generational. We know that those children are more likely to fail in education and we know that failure to be educated thoroughly leads to low job attainment and a greater likelihood of ending up in the criminal justice system. The line that can be drawn between substance misuse, criminal justice, poverty and family breakdown is clear and well understood.
Recovery is dependent on the stability of the individual and is more likely if someone has a steady personal relationship, meaningful employment and stable housing. For me, the question has always been how to get people to the position of having the quality of life that makes recovery more likely.
The use of coercive techniques and prison to prevent substance misuse is questionable. When the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, spoke about cannabis, we all laughed, but what she said was interesting. If you are caught with cannabis and happen to live in one of the 14 poorest boroughs, the chances of your ending up being able to give a speech in the House of Lords are severely limited, but if you are a member of the Royal Family or on the Front Bench of either party and you admit publicly that you have used cannabis, you will get off. It is an offence, but the impact is variable, depending on your status. That seems entirely unfair.
Leaving that to one side, I have yet to meet a substance misuser who has benefited from a spell in prison. Some might say it, but I have yet to meet anyone for whom prison as an intervention has been effective in removing their drug problem. Addiction is an irrational state. You can punish people until the cows come home, but you will not move them from their fundamentally irrational position. It does not work in that way.
Also, we are naive to think that prisons are drug free. They are not. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, prison imposes a stigma, but it also imposes a significant heroin problem. A number of clients whom I have known over the years have, immediately on moving out of prison, scored heroin and died, because their tolerance has been reduced by their spell in prison. They have been able to get hold of heroin in prison, but only in smaller amounts; when they come out of prison, they go back on to the dose that they were on before they went in and they die. In that respect, prison kills people.
The use of prison as a sanction for substance misuse is short-sighted and fails to acknowledge the nature of substance misuse. We should pay attention to the challenge not just of illegal drugs but of substance misuse generally. Many sufferers from substance misuse have dual diagnosis: they have mental health problems as well as substance misuse problems. It seems rather obvious that, if you decide to be in or are forced into a position where you are killing yourself through the misuse of any drug, you are probably challenged in terms of your mental health. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has suggested that approximately half of all clients in substance misuse services have some form of mental health condition, most commonly depression or a personality disorder. Prisons simply are not suitable places in which to manage personality or mental health disorders. Nevertheless, some people who misuse drugs will end up in prison because they commit heinous crimes. We must ensure that these people are given adequate support to address the root of their personal problems, and this means that health and social care interventions within prisons are a must.
My own organisation, Turning Point, was one of the first to pilot the drug courts programme in Wakefield. We campaigned for many years to get drug courts established because we saw the impact that they had on individuals and their ability to turn people away from substance misuse, and indeed the criminal justice system, towards work and a normal life.
The document that has been drawn to the attention of the House is not the only one that looks at drug treatment. My organisation has signed up to a drug treatment consensus, which has also been signed up to by many leading drug treatment providers. This consensus document encourages the coalition Government to remember that there is more to drug treatment than getting someone off drugs or stabilising them on methadone, which often ends up being the focus of the debate. Rather, we should consider the needs of the individual. Recovery from addiction is a journey on which there are different paths. However, when it comes to addressing their addiction, for some people it is better also to address what is influencing it in the first place. That is seen in the ambition of the signatories to the drug treatment consensus for those with substance misuse problems, although we acknowledge that methadone is a step on the journey towards recovery from heroin addiction.
Although it is an interesting issue, it is worth pointing out that I am not too concerned about having a debate on whether or not to legalise drugs. In a society with a system of legalised drug misuse, would we not have addicts? We would, and we would still be faced with the challenge of what to do with them. That is at the centre of this debate. However, let us move away from illegal substances and draw attention to the legal ones. Alcohol specialist treatment services are much needed.
Solutions to this problem do exist. Often they are denied not because of a lack of evidence—the evidence is there—but because of moral panic and a desire to play to the gallery. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to set aside moral relativity and to focus on the evidence and the interests of those who suffer from this terrible problem.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for introducing this debate with such thoughtfulness. The previous speeches have been so fascinating that I am only sorry that we cannot spend more time on this very complex topic.
I begin by declaring an interest as the chair of the National Treatment Agency for substance misuse. The NTA was set up in 2001 with the aim of doubling the numbers in treatment and reducing waiting times. I am glad to say that these targets were achieved early. However, we are alive to and will address the issues that remain. As an organisation, we work across the health, criminal justice, education and welfare ministries and systems. Drug use everywhere has to be tackled across systems and not by one system alone.
Any addiction is a public health concern, and I am very interested in the coalition Government’s intention to improve public health through a new public health delivery system. Public health, of course, involves family and community issues, as well as housing, employment and education.
The UNODC paper takes a somewhat polarised view and approach, using terms such as treatment being an,
“alternative to criminal justice sanctions”.
I would say that we need effective treatment systems but that we also need effective criminal justice systems where treatment is available. I have worked in countries where the situation is polarised and where prison, labour camps and compulsory treatment centres are the norm. That is not the case in the UK and I want to give some examples.
There has been a dramatic expansion of our drug treatment arrangements over the past nine years due to more money being put into the system. The money has been there largely to fight crime but it has also benefited health. The number of people in England completing treatment and being free from dependency has increased from 9,000 to 25,000 per year. Offenders are systematically referred into treatment, preventing millions of crimes each year and saving costs. England now engages more than 60 per cent of the most problematic drug users in society in treatment, compared with less than 20 per cent in the USA. There are some success stories.
There is an emphasis on two things in the UNODC paper: one is outcomes and the other is evidence-based approaches. Many countries have not had drug strategies. England has a drug strategy against which outcomes can be measured and evidence bases set out. We know that drug users commit crimes to fund their habit; we know they often have other health, social and educational problems, as many noble Lords have said; and we know that each user is different and that successful treatment will address those differences. Recent debates in the media might suggest that treatment for drug use involves a simple choice between an abstinence-only approach and one based on methadone prescribing or other substitute prescribing. Individual users often do not subscribe to ideologies; they use.
The starting point for the NTA is that the majority of addicts want to overcome their addiction and get off drugs. We need a treatment system that helps them to realise that ambition. It may take time. It may take many attempts and different approaches in order for recovery to take place. Users want to recover from addiction. For some, this will be with the help of substitute prescribing or residential rehabilitation and for others it will be detoxification or community services. The NTA has long supported psychological and pharmacological interventions provided by multi-professional teams, as recommended in the UNODC document. Does the Minister agree that that approach is more appropriate than secure accommodation for offenders and drug abstinence orders?
I want to speak briefly of two initiatives in which the NTA has been involved where improvements have been made. One has been the development of the treatment outcomes profile. This is an individual client monitoring tool to reflect progress in an individual's drug treatment. It has received international recognition and was praised in the Lancet last year. It is a simple tool which motivates self-analysis and a change in habits.
The other initiative is the integrated drug treatment system in prison. It was developed to bring together the fragmented delivery of drug treatment in prisons and to ensure that drug misusers could access a range of evidence-based services which are clinically appropriate to the individual. As has been said already, more than half of those in prison are heroin and crack users who will remain in custody for three months or less. They are not in the system long enough to undergo abstinence-only regimes. Good clinical practice is to continue the treatment that the prisoner had before arrest, or prepare them for the treatment that they will receive on release. Not to do so leaves that population vulnerable to suicide or overdose on leaving prison, which is not a healthy option. The Integrated Drug Treatment System means that many offenders are being released into the community having been successfully engaged in drug treatment and not needing to go back to a life of crime. I have visited many prisons involved in this scheme and professionals and users alike speak highly of the system. If noble Lords are interested, there is an NHS/NTA short report called Breaking the Link, which addresses the issue.
So it is not a case of either coercion or cohesion, as suggested by the title of the UNODC paper, From Coercion to Cohesion. It is a case of having a strategy and a policy which address individual health and social needs and which, in turn, have a positive impact on crime, on families and on communities.
Lord Cobbold
My Lords, this document from UNODC is the dawn of a new era. It calls for drug dependence to be treated through healthcare not punishment. For 50 years the United Nations has underwritten the war on drugs and its conventions have inhibited member countries from adopting alternative strategies. Now our task is to challenge Her Majesty's Government to acknowledge this change and, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Meacher, to take a lead in setting up a conference of UN member countries to discuss how the new policy can best be implemented. Many member countries have already experimented with the substitution of a health-oriented approach in place of prohibition, and they should all be invited to share their experiences at the proposed conference.
The common sense and valid arguments in favour of decriminalisation and regulation are well known. Decriminalisation means that drugs will be treated in a similar way to alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. It would ensure quality control and reduce the role of the criminal gangs that now control the international market.
However, in current deficit circumstances, an especial benefit would be financial. We and other Governments are desperately looking for sources of finance to extract ourselves from the recession. It is estimated that the war on drugs costs this country about £18 billion per annum. According to the Prison Reform Trust in its prison briefing of May 2010, the prison system as a whole has been overcrowded in every year since 1994 and the overall average cost per prison place is £45,000. About 55 per cent of those received into custody are problematic drug users. We are also told that 49 per cent of adults are reconvicted within one year of being released and, for those serving sentences of less than 12 months, that increases to 61 per cent. It is difficult not to deduce from those figures that prisoners are well looked after in prison and can probably fulfil their drug needs more easily there than in the open market. Clearly, if drugs were to become a healthcare issue, there would be increased costs from the provision of rehabilitation and treatment centres, but there would be an immediate benefit from new taxation and savings from prison and legal costs. In our current circumstances, the financial arguments are very strong.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the success of her dealings with the UNODC and hope that our new coalition Government will respond positively.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, I add my voice to those of others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her untiring efforts to change UN drugs policy. The UN thinks that she can change the world, and I have to tell your Lordships that, after many years’ experience, it is wholly right.
The past 10 years has seen some modest reduction in harms. I pay tribute to the work of the National Treatment Agency in getting so many more people into treatment and care, but there is no doubt that our current emphasis on the criminalisation policy, which we have pursued here and abroad with minimal accompanying strategies on prevention and care, has been unhelpful. At the moment, we spend less than 7 per cent of the drugs budget on healthcare and less than 0.5 per cent on research into effective prevention and treatment strategies. There are no formal figures on how much is spent on education. Those figures alone must make us pause and rethink in the way that the noble Baroness advocated today.
I return briefly to the differences between decriminalisation and legalisation, which are seriously different strategies. Around the world, we know now, especially from studies in the United States, in different states' policies, and in Australia, that eliminating criminal penalties for possession of small quantities of drugs has no effect on the prevalence of drug use. That is true for marijuana and it is probably true for hard drugs as well, although I have to say that only Spain and Italy among major industrialised countries have tried it, and they do not collect outcome statistics that are in any way meaningful, so there is a serious problem there.
I love the story of the American academic researcher MacCoun, who works at Berkeley in California. He asked his undergraduate students whether they would be in favour of California removing penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana. About two-thirds said yes, and the rest were opposed. Almost none knew that it had occurred 25 years ago.
Decriminalisation is not the same as legalisation, which allows some form of regulated sales or distribution, and of which there is only one contemporary example: the well known Dutch model of de facto legalisation which began in 1976. There is no instance of legal commercial access to cocaine or heroin in a modern, industrialised nation. Switzerland has probably come nearer than most and has concentrated significantly on improving health and reducing criminality among participants in its heroin prescription programme but, again, more rigorous research is needed.
Nevertheless, we can blame prohibition for much of the crime and violence around the illicit drug markets, for a large fraction of drug overdoses and drug-related illnesses and for corruption and the violation of civil liberties. However, other harms are due to the drugs themselves and the influence they have on the user’s health and behaviour. Legalisation would eliminate the harms caused by prohibition, but it would not eliminate the harms caused by drug use. Thus, there is a trade off. If average harm went down under legalisation without an increase in use, we would clearly be better off than we are today, but if legalisation produced a significantly large increase in total use, total drug harm would go up, even if each incident of use became somewhat safer. Total harm can rise, even if average harm goes down. It is true to say that at present there is no firm basis for projecting the relative magnitudes of these effects.
What we need to do is perhaps to have some decriminalisation, but to refocus on the prevention and treatment strategy. President Obama’s adviser, Thomas McClellan, has given many talks in this country and has described very well the new prevention strategy focusing predominantly on school and adolescent education, the re-engagement of parents, constant police monitoring and the involvement of all community organisations that come across young people. They are all pushing a specific message. I should remind noble Lords that drug addiction and misuse start between the ages of 10 and 21. Practically no one becomes an addict after that point. It is therefore very clear where we can focus our prevention strategies.
Overcoming addiction is very difficult. We know that compulsory coercion in the criminal justice system and compulsory treatment do not work. However, there are good forms of coercion. People need to take an active part in the choices that they make. That is part of the NHS commitment to all patients. They need to make active choices, and there are good forms of negotiation and coercion that can get people happily into treatment as a voluntary act. We should use coercion in the good sense of negotiating with individuals and asking what we can do to help them in their lives to make it sensible for them to come in and stick with the treatment. It is a long, hard graft and covers all the other issues that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, so eloquently described, but it is well worth it for the good outcomes that we can achieve.
Lord Brett
My Lords, I should add to the chorus of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for bringing forward this debate. It echoes the debate on 22 January last year when we heard many of the same strands. I was sitting where the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is now sitting, and I found the power of the arguments from the Cross Benches, in particular, somewhat more overwhelming than parts of my brief.
We owe a debt of gratitude to all colleagues who have taken part. I do not want to be the purveyor of buckets of cold water to throw over the enthusiasms of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but 14 years in the UN system taught me that conferences and discussion papers come and go. This is not a policy statement; it is not a strategy; it is not even a position paper; it is a discussion paper. It is no less valuable a step forward for that, but it has to be seen as something that will not necessarily lead to any immediate change. In the UN system, those are two words that cannot occur in the same sentence. But I expect the coalition Government—I think that we will see this—to look more seriously at enhanced healthcare solutions and decriminalisation. Much of the evidence coming forward in this debate is telling us what is wrong with our present system—about which, the truth is, I think that we have had our doubts. Whatever our capacity over a period, the question is always how we should move forward and deal with it.
I was much impressed by the contributions of several noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, told us that this was very much Lib Dem policy, to which I will come back in a minute. I should particularly like to relate to the contribution made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who brought children, who are very important, into the discussion. The debate was also sobering—if not by cold water, but by at least a chill—in pointing out the difficulties that we would have with decriminalisation in terms of any United Nations or international areas.
The noble and learned Baroness also posed a question, which I think was also asked in the debate on 22 January 2009, about why we cannot simply buy the crop of poppies from Afghanistan and make that country free from the opium production that is so much an issue there and far beyond. The answer is simply that the Government of Afghanistan do not believe that they could operate a licit system. If it is an economic argument, that needed for medical production could be produced at half the cost by Australia. What can appear to be a simple solution to many of these cases can turn out to be very difficult.
I was very grateful to my noble friend Lady Massey for setting out the improvements that have been made. They are not as much as any of us would wish in terms of solving the problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, also pointed to some of those difficulties.
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, I am interested in the Lib Dem policy. When we discussed it on 22 January 2009, the then spokesman for the Opposition referred to several noble Lords, at least one of whom has taken part in this debate, as being in favour of the prospect of decriminalisation. She said:
“That is a perfectly respectable view. It is not one that I share, because we are an enormously long way from being able to do that”.—[Official Report, 22/1/09; col. 1798.]
That was the view of what is the major party to the current coalition. Will the Minister confirm whether that is still the policy?
Secondly, in the discussion that will no doubt take place on this interesting and valuable report, will the Minister indicate what discussions will take place with our European colleagues? In many of these areas, influence at the international level is much better when done in concert with our European colleagues than when we do it on our own. That would help us to move forward.
Thirdly, no one can expect a very detailed response from the Government tonight on a report which came out in March and was followed by a general election taking place in May. I was interested very much in the suggestion that there might be a return to this discussion at a later date when the Government’s policies are more clearly thought through and their solutions more to hand.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brett, not for a bucket of cold water—rather, I think, for a lifeline for me in responding to this debate. I will certainly take back the point about discussions with European colleagues because it is a very sound suggestion. One of the problems that I now face is that I have 12 minutes. Noble Lords will have seen notes coming from the Box, and I have been taking notes myself that amount to more than 20 pages. I could probably cover a good hour in responding. However, I will make sure that we produce from these notes and the points raised a response that will go to all participants in this debate and to the Library of the House. Taking on board the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, and that made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, earlier, yes, I will make an absolute commitment that we will have another debate on this issue when the Government have bedded down a little more and have more to say on this matter.
The speakers list to which I will now respond is a checklist of the depth and breadth of experience available to the House on this topic, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for promoting the debate and to her and other noble Lords’ success in influencing the UN to produce the report that has provided its basis. The noble Baroness said in opening the debate that no serious policy-maker can ignore this paper. I can assure her, as a fairly new serious policy-maker, that I do not ignore it and neither will I ignore what has been said in the debate. It is timely and relevant.
Drugs are a scourge in our society. The Centre for Social Justice has identified addiction as one of the main factors linked to social breakdown. Drugs destroy lives and undermine the potential of our youth. Drug addiction feeds crime. Between a third and a half of all acquisitive crime such as burglary is drug-related, and drugs also drive street prostitution, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. This Government are convinced that tackling the problem of drugs is a priority.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded me of that old American saying, “If it works, don’t try and fix it”, because the corollary of that logic is that if it does not work, try something else. Where are we today? Many speakers have referred to the grim statistics. There are at least 330,000 problem drug users—those who use heroin and crack cocaine in the UK. The cost of drugs to our society is enormous. It is around £15 billion overall, of which nearly £14 billion is attributed to drug-related crime. In response, we have been spending around £1.2 billion on various interventions by health services, by the police, in prisons and through our probation services. On average, we estimate that 55 per cent of prison entrants have a serious drug problem, but as has been referred to, many are given short sentences with little time to enter into any serious rehabilitation. We believe that a better balance has to be struck.
Many drug users who leave prison do so with no supervision. Links to the community are there, through healthcare and drug intervention programmes, but too often the join-up is missing. We need to build on approaches such as the integrated offender management programme and innovative work that is being done in the voluntary sector, such as mentoring. Offenders must not fall through the net when they leave prison.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Rea and Lord Mancroft, all referred to the drug courts, which are also mentioned in the UN report. Drug courts that support community orders and challenge offenders’ progress through them are starting to develop. Initial results from two courts have been positive, and a full evaluation of four further drug-court pilots is due this autumn. The drug interventions programme has also made real progress by getting those who come into contact with the criminal justice system into treatment early. An evaluation has shown that overall volumes of offending fell by 26 per cent among those studied from this group, and we know that people who enter this treatment through the criminal justice system do as well on it as those who enter voluntarily.
The paper from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime supports the rationale of engaging drug users in treatment rather than relying on punishment alone. Healthcare and support services play a vital role in addressing drug misuse and drug-related crime. Without them, we would stand no hope of getting offenders off drugs. However, we have to carry public opinion with us, including the public opinion at the other end of this building, and we must not lose sight of the impact that this offending has on victims and our wider communities. Offenders must be made to take responsibility for the harm they have caused. Sentencing and tough sanctions should reinforce the treatment that needs to be available in prisons and in the community.
What should be said loud and clear, however, is that treatment for drug misusers is an essential part of our approach and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made clear, it is cost-effective. A Home Office study estimated that the benefit for all drug treatments stands at around £2.50 for every £1 spent. As I have said, there is now substantial investment in drug-strategy interventions, and a large proportion of that is allocated to drug treatment. However, I am clear that treatment should not become an end in itself, creating a culture of dependency on state-funded methadone maintenance programmes. I was reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, said on this point.
The current approach in this country reflects the broad approach endorsed by the paper. However, we must avoid reading into the paper opinions that it does not express. It is not a blank-cheque endorsement of decriminalising or legalising drug use. The Government’s approach, with the purpose of rehabilitating offenders, will use sentencing and criminal justice services to move them into treatment with the clear goal of turning their lives around, possibly with the incentive of reduced or community-based sentencing if they co-operate. We believe that legalisation takes no account of the consequences of the significant increase in use that might follow and the Government have no intention of legalising the so-called recreational use of any currently controlled drugs. I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said about it being a hobby for the rich which finances organised crime.
Our priority is to ensure that investment in treatment provides the best results. That means we must improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the treatment framework in place, including making better use of the voluntary sector. I am very impressed by the range of initiatives within the voluntary sector. This is not an excuse for avoiding the Treasury axe because there is a synergy to be built between what the Government are trying to do and what the voluntary sector can do.
Our programme in government is to take a fresh look at rehabilitation to ensure that sentencing for drug use helps offenders come off drugs, and to explore alternative forms of secure, treatment-based accommodation for drug offenders. We want to develop community sentences so that more offenders finish them drugs-free. We want to make sure that prisons are places where offenders address their drug misuse, not where their problems get worse.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about prisons. My officials are sending me encouraging statistics to show how hard they are working to tackle the problem of drugs in prisons and I shall include these in my round-robin letter.
We want to work with voluntary and private organisations to tackle the root cause of reoffending. Again I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, said about these problems often beginning in social and family backgrounds. We want to reduce reoffending through improved management of offenders and to strengthen and empower communities and the voluntary sector to manage those offenders who cause suffering to their local areas.
If we are going to carry public opinion with us on these matters, we have to realise that as well as drugs misuse being a terrible problem for the drug taker and their family and children, it is a terrible problem for the absolutely innocent member of the community who may be burgled or mugged when they come across the need of the drug taker to feed their habit through crime. We have to take them along with us if we are going to get support for the kind of approach that has been so widely advocated around the House tonight. Our approach will not abandon punishment or the criminal justice system but afford priority to treatment and rehabilitation, offering better prospects for the individuals concerned, for communities and for society as a whole.
I know that this position will not meet every hope and aspiration expressed by noble Lords, but I hope that they will see that our direction of travel takes account of the views expressed in the UN discussion paper, as well as the work done in this country and abroad by think tanks and NGOs. I can assure noble Lords that what has been said today will be studied by me and my colleagues in all the government departments concerned. My final pledge is: I will return.