House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I should like to make a short statement following the announcement from Clarence house today of the engagement of Prince William to Miss Catherine Middleton. I am sure that Members from both sides of the House will join me in congratulating the couple on this most happy occasion, and wishing them all the very best for their future together.
Oral Answers to Questions
(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Office of Tax Simplification.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
May I add my congratulations to the couple and say that we wish them every happiness? I am not sure that they will be particularly interested in this answer, but I hope that the House will be.
The Office of Tax Simplification was created by the coalition Government in July to reduce the complexity of a tax code that has doubled in size over the past decade. Last week, the office produced a comprehensive list of the 1,042 reliefs that now exist in the tax system. By the time of next year’s Budget, we will have received its advice on which reliefs can be simplified or abolished to be consistent with the Government’s wider objectives.
Michael Ellis
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing the Office of Tax Simplification. He will be aware that the tax system in this country is labyrinthine in its complexity, and small businesses in my constituency of Northampton North have been adversely affected by it. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the new Office of Tax Simplification will sort out this complexity sooner rather than later?
Mr Osborne
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. A few months ago, he and I visited some small businesses in his constituency, many of which were suffering under the burden of a tax code that has grown from 4,900-odd pages in 1997 to 11,500 pages today. The Office of Tax Simplification is specifically looking at the taxation of small businesses as well as at the issue of tax reliefs. The small business report will be coming out later next year, but we will get an interim report in time for the Budget.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I add the congratulations of this side of the House to Prince William and Catherine Middleton on their engagement. If they need a photographer, I understand that there is one available now. There has been a nice juxtaposition of announcements this morning. Does the Chancellor think that he is aiding tax simplification by raising VAT to a nice round 20%, and does he agree with his Cabinet colleague, the Business Secretary, who once described an increase in VAT as
“a tax on the poor to absolve the sins of the rich.” ?
Mr Osborne
I have to say to the shadow Chancellor that his position on VAT is completely incoherent. It is well known that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), was planning a VAT increase, had pressed the Prime Minister at the time for a VAT increase, and—he is in the Chamber so perhaps he can confirm this—when asked about it on “The Andrew Marr Show” after the election, said that of course he would have gone ahead with one.
Alan Johnson
That was not the question. The fact that one looks at every available tax before reaching a conclusion is nothing new. The conclusion we reached is that VAT should not be increased and that national insurance should be. The Liberal Democrats have been very fair in the way that they have betrayed the electorate. They have broken promises across the age divide—children, students and pensioners—so there is no age discrimination there. The Conservatives specifically said that they would not increase VAT. During the election campaign, we said that if they did not increase national insurance, they would increase VAT. The Prime Minister denied that and said that they had no plans to increase VAT. He said that VAT was
“very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest”.
I can promise Members that it does. We are now in the unique situation in which we face a tax rise that our Prime Minister has promised will affect “the poorest the hardest”. At the time, the Conservatives said that an increase in national insurance would be “a tax on jobs”. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said that it would lead to 75,000 jobs being lost while an increase in VAT would cost 250,000 jobs.
Alan Johnson
Why is the Chancellor proceeding with this tax on jobs that hits the poorest the hardest?
Mr Osborne
This is what the former Chancellor said on “The Andrew Marr Show”. Andrew Marr said:
“We now read from Peter Mandelson’s book”—
remember, he was in the Cabinet with the shadow Chancellor—
“that you were quite keen on the idea of VAT going up.”
Alistair Darling replied, “Well yeah, obviously”.
We have taken the decisions necessary to restore some fiscal credibility to this country. We have a leaked memo from the shadow Chancellor’s office. It states:
“Fiscal discipline is if anything more essential in opposition than it is in government.”
That is from the shadow Chancellor’s office, but the truth is that he cannot tell us where a penny of his £44 billion spending cuts would come from. He had two tax policies until the weekend—on graduates and 50p—and announced that he did not agree with them. Frankly, until he gets his act together and comes forward with a credible economic policy, he will not be heard.
Mr Speaker
Order. From now on, first of all, exchanges must be shorter. Secondly, let it be clear beyond doubt that Ministers answer for the policies of the Government, not for those of the Opposition. That is the end of the matter.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
2. What fiscal measures he has introduced to provide assistance for pensioners since his appointment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, if I dare ask for it, I should like to answer this question with questions 6 and 7.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
6. What fiscal measures he has introduced to provide assistance for pensioners since his appointment.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
7. What fiscal measures he has introduced to provide assistance for pensioners since his appointment.
Mr Osborne
Even in these constrained times, the coalition Government have been able to find additional assistance for pensioners. We have re-linked the basic state pension to earnings and provided a triple guarantee that the basic state pension will be raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5% from next April. We have also protected other key pensioner benefits and made the previous Government’s temporary pre-election increase in cold weather payments permanent, because this Government treat pensioners with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
Nigel Adams
I am grateful to the Chancellor for that reply. Many pensioners and those approaching pension age in my constituency of Selby and Ainsty will welcome his words, but will he tell me what will be the impact in future years of the link to earnings in respect of the basic state pension?
Mr Osborne
First, next year, the pension will be linked to the retail prices index number for September—4.6%. That will be a welcome support for pensioners from April. However, I should make the broader point that of course, re-linking pensions and guaranteeing through our commitment that they will go up either in line with earnings or prices, or by 2.5%, is a really substantial boost for pensioners. That reflects the fact that many pensioners have worked hard and saved hard all their lives. I am glad that that was one of the first policy announcements of this coalition Government.
Mr Osborne
The spending review set out a £470 million package of support for the voluntary sector, including an endowment fund and a transition fund. In addition, the big society bank, which will be funded by dormant bank accounts, will provide a new source of finance for the sector. The Government completely understand the incredible role that such organisations play in supporting elderly people in our community, and we want to help them to do so.
Nick de Bois
Many pensioners in my constituency have made representations to me because they are fed up with having to buy annuities at 75. What plans does the Chancellor have to change the flexibility of that policy?
Mr Osborne
We will remove the requirement to purchase an annuity by the age of 75. Draft legislation will be published in December, and we want the new rules in place by 2011, although we have also introduced transitional arrangements to help those who have reached the age of 75 since I made the announcement in the Budget. We think that people who have been responsible enough to save through their working lives are responsible enough to handle their savings in retirement.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor commit to working closely with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) to introduce the universal, flat-rate, minimum pension for all citizens as quickly as possible?
Mr Osborne
Yes, absolutely. The Treasury is working with the Department for Work and Pensions on potential pension reform that could simplify pensions and provide a boost to pensioners for many years to come.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
Pensioners, including many of those on low incomes, spend a disproportionate amount of their income on fuel. The Chancellor made the point about the winter fuel allowance, which was very welcome, but will he make it clear to the gas and electricity suppliers that, when they raise fuel costs above anything justified by wholesale prices, as they always do, the Government will take action, hopefully by threatening them with fiscal measures, including taxing them?
Mr Osborne
I agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman said. It is important that the utility companies—the gas companies—are as quick to pass on to their customers the cuts in the wholesale price of gas as they seem to be in passing on increases. We are looking at the whole electricity market—because, of course, many pensioners receive their heating through electricity—and considering what we can do to better insulate people from price fluctuations that can cause havoc to family budgets.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
3. How many child trust funds have been set up in respect of looked-after children since such funds were introduced.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
Local authorities report to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs all children coming into their care, and if a child does not already have a child trust fund, one is opened for them. Between April 2005 and April 2009, HMRC opened child trust fund accounts for 16,676 children.
Bill Esterson
Does the Minister agree that improving the life chances of all looked-after children should be an absolute priority for the Government, and will she consider supporting the amendments tabled to the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill that address the issue of child trust funds for looked-after children?
Justine Greening
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are taking legislation through the House to get rid of the child trust funds. We think it is vital to support looked-after children, but the question is how best to do that while also tackling our fiscal deficit. We have come to the conclusion that what looked-after children need is support today, and that is what we will provide. Over the spending review period, £7 billion will go to supporting the most disadvantaged children in our country, including looked-after children. He will be aware that in the Department for Education, Eileen Munro is leading an inquiry into how social care can work better, including the support of looked-after children, and finally he will be aware that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be considering proposals to bring forward a junior individual savings account, from which we will specifically ensure that looked-after children can benefit.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is appallingly disingenuous of Labour Members to posture as the friends of child savings, having left every man, woman and child in this country with debts of more than £22,000 each?
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister, who is a dexterous Minister, will relate her answer to the policy of the Government, not that of the Opposition.
Justine Greening
I think it is a shame. The best thing we can do for all our children, including looked-after children, is to build a stronger country in which they can grow up and enter the workplace. I am afraid that it simply is not good enough to duck the serious questions of the day, which include sorting out not only our economy, but our broken welfare system, which does those looked-after children no service either.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Minister take time to remind the House of the Government’s manifesto commitment in the May general election to retain the child trust fund for the poorest third of children in society? Does she accept that looked-after children predominantly will fall into that poorest third? Will she therefore consider the amendments to the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill so that she can meet her manifesto commitments, or will it be a case, again, of hitting the poorest hardest?
Justine Greening
I do not accept that we did not follow our manifesto commitment. The House had another difficult debate on Second Reading of the Bill, and yet again the Labour party seemed to want simply to ignore the challenges that our country faces. In doing so, it does the public a disservice.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
5. What the evidential basis is for his Department’s estimate of the additional tax revenue to accrue by 2014-15 from expenditure on measures to address tax evasion and avoidance, and fraud and debt.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs routinely measures and monitors various performance matrix, including yield-to-cost ratios and a number of statistical models. These were used as part of the spending review process to estimate the effect of investing resource to support its compliance strategy. On the basis of this analysis, HMRC estimates that the additional expenditure of £900 million over the spending review period will result in an extra £7 billion of yield per year by 2014-15.
Mr Ward
I thank the Minister for his answer. I guess that Members from both sides of the House would welcome the £900 million sprat that is being used to catch a £7 billion mackerel. However, I understand that the £42 billion gap caused by avoidance, evasion and fraud still exists. Are the Government doing enough, and do we need to do more?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that issue. We think that the number is very high and that it is possible to find savings in HMRC’s budget. However, there have been specific proposals for where HMRC has identified that it could recover large levels of yield, and this Government have been happy to provide the funding to do that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am sure that the Government will be aware of the growing public outrage at the fact that a company such as Vodafone seems to have been able more or less to decide the size of its own tax bill, and, in doing so, is rumoured to have avoided a sum as high as £6 billion. Do the Government agree that we need far more transparency and accountability when it comes to such backroom deals with large companies, or are we now entering a world where only the little people pay their taxes?
Mr Gauke
This Government are determined to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance, but the Vodafone deal was a matter for HMRC, and it is right that the Government are not involved in such negotiations. I hope that the hon. Lady will not be aligning herself with those involved in campaigns to close down Vodafone shops. The fact is that companies should pay the correct amount of tax, but she should not believe everything she reads.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Tax avoidance and tax evasion would be less prevalent if we had a simpler and fairer tax system. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider following the policy of the noble Lord Lawson, which was to abolish complicated tax breaks in order to finance lower marginal rates.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
8. What steps he is taking to review the regulation of credit rating agencies.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The coalition Government support greater regulation of credit rating agencies. The credit rating agency regulation came into force in the EU, including in the UK, on 7 December 2009. The UK authorities continue to be active in both the EU and G20 processes, including in negotiations on amending the credit rating agency regulation and in examining ways to reduce our reliance on credit ratings for regulatory and official purposes.
Mr Umunna
These obviously follow on from the proposals of Jacques de Larosière. One problem that has been identified with the rating agencies is the conflict of interest issue. I think that we should move to a “buyer pays” model. The other issue is a lack of competition in the credit ratings market. Michel Barnier, the EU Commissioner, has floated the idea of having an EU credit rating agency, which I think is a thoroughly good idea. Does the Minister agree?
Mr Hoban
Of course there are areas where more work needs to be done, and the hon. Gentleman is right that Michel Barnier has made further proposals, in a consultation paper that he published earlier this year. They included looking at the business models for credit rating agencies. However, I question whether taxpayers in Europe would feel it right that their money should be going to fund credit rating agencies.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Is it not a cause for cautious optimism that agencies such as Fitch, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have now given the UK such an excellent credit rating?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it just goes to show that credit rating agencies do not get it wrong all the time. In May, Standard & Poor’s put the UK’s credit rating on a “negative outlook”, as a consequence of the previous Government’s policies. However, in October it said that
“the coalition parties have shown a high degree of cohesion in putting the U.K.’s public finances onto what we view to be a more sustainable footing.”
We welcome those comments.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in reducing the budget deficit.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Office for Budget Responsibility will update its forecast of the deficit on 29 November, taking into account the spending review. Other assessments have backed the Government’s plans, with the International Monetary Fund, for example, stating that our consolidation plan
“greatly reduces the risk of a costly loss of confidence in fiscal sustainability and will help rebalance the economy”.
That backs our view that the spending review was fair and supports growth.
Philip Davies
One of the big winners from the comprehensive spending review was, of course, the European Union. The EU has not had its accounts signed off by auditors for 16 years running, so if the Government are looking for a popular way to reduce the deficit, may I suggest that they go to the EU and say that it will not get another penny-piece out of the UK until it has had its accounts signed off?
Danny Alexander
Of course, the European Court of Auditors report, which fails to qualify the accounts for the 16th year in succession, is disappointing, as my hon. Friend observes. We will continue to champion reform through engagement with European institutions and other member states. It is worth him bearing in mind that the Government’s most important priority for the forthcoming budget negotiations is to reduce and to keep under control the EU budget, not just next year, but in subsequent years, in recognition of the fact that many EU countries are facing tough financial circumstances, as we are.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s reckless choice to cut deep and fast at home means that UK jobs and growth are now reliant on achieving booming exports on a scale not seen for more than 60 years. We know that Europe is our single largest export market. Will the Minister share with the House the latest evidence of the growth of demand in that market?
Danny Alexander
There is evidence of export growth in many sectors of the economy, and the Government have played a significant role in promoting exports, as the recent trade delegation to China showed. The hon. Lady has a poor record of predicting the economy. In April 2008, she was engaged in a debate that observed that there was an extreme bubble in the housing market. She described that as a “colourful and lurid fiction” that
“has no bearing on the macro-economic reality.”—[Official Report, 2 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 825.]
I would rather take the forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility than hers.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The CSR is virtually silent on privatisation’s contribution to reducing the deficit. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that those receipts, which normally score in the accounts as negative spending, as he knows, will, when they come, be additional to and not a substitute for the spending reductions already announced in the CSR?
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has revised upwards its forecast of the number of jobs lost in the public sector. It also suggests that the VAT increase will raise unemployment in the private sector. Reputable forecasting organisations, including the CBI, suggest that there will be an increase in unemployment overall in the next year. Does the Chief Secretary now accept that unemployment will increase as a result of the CSR, and is that why the Government have bumped off the autumn forecast of the OBR to the end of this month?
Danny Alexander
I am content to rely on the forecast of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which forecasts a reduction of 490,000 over the next four years in the head count in the public sector, but a net increase of jobs in the private sector of 1.6 million, leading to additional jobs being created in the economy. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will look forward, as I do, to its forecast on 29 November.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
10. What recent steps he has taken to increase levels of bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Government have increased and extended the enterprise finance guarantee to support lending to small businesses. We have increased our share of the enterprise capital fund to enable extra investment in start up for small businesses, and we have encouraged the new business growth fund set up by the banks. But more needs to be done to ensure that the banks are lending to small and medium-sized businesses. It is a complex issue with no single answer, but it is crucial to our recovery, and my hon. Friend has my assurance that this is a key priority.
Mr Binley
I thank the Chancellor for that answer. Lionverge, a Northampton company employing 80 people, had an overdraft with Barclays of £70,000, backed by security of £130,000. A new manager was recently appointed, and in August he wrote to the company doubling the security, and cutting the overdraft by £20,000 with further cuts of £10,000 a month to end the facility. The company had not defaulted, no warning was given, and no other options were offered. What can the Chancellor do to stop such unacceptable bank practices that undermine the Government’s growth strategy?
Mr Osborne
I recently met the leading chief executives of our largest banks, and they have come forward with proposals to improve the way they treat their customers, and to increase their lending to small businesses. We welcome the fund that they have set up. As I said, there is still more to do. The issue is complex, and one complexity has been the uncertainty of international regulation and how much capital and liquidity banks need. At the G20 that took place recently in South Korea, there was at last agreement on the new international rules, and a very lengthy transition period to them. I hope that British banks will take heed of that, and as a result, be able to increase their lending to small businesses.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Why is the Chancellor so afraid to make the banks play their full part in picking up the mess that they created? He has refused to do anything about the excessive bonuses, and we read in the paper that he is about to U-turn on the publication of remuneration. We also read that he is climbing down on the bank levy and, in his answer to the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), he is now suggesting that it is too complex to make the banks lend to small businesses. The Government are not afraid to hit children and families with cutbacks, but if we are all in this together, why is the Chancellor letting the banks off the hook?
Mr Osborne
One does wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past couple of years. We are picking up the pieces of the biggest banking crash of our lifetimes, caused by the poor regulation of the previous Government. Since coming to office, we have announced major changes in regulation, putting the Bank of England in charge—which we still do not know whether the Opposition support—and a permanent bank levy, which was opposed by every single Labour Member during the general election. We are determined to sort out the problems left to us by the previous Government.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The enterprise finance guarantee scheme was specifically designed to help small businesses to get bank finance. It has not worked, and many companies feel that it has not assisted them. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that the scheme plays a full part in helping companies to get finance?
Mr Osborne
The first thing that I would say to my hon. Friend is that, of all the schemes that we inherited, this was the one that we thought had the most chance of improvement and was worth investing in. The other schemes had almost no take-up, but this one did. We were able to provide some additional money for it in the Budget, in the form of £200 million to support additional lending. We are also introducing changes to the way the schemes work, so that there will be a limit of 20 business days that all major lenders taking part in the enterprise finance guarantee scheme will have to comply with, so that people are not left on the hook waiting for an answer.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
11. What steps he has taken to encourage saving since the June 2010 Budget; and if he will make a statement.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Government want to build a savings culture based on the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility, and we are committed to creating conditions for higher saving. We have already announced a number of measures, including the annual financial health check and an end to the effective requirement to purchase an annuity with tax relief pension savings at the age of 75. We will also increase the amount that can be paid into ISAs each year in line with inflation from April 2011.
Stephen Mosley
Recent research from Which? has highlighted the fact that savers are missing out on £12 billion a year by keeping their money in accounts that pay extremely low rates of interest. Would my hon. Friend consider encouraging banks to print the interest rate on bank statements in the same way that credit card companies have to print the rate that they charge on their statements, in order to help savers to identify whether they are getting a good deal from their bank account?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to ensure that savers have the information that they need to enable them to shop around and find the best possible deal. ISA providers have already agreed to disclose interest rates on their statements, and the Financial Services Authority is consulting on extending that duty to other savings accounts.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware that the savings ratio is forecast to fall in every single year until 2015. Does this not make the decision to abolish the child trust fund—a savings plan with a 74% voluntary take-up rate—all the more short-sighted?
Mr Hoban
The problem with the child trust fund is that there was no evidence to demonstrate that it increased savings across the economy. We are faced with a difficult decision: we need to find savings to tackle the budget deficit that we inherited, and we believe that the best thing to do is to give help to families now rather than locking that money away until the children are 18.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
12. What assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of recent trends in growth in the private sector.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
This Government have been determined to show that Britain is back open for business, and gross domestic product growth has been strong over the past two quarters. That growth has been driven largely by the private sector. The Office for Budget Responsibility, which this Government established, is responsible for producing independent economic and fiscal forecasts, and the Chancellor has asked the OBR to publish a new forecast on 29 November. That forecast will incorporate the OBR’s assessment of the effect on the economy of recent trends of growth in the private sector.
Julian Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that the hundreds and thousands of new jobs that have been created by the private sector in recent months make the outlook pretty positive? What encouragement would she give to budding young entrepreneurs in Yorkshire in existing businesses who are thinking of taking on a new employee?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right. In quarter two alone, private sector employment grew by 308,000. I believe that many people in the country want not just to take jobs, but to create them. I would encourage them to get on with it, and to pursue their dreams and aspirations. They will have a Government behind them who are giving them a national insurance holiday for the jobs that they will create, and who are determined to support them by keeping corporation tax rates low when they are successful.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that Government plans to cut half a million public sector jobs are expected to lead to the cutting of a further 1 million private sector jobs, does the Minister accept that it would be more effective to reduce the deficit in three ways—through progressive taxation, through economic growth and through savings—than simply to throw millions of people on to the dole and whole communities into poverty?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman seems to have managed to get from a reduction of half a million in the public sector head count to millions on the dole. The number that he cited is in the independent report from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which was published after our emergency Budget. Although the report showed that there would be a reduction in the public sector head count of about 490,000, it also showed—and I assume that the hon. Gentleman accepts all of it—that there would be an increase in employment of 1.6 million, and that, year on year, there would be reductions in unemployment and increases in employment. If he accepts the figure of half a million, does he also accept those figures?
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on extending the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, but I note that it is closed to companies that export because of our over-zealous application of European Union state aid rules. Can my hon. Friend update the House on any plans that the Government have to overcome that obstacle to the achievement of our exporters’ growth potential?
Justine Greening
We are examining ways in which we can help our UK companies to export more easily. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have already led delegations to two key markets, China and India, where we hope that we can export more. That is critical if we are to put our economy back on its feet and it stands alongside the measures that we are taking to support companies creating jobs here, and the measures that we are taking to encourage investment in our country.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
13. What assessment has been made of the likely effects on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ tax inquiry services for the public of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is currently reviewing options for delivery of the tax inquiry services that it provides through its network of inquiry centres, contact centres and online services over the next spending review period. HMRC is committed to providing services that are cost-effective and also meet the needs of its customers.
Katy Clark
We have already seen a reduction of 25,000 staff and 200 collection offices, which must result in a worse service to the public. We are also seeing cuts in the amount of money spent on dealing with tax avoidance and evasion. The Minister’s colleague mentioned an extra £900 million, but we have been told that that is not additional money, and that less money is actually being spent on dealing with tax collection. Is it not time that we prioritised not only giving a better service, but collecting more tax?
Mr Gauke
That money is new investment to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. It is specific, targeted funding. As for the service that is provided, it is right for HMRC’s service to adapt to the way in which customers change their behaviour. We have seen a 40% reduction in the number of people using inquiry centres over the last four years, and HMRC should of course adapt to that.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Recent press reports have suggested that there are many so-called zombie households in the United Kingdom, in which families have got themselves into so much debt that they rely on interest rates remaining low to stay afloat. Does my hon. Friend agree that our policies to keep interest rates low, and to enable the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee to keep them low, are key as we go through a critical period in our recession?
Mr Speaker
A sentence from the Minister in reply will suffice, as the question is about tax inquiry services. We are grateful to him.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
14. What assessment he has made of the effects on his Department’s ability to reduce the deficit of the reduction in the UK’s EU budgetary rebate; and if he will make a statement.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
The latest forecast of the UK contribution to the EU budget shows that the UK abatement will decline from £5.6 billion in financial year 2008-09 to £2.8 billion in financial year 2010-11. The Office for Budget Responsibility will publish new projections of the UK contribution to the EU budget, including the abatement, in its autumn forecast.
Mr Bone
Under the previous Labour Government our total net contribution to the EU was £19.8 billion; under the coalition Government it will be £41 billion. Will the British people not think it bizarre, bewildering and a betrayal that over half the money saved by cuts will go not to reduce the deficit, but to subsidise other western European countries?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right that alongside the domestic economic mess we inherited, we also inherited an EU budget deal that was completely out of touch with the situation faced by many European countries. The fall in our abatement is largely due to the give-away agreed by the previous Government in 2005, which will be fully phased in from 2011. It is expected to cost the UK about £2 billion per annum. That is £2 billion that was needlessly given away for absolutely nothing in return—yet another failing of the British people by the Labour party.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
15. What mechanism he plans to use to ensure that households which include one or more higher rate taxpayer cease to receive child benefit payments.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
From January 2013 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will withdraw child benefit from higher rate taxpayers using PAYE and self-assessment systems. The vast majority of claimants will continue to receive child benefit, and will not be affected by this change.
Nic Dakin
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said he wanted this Government to be the most family-friendly Government we have ever had in this country. How does this proposal support a family where one partner stays at home to look after the children while the other partner earns over £45,000 a year?
Mr Gauke
It does families and everyone else in this country no good if we do not get to grips with the fiscal crisis. If the Opposition are saying households paying higher rate income tax should continue to receive child benefit while those who do not earn so much contribute towards that, it once again shows that they are not getting to grips with the scale of the crisis.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the logic of the policy outlined by Opposition Members is that any child from Prince William and Catherine Middleton would benefit from child tax benefit, whereas the poorest of my constituents would not?
Mr Speaker
Members really should not refer to members of the royal family in questions. That is strongly to be deprecated, and it certainly should not happen again. I ask the Minister to give a very brief reply.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
16. What estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of redundancy and retraining requirements arising from implementation of proposals contained in the comprehensive spending review.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The total cost of work force reforms will depend on the decisions of hundreds, if not thousands, of employers up and down the country. Detailed decisions regarding the number of redundancies and the associated costs that may be required have yet to be finalised in most cases, so it would not be appropriate for the Treasury to speculate on any aggregate numbers at this stage.
Diana Johnson
In the police service alone, major job losses are already being announced, such as in the west midlands, Greater Manchester and Lincolnshire, so not only will there be up-front redundancy costs, but there will be the loss of skills and experience. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the cost of redundancies could be as high as £8 billion?
Danny Alexander
I have to say that that sounds like rather an overestimate, but the hon. Lady is right to say that employers are spelling out their own plans for redundancies and for managing their work force in an appropriate way. I recognise that many staff will be very concerned about that, but I believe that it is right that they hear about specific plans from their own management, rather than draw conclusions from higher level aggregate numbers.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
17. What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the co-ordination of efforts to reduce Government deficits.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
The UK has been actively engaged in G20 discussions. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor attended the G20 summit on 11 and 12 November, which delivered the Seoul action plan and pledged to continue co-ordinated efforts to generate strong, sustainable and balanced growth. In this action plan, the advanced economies committed to
“formulate and implement clear, credible, ambitious and growth-friendly medium-term fiscal consolidation plans in line with the Toronto commitment, differentiated according”—
of course—
“to national circumstances.”
Glyn Davies
Bearing in mind reports of continuing threats to some of our EU partners, does the Minister agree that the International Monetary Fund’s recent growth forecasts underline the need for an ambitious and credible strategy for dealing with the budget deficit?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right about that. The IMF clearly supported the efforts that the coalition Government have been making both in the emergency Budget and the spending review to get to grips with the terrible fiscal deficit handed over by the previous Government. The OECD also welcomed the balance that we struck in the spending review between not only protecting growth, but tackling debt.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Can the Minister confirm that the international counterparts discussed the subject of the Republic of Ireland, its deficit and the possible EU bail-out for it? Will that cost the United Kingdom money?
Justine Greening
At this stage, we cannot speculate about other countries’ finances. Obviously, the Irish are taking very difficult decisions and actions to try to get the situation under control. I do not think that we should pre-empt actions that Ireland or any other country takes and the impact that such actions may ultimately have on the UK taxpayer.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The purpose of the Treasury is to ensure economic stability, restore sanity to the public finances, ensure employment growth, make sure our banking system is properly regulated and get this country back on its feet.
Mrs Glindon
During the past five years, North Tyneside council has made year-on-year transformation savings without affecting front-line posts, but I fear that because of the comprehensive spending review, front-line jobs will now be lost. What message, other than fictitiously blaming the previous Labour Government for what has been a global recession, does the Chancellor have for North Tyneside?
Mr Osborne
First, the Government have given all councils, including North Tyneside, greater freedom about how to spend their resources by removing a lot of ring-fencing. Secondly, of course, as I said in the spending statement, this was a difficult local government settlement—I completely accept that. But even the Labour party was signed up to £44 billion of spending cuts. If Labour Members are telling us that those would not have included local government, that is not really credible. We have had to take difficult decisions and we should be supported for that.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
T2. The Chancellor is heading to an ECOFIN meeting tomorrow and I hope he will continue to press our colleagues in the European Union for some restoration of fiscal sanity in their economic policies. The flag that will be fluttering so merrily over the proceedings will be the blue and yellow one—those are colours that we rather enjoy. Does he agree that unless we see some return to fiscal sanity and some abandonment of the policy of fiscal recklessness, perhaps the colour of the flag should be changed from blue and yellow to brown?
Mr Osborne
Of course we are urging fiscal restraint on the European Union. I should pay tribute to my colleague, the Economic Secretary, who has been out to Brussels twice in the past few days to argue vigorously for restraint in the European Union budget with considerable success. One of the problems we are dealing with is that the previous Government gave up half the rebate and that is one of the reasons why the budget is increasing.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T5. The unemployment rate in my constituency was 10.7% in September. After the announcement in the comprehensive spending review of the slashing of jobs, services and skills, what does the Chancellor think will be the unemployment rate in my constituency in 12 months’ time?
Mr Osborne
The whole point is that we have given these forecasts to an independent body, rather than just relying on the forecasts given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this Dispatch Box, so that people can believe in their independence and credibility. The Office for Budget Responsibility will produce its autumn forecast on 29 November. But of course the OBR figure that all Labour Members seem to use is the one for the public sector head count, but they seem to forget that this same body made a forecast of an increase in net employment, which sadly they never use.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
What steps can the Chancellor take to ensure that the Financial Services Authority’s mortgage market review proposals do not have a disproportionate effect on home buyers and the housing market, particularly at a time when we are trying to encourage growth through the private sector?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
My hon. Friend makes an important point and the FSA’s mortgage market review is seeking to learn some of the lessons from how the mortgage market was regulated before the financial crisis and some of the problems that that regulation created. What I think is important is that the FSA should consider very carefully the impact on home ownership and particularly on those people who are looking to move shortly.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
T8. May I give those on the Treasury Front Bench the opportunity to answer the question on child benefit that they failed to answer earlier? How do they justify taking child benefit off a single-earning family on £45,000 and allowing a family that earns £80,000 to retain child benefit? An answer this time would be appreciated.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
As the hon. Gentleman knows—and as the whole House knows—the justification for the measure that we took was to ensure that the cost of the spending review fell equally across the population so that those with the broadest shoulders would bear a greater share of the burden. In those circumstances, it is right that child benefit should be taken away from families with higher rate taxpayers. I would have thought that the Opposition would support that, not oppose it.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
T4. What fiscal action will be taken to increase social mobility and to stimulate it in our country?
Danny Alexander
In the spending review, we took a number of spending decisions that will support social mobility. We chose to invest in early-years education for disadvantaged two-year-olds—a new investment—and to maintain the 15-hours entitlement for three and four-year-olds, something that was introduced under this Government. We chose to invest in a pupil premium that will give additional support to the most disadvantaged children. In tough financial times, that is the strongest investment in social mobility made by any Government in this country for many a long year.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The White Paper last week stated that HMRC will be taking on new responsibilities in collecting and processing real-time pay data for the calculation of universal credit. How much has been allocated for the IT to deliver that change?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The response to the consultation on real-time information—the next stage of it—will be published shortly. We will outline the details in that, but additional sums have been identified as part of the spending review process to pay for the real-time information project.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
T6. More than 20% of my constituents in Cannock Chase are employed by manufacturing centred small businesses. Will the Chancellor assure them that the small business tax review will simplify and reduce taxes for small businesses rather than complicate and increase them?
Mr Osborne
Yes, I can give that assurance. I also note that the actions that the Government have taken have kept the small companies rate down, avoiding the rise in the rate that we inherited.
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
The comprehensive spending review contained a proposal to cut the mobility element of the disability living allowance for those in residential care. Why did the Government make that decision—because it was fair or to reduce the fiscal deficit?
Mr Osborne
In the spending review we took a number of difficult decisions, including decisions on welfare. We sought to identify the savings that we thought were most justified. As far as I understand it—although I am happy to be corrected—the DLA changes have been supported by the Opposition.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
T7. Fiscal discipline is, if anything, more essential in opposition than in government. Will the Chancellor tell us whether he has received any support or advice from the Opposition on how to achieve that fiscal discipline?
Mr Osborne
I am told that they have plans to cut £44 billion from public expenditure, but they have not told me what those plans are.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
What is the economic case for HMRC’s sacking professional tax collectors and hiring novice private sector debt collectors to collect liabilities of tax below £10,000?
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given that the Irish Government have said that they neither want nor need a bail-out, will the Chancellor support them at ECOFIN and put off those people in the EU who seem to want to make a crisis out of a problem?
Mr Osborne
There is an enormous amount of speculation about Ireland at the moment to which I do not propose to add. The Irish Government have said clearly that they have not sought assistance and that they are taking difficult steps to deal with their fiscal situation. They will make further announcements about their Budget situation in the next few weeks. I make the general observation that what is going on at the moment highlights the fact that concerns about sovereign debt issues have not disappeared and we should be grateful that, thanks to the actions of this Government, we have moved Britain out of the financial danger zone.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
What does the Chancellor say to fixed-income pensioner households in my constituency and his who will be faced with the additional VAT burden in just over 50 days?
Mr Osborne
I would say to them what I would say to everyone in this country: that we inherited the largest fiscal—[Interruption.] Well, I do not know how many times Opposition Members have to hear this but it is the truth. They left us the largest Budget deficit in the G20 and the European Union at a time of heightened sovereign debt concern. They can either be part of the debate that the rest of world is taking part in on how to deal with the deficits or they can completely ignore that debate and become irrelevant.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does the Chancellor agree that he should ignore the advice of the Opposition on all matters fiscal relating to the European Union, because it is still their policy to join the euro and because their MEPs voted to double our contribution this year?
Mr Osborne
As you will remind me, Mr Speaker, I cannot speak for the policy of the Opposition or say whether they have changed their official position which is to support joining the euro, but I make it clear to my hon. Friends and others that we certainly will not join the euro while this Chancellor and this Prime Minister are in place.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It was this Chancellor who agreed a 2.9% increase in contributions to the EU and to cede certain powers to Brussels—that is in the papers he signed—so has he not joined that glorious list of British politicians who go to Brussels, lose their wallets and their trousers and then come back and tell us what a great deal they have got?
Mr Osborne
I think that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of Tony Blair rather than of this Government. We voted against the increase in the European budget, but we were outvoted because it was a qualified majority vote. We are dealing with the fact that the previous Government gave up half the budget rebate, which is why British contributions are going up, and we are very clear that, although we want fiscal rectitude across Europe, we do not propose to hand over substantive new powers to the European Union.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
There is much support around the country and in the House for the broad principles of the Robin Hood tax campaign. The coalition Government have made a good start with the permanent bank levy. Will the Chancellor confirm that he expects the Independent Commission on Banking to consider the taxation of bankers’ bonuses and bank profits so that the banks pay their fair share in this country?
Mr Osborne
The commission that we have set up is looking principally at the structure of the banking sector, which is another very important issue. We have said that we want the banks to make a contribution, which is why we introduced the permanent banking levy; we did not agree with the previous Government that that should not happen. We followed the best practice set out by the International Monetary Fund, which outlined two taxes that could be pursued—one was a bank levy and the other was a financial activities tax, which we also said that we would consider in the Budget. On the broader point of the Robin Hood tax, or the financial transactions tax, which is sometimes discussed at ECOFIN, I think that everyone accepts that it would have to be introduced internationally or else it would be almost impossible to collect any revenue.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
Can the Chancellor or another Minister tell us what assessment has been made regarding potential job losses due to changes in the benefit system? Much concern has been expressed in my constituency, particularly yesterday in the local press, that up to 700 jobs might be lost in the HMRC office in Dundee as a result of such changes. What assurances can Ministers give me and my constituents that that will not be allowed to happen?
Danny Alexander
The welfare reforms that we are proposing are designed to support people off benefit and into work. That is the whole point of the reforms that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined last week. The reforms that will create a universal credit and some of the changes that we announced in the spending review are all there to help people off benefit and into work, and to help people get jobs, which is what the hon. Gentleman should support.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Can the Chancellor confirm that, unlike the shadow Chancellor, he is not an instinctive cutter?
Mr Osborne
I did see that rather remarkable comment from the shadow Chancellor over the weekend. We are doing what we are doing because we have to—because of the size of the Budget deficit.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Federation of Small Businesses North East and the insolvency trade body R3 have wound up one in 10 businesses that were unprepared for the 2.5% increase in VAT next year. Kingston university also recently showed that small businesses in the north-east intend to shed staff. Is not VAT the real jobs tax?
Mr Osborne
As I say, we are doing that because we need to deal with the Budget deficit. I thought it was the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s party that a greater share of the consolidation should be borne by tax rises; I thought that that was now the official policy. It is also clear that the previous Government were planning a VAT rise. Businesses have had plenty of notice of the increase that is coming in in January, and I am sure they will be able to cope in the same way as they coped with the VAT rise at the beginning of this January.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
All of us are all too aware of the record deficit and debt that we inherited from the Opposition. Will my right hon. Friend agree to publish a regular scorecard showing how that deficit and the debt are reducing, so that taxpayers and the public sector can see the benefit of the Government’s policies?
Mr Osborne
We have created the independent Office for Budget Responsibility so that the fiscal forecasts for the United Kingdom are no longer produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and sometimes influenced by the political judgments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but instead are done independently.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
On child benefit, can the Chief Secretary explain why he believes that families earning £45,000 have broader shoulders than those earning £80,000?
Danny Alexander
It should be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that higher rate taxpayers have greater means than those at the bottom of the income spectrum. It is a basic principle of fairness that underlies the spending review that we need to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear a greater share of the burden. As I said in response to the question earlier, asking higher rate taxpayers not to collect child benefit seems to be one of the decisions in the spending review that the Opposition should find it easiest to support.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
As my right hon. Friend says, it is right that in reducing the deficit, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, but do the Government understand the genuine anger that the public feel when it seems as though wealthy individuals and large companies can get away without paying their tax bills? What reassurance can the Minister give my constituents that the richest in society will pay their fair share?
Mr Osborne
We have taken a number of decisions to make sure that the burden is fairly shared. We have introduced the bank levy, and we are taking child benefit away from higher rate taxpayers, although that is clearly opposed by Labour. We are also seeking to conclude a number of deals with countries that have a reputation for attracting tax avoidance and tax evasion, such as the deal that we are negotiating with Switzerland. That will ensure that there are further revenues coming into the Exchequer from those who can afford it.
Closure of Ryedale Ward, Malton Hospital (North Yorkshire)
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The petition, which is from Dr Michael Lynch and in the name of 1,750 other petitioners, states:
The Petition of Dr Michael Lynch, Derwent Practice, Norton Road, Malton,
Declares that the Petitioner has a strong objection to the way in which North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust have implemented the closure of Ryedale ward at Malton Hospital, without public consultation.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to reinstate what is a highly valued and much needed facility at Malton Hospital for the population of Ryedale.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P000868]
Redfern Inquiry
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
Today I am publishing the report of the Redfern inquiry, which was established in 2007 to investigate the processes and practices surrounding the analysis of human tissue that was carried out in UK nuclear facilities from 1955 to 1992. The inquiry examined the circumstances in which organs or tissue were removed from individuals at NHS or other facilities, and sent to be analysed at nuclear laboratory establishments.
To lose a family member is tragic. To find out—sometimes decades later—that tissue had been taken without consent is an unimaginable distress. That knowledge is a burden that no one should have to bear. There is no time limit on grief; nor is there on apologies. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt regret, and to apologise to the families and relatives of those involved. I hope that the publication of today's report goes some way toward providing the closure that they deserve. The events described in the inquiry should never have happened in the first place. We have learned the lessons of the past. The law on human tissue has been reviewed, and a rigorous regulatory system is now in place, in which both the public and professionals have confidence.
I would like to thank the chairman of the inquiry, Mr Michael Redfern QC, for conducting the investigation. The inquiry has also benefited from the support of the nuclear industry and other key stakeholders, who have co-operated fully. The inquiry was established to investigate the circumstances in which organs were removed from individuals, and were sent to and analysed at Sellafield. However, as evidence came to light of similar work carried out at other sites and of studies involving non-nuclear workers, Michael Redfern QC was asked to make those additional cases part of his inquiry.
The inquiry was initially sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry, which at that time had responsibility for energy policy. The Department of Health became a co-sponsor when the terms of reference were expanded to allow the inquiry to access relevant NHS information, and to investigate the part played by hospitals in which the post-mortem examinations had been conducted. Although not a sponsor of the inquiry, the Ministry of Justice also has an interest in the inquiry's findings and recommendations in respect of the coroner's role.
The report highlights unacceptable working practices within the nuclear industry, NHS pathology services and the coronial service, and concludes that families' views were not always obtained as required under the Human Tissue Act 1961. It acknowledges that these events occurred a number of decades ago, and puts them within the context of the times and current practice. Many of the issues raised by the inquiry have since been addressed by changes to the law, including the introduction of the Human Tissue Act 2004.
The inquiry found that organs from 64 former Sellafield workers were removed by pathologists and taken for analysis at Sellafield between 1960 and 1991. In addition, organs taken from 12 workers at other nuclear sites were analysed at, or at the request of, Sellafield, giving a total cohort of 76. The inquiry also found evidence of other individuals whose organs were analysed at Sellafield. The report finds that there was a lack of ethical consideration of the implications of the research work that the industry was doing; that limited supervision was undertaken; and that relationships between pathologists, coroners and the Sellafield medical officers became too close.
The inquiry has found that organs from a small number of former Ministry of Defence employees were removed for analysis. It has been difficult to establish the legality of a minority of these removals. Also, during the 1950s and 1960s the Medical Research Council oversaw research measuring levels of strontium 90 in human bone obtained at post-mortem. It was a national survey, involving more than 6,000 people, mostly children, and was not linked to former nuclear workers.
The inquiry also considered work undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board. Across its entire remit, the inquiry found that families' views about organ retention were not always sought, and that very few families knew that organs were taken for analysis. Research using human tissue at that time was carried out under different legislation, and within a culture that took a very different approach to these matters than we do today. That is not to diminish the distress and suffering caused to families by the events of the past. However, we have learned from the mistakes of the past, and we now have in place the legislative and regulatory framework that makes consent the fundamental principle underpinning the lawful retention and use of body parts, organs and tissue from the living or the deceased for such purposes.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I welcome the inquiry’s recognition of the changes in the law and the associated regulatory framework relating to the taking, use and storage of human tissue, which have been put in place since the events leading up to the inquiry. Since the Human Tissue Act 2004 came into force, we have seen the development of robust regulation that focuses on compliance through the provision of expert advice and guidance—and where regulatory action is taken if standards are not met.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has the principal interest in the inquiry’s findings relating to the role of coroners. His Department is responsible for coronial law and policy, but as coroners are independent judicial office holders, it does not monitor how they carry out their functions in individual cases unless specific complaints are made. Communication between families, coroners and pathologists was, and still is, vital.
Changes to the 1984 coroners rules, which were introduced alongside the human tissue legislation, are aimed at ensuring that families’ wishes about what happens to organs and tissue retained after a post-mortem examination can be properly established and acted upon. My right hon. and learned Friend also intends to take forward several provisions in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which address other problems that Mr Redfern identifies and aim to prevent any recurrence of the events that led to the establishment of his inquiry.
Although the Government are not proceeding with the role of a chief coroner, we intend to transfer many of the intended leadership functions of the post to the Lord Chancellor, or possibly to the senior judiciary. There will be higher standards when commissioning post-mortem examinations, and in the way that coroners communicate with bereaved families. There will be more effective operational delivery, with an end to rigid, geographic boundary restrictions. Training for coroners and their staff will be maintained and improved, and coroners’ work will be more transparent so that unacceptable practices can be avoided or challenged and deficiencies can be tackled. We are also considering introducing the new, more accountable system for appointing coroners and their deputies that the 2009 Act enabled.
The inquiry has sought and received assurances from all the key nuclear industry stakeholders that the practice of retaining organs or tissue at autopsy has ceased. I hope that the families of those involved can take some comfort from the knowledge that the practices that the inquiry examined simply would not be permissible today. I commend this statement to the House.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State and his office for early sight of his statement on this very important matter.
Our first sympathies must be for the families. They have lived through an ordeal and had to relive or, in some cases, discover what happened to their loved ones after death. It cannot have been easy, and their forbearance has been great. I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s heartfelt apology. I, like other Members, have had only a short time to look at the report, but it is clear that it is thorough, clearly written and a credit to the hard work of Michael Redfern QC and his team. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has ably represented many of the families over a long period, and today the families must come first.
The events in question took place some time ago, and it has been challenging to piece together the history. The issues are complex, and Michael Redfern has produced a report that not only explains what happens, but provides reassurance that such practices are no longer used. The events, let us remember, took place in a different era when there was much debate about the safety of the nuclear industry, and the GMB at the time campaigned hard for a compensation scheme for nuclear workers who had been exposed to excess radiation. Today, a compensation scheme is in place.
The report is clear that the law at the time was in place to prevent the removal of human tissue without proper consent from those who had died. Unfortunately, that did not prevent these events from happening. It is an important and salutary reminder to all of us in this House, and elsewhere, that we need to remain vigilant in our scrutiny of professional practice and of the work of scientists. Science is vital to the UK, and we have a worldwide reputation to protect. It is in all our interests to get it right.
I have some questions for the Secretary of State. Is he able to reassure the public that the events outlined in the Redfern inquiry report are historical and are not taking place today? We have the 2004 Act; we now need to be vigilant about it.
The inquiry looked into the issue of removal of organs from 76 people. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that that was the extent of the case? I am sure that he will agree that any families who are concerned should have an easy route to information about their loved ones; perhaps he could explain how they can find out more.
The Secretary of State rightly talks about the new rigorous regulatory system, but it is the Government’s intention to abolish the Human Tissue Authority and transfer its functions to other bodies. What guarantee can he give that such important functions will not be lost as a result of the Government’s proposed changes?
The Secretary of State is clear that such acts would not be permissible today, as they were not then. It is therefore particularly important that procedures are in place to uncover any practices of this nature in future. Can he further explain what contact the Government have had or are planning to have with the professions concerned, particularly pathologists and coroners, to ensure that robust procedures are in place so that this could not happen again?
This report does not stop the heartache for the families, but it lays out the facts, and I hope that that gives them some comfort.
Chris Huhne
I thank the hon. Lady. I think that this is an issue on which we can all unite, in all parts of the House, in our frank shock at the events that took place, albeit many decades ago in many cases. I am able to give the reassurance that the hon. Lady seeks, and the reassurance to the public, that these events are historical and, as far as we can tell, are not taking place today; they would clearly be illegal. The Redfern inquiry sought assurances from all the key players—and indeed received those assurances—that there was nothing taking place today that would be similar.
In the course of the inquiry, as the report makes clear, it became obvious that the removal of organs from a limited number of people in fact related to only a part of the total. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), as the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, knew about that when the inquiry was commissioned. The inquiry points out that once we take account of other cases, the total is nearly 6,000 across the country. That is a very much greater figure than we thought at the time.
The hon. Lady is right to say that the Human Tissue Authority is to be abolished by the Government and its functions transferred to other bodies. I have spoken with my colleagues from the Department of Health on this point. Those functions will be transferred to other organisations and dealt with by the Department of Health. There will be no question of any relenting on the key functions that were set out for the Human Tissue Authority.
The professions have been engaged in conversations with both the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice. I am confident that the lessons of the report will be learned and that robust procedures will be put in place to ensure that such questionable practices do not recur.
The hon. Lady asked about current safety levels in the nuclear industry. I can assure her that we have a rigorous safety and inspection regime which is kept under constant review in order to make sure that safety levels are absolutely at the highest.
Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I add my thanks to Michael Redfern for his very substantial report, which is far weightier and far more extensive than we anticipated when I commissioned his work three and a half years ago.
It is difficult to judge what happened over a period of 50 years—of course, standards, ethics and the law have changed very substantially—but does the Secretary of State accept two things? First, many people would acknowledge that there will be occasions when more investigation and research is necessary, but the key thing is that they should be involved in those decisions, they should know about the work, and they should be in a position to give or withhold their consent.
Secondly, although things have changed dramatically in the nuclear industry over the past few years, it does have a history of being less open than it should be. By being more open, it will build more confidence in what it does—an objective in which I believe, and in which I think the Secretary of State now believes as well.
Chris Huhne
I totally agree with both the right hon. Gentleman’s points. The key principle introduced in the Human Tissue Act 2004 was consent ahead of time. The legal situation before that allowed researchers to access human tissue without consent if they had made reasonable efforts to obtain it. That was a fundamental change, and I entirely agree that it was important for us as a society to move with the times and reflect the key family sensitivities involved. I also agree entirely with his point about the nuclear industry. Openness is usually the best disinfectant, and transparency is thoroughly desirable.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement, to the shadow Secretary of State for her warm wards and to the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), for instigating the report in the first instance. I declare two interests, as both a former Sellafield worker and the grandson of Thompson Reed, one of the trade union officials mentioned in the report.
I hope that there will now be a dialogue between the affected families and the Government on the subject of restitution. The nuclear industry and Sellafield are extremely popularly supported in my part of the world, not least by me. One telling point in the report is the constant churn and change that the West Cumberland hospital and NHS management structures have experienced, which may have led to less than ideal practices. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with me and those in my community, with a view to seeing how we can fund the hospital outside the routine, ordinary funding systems that exist for other hospitals, given the unique nature of the work undertaken at Sellafield?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows, I am very committed to continued employment in the nuclear industry and the importance of his area to it, and I visited Sellafield shortly after I became Secretary of State. We very much want to maintain that dialogue. I am keen to take up any issues of concern to his constituents and employees in the industry about their health care or anything else. He can rely on my support on that.
The funding streams are obviously an issue for the Department of Health, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman would want us to go down the route of allying particular health funding streams to their causes—that, for instance, road accident matters should be funded by the Department for Transport or that nuclear health streams should be funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. However, he can be assured of my support in ensuring that the care available is outstanding.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
One of the most disturbing elements is the culture of secrecy that allowed body parts not only to be taken without permission but later to be disposed of as waste in the low-level waste depository at Drigg. Many living relatives will be deeply distressed to think of their loved ones being treated in such a callous way. Does the Secretary of State agree that that culture of secrecy still surrounds the nuclear industry and can be a barrier to proper scrutiny and accountability? What measures will he take to challenge it?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Lady recognises—I hope—that there have been improvements in recent years in the openness of the industry. I believe it understands the importance of public confidence, because it is a very different industry from the one that existed during the decades in which these practices were undertaken. One way of securing and retaining public confidence is to be as open and transparent about practices as possible, and as the Secretary of State responsible for the industry, I am extremely keen that that should be the case. I want the industry’s practices—particularly its safety practices, but respect for those who work in the industry too—to be maintained at the highest possible level. If the hon. Lady has particular concerns, I would be very happy to deal with them either in correspondence or in the normal way through parliamentary answers.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
Anyone who reads this report will be absolutely horrified, as I am. I dread to think what the families will be feeling at this time; our thoughts and prayers are very much with them as they go through this very difficult period. Is the Secretary of State prepared to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) and me as soon as possible to see what help and support we can give both to the families and the wider community of west Cumbria?
Chris Huhne
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his neighbour on this and any other issue. The industry is important to their part of the world, and I hope that the relationships can improve and that we can provide some reassurance to the families that such events will never happen again. We extend our condolences to those in distress.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State congratulate Dr David Lowry on publishing evidence from the 1962 report of the Medical Research Council’s National Radiological Protection Board to show that there was an experiment in which people, including pregnant women, young people under 18 and those without fatal diseases, were exposed to doses of radiation of the most long-lived type, including strontium, plutonium and caesium? Is this not a sad story of the nuclear industry being far more interested in public relations than in public health?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify Dr Lowry as one of the important characters in opening up this whole saga. I am happy to join him in his congratulations on that score. The key issue that we have to keep repeating to anyone who doubts it in the nuclear industry is that openness is absolutely crucial. We have an enormous continuing nuclear clean-up legacy in Sellafield and elsewhere that will require great effort for many years to come. That arises, in part, from the fact that the industry—here I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—was too secretive for far too long.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I should declare an interest having been brought up in west Cumbria and having worked for many years in the nuclear industry. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Mr Reed) and for Workington (Tony Cunningham) on championing their communities on this issue for many years. The Secretary of State said that these are historical events. None the less, the practices continued until less than two decades ago, and personnel may be still in the NHS or the nuclear industry who were part of that decision-making process. Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that no one is working today in the NHS or in the industry who was responsible for those terrible decisions?
Chris Huhne
Michael Redfern QC identifies and names a number of people in his extensive report. The criticisms that are made of those individuals are quite a rebuke to anyone who is in a professional job and who values their standing. The key figures have now retired, and would certainly not be responsible for a continuation of such practices. However, that would be true even if they had not retired, because the law has now changed. The report, none the less, is thorough, extensive and identifies those individuals who were involved but who have now retired.
Guantanamo Civil Litigation Settlement
(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. On 6 July, the Prime Minister told the House that the legacy issues the Government had inherited around the treatment of detainees held by other countries needed to be addressed. Our reputation as a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law otherwise risked being tarnished. There was also the risk of public confidence being eroded, with people doubting the ability of our security and intelligence agencies to protect us and questioning the rules under which they operate.
The Government are absolutely clear that national security and the protection of the rule of law go hand in hand. The Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear that this coalition Government are unswerving in their opposition to torture or the ill-treatment of prisoners or detainees. We do not condone it, nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf.
We recognise that our longer-term security interests require that we defend our values and the rule of law, and that any allegations that threaten those must be treated seriously. In tackling the challenges posed by those serious allegations, the Government’s overriding objective is to ensure that the security and intelligence agencies can focus on their vital task of protecting the security and interests of the UK, and that the serious allegations that threaten their reputation and that of our country are examined properly. The security of this nation is the first concern of any Government. The security and intelligence agencies play an invaluable part in ensuring our security, and the Government are determined that they are free to do the vital job that we need them to do.
In his statement, the Prime Minister said that a single, authoritative inquiry was required to investigate the serious allegations of the Government’s complicity in the mistreatment of detainees held by other countries. The right honourable Sir Peter Gibson was appointed to head that independent inquiry. However, the Prime Minister also made it clear that the inquiry could not begin while related police investigations were ongoing and while so many of the Guantanamo civil law suits brought against the Government remained unresolved. To help to pave the way for the inquiry to begin, the Government committed to entering into a process of mediation with those held by the United States in detention in Guantanamo Bay who had brought civil actions against the Government.
I can today inform the House that the Government have now agreed a mediated settlement of the civil damages claims brought by detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. The details of that settlement have been made subject to a legally binding confidentiality agreement. They have been reported in confidence to the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House, to the National Audit Office, and, I think, to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr Clarke
Ah. No.
No admissions of culpability have been made in settling those cases and nor have any of the claimants withdrawn their allegations. This is a mediated settlement. Confidentiality is a very common feature of mediation processes, as in this case. Confidentiality was agreed by both parties, subject to the necessary parliamentary accountability and legal requirements. I hope that the House will understand that I am unable to comment further on the details of the settlement without breaching that confidentiality with the claimants.
The alternative to any payments made was protracted and extremely expensive litigation in an uncertain legal environment in which the Government could not be certain that we would be able to defend Departments and the security and intelligence agencies without compromising national security. The cost was estimated at approximately £30 million to £50 million over three to five years of litigation. In our view, there could have been no Gibson inquiry until that ligation was resolved.
The Government will make a further statement to the House when the relevant police processes have been completed and the inquiry is in a position to begin its work. The mediated settlement actually represents a significant step forward in delivering the Government’s plan for a resolution of those issues in the interests of both justice and national security. The settlement has the support of the heads of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Whitehall Departments involved. The Security Service and the SIS are issuing a public statement to that effect today.
In his statement, the Prime Minister also announced plans for a Green Paper on the use of intelligence in judicial proceedings, which we hope to publish in the summer of 2011. It will examine mechanisms for the protection and disclosure of sensitive information in the full range of civil proceedings, inquests and inquiries. We will also consider complementary options to modernise and reform existing standing intelligence oversight mechanisms. The Government are engaging with relevant parliamentary bodies, key stakeholders and our international partners in developing these proposals further. Today’s announcement is a very important step forward, and we are closer now to getting the important Gibson inquiry into all these allegations finally under way.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for our meeting earlier today. I welcome his decision this morning to make this an oral statement to the House, rather than the written statement originally planned. I would also like to put it on the record at the outset that up until November 2004, I was a senior partner at a law firm that acted for a number of the Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Does the Secretary of State agree that statements as significant as this should be made first to the House before they appear in the media? Will he therefore join me in raising concern that this extremely important announcement was leaked to ITN’s “News at Ten” programme last night?
On the substance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s statement, the House is united in its complete rejection of torture and mistreatment. That goes for the practice of and collusion or complicity in torture. It is illegal, it is internationally banned, and no Government should have anything to do with it. The Labour party has been, and will remain, completely opposed to Guantanamo Bay. We took action in government to remove all the British citizens and all but one resident from Guantanamo Bay, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) ensured that Britain’s Government were the first to get all their citizens out of there. What steps are this Government taking to secure the release of the one remaining resident still in Guantanamo Bay, Shaker Aamer? I note that the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who represents his family, is in her place.
Britain’s security services, under all Governments, are required to live up to the highest standards, while protecting our national security. They do an incredible job. Their work is rarely ever recognised, for obvious reasons of secrecy, but they save lives, and we should always remind ourselves of that. We should also place firmly on the record the human rights policy of our security services, and be proud of their stance. As John Sawers, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, said last month:
“If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we’re required by UK and international law to avoid that action. It makes us strive all the harder to find different ways, consistent with human rights, to get the outcome we want.”
To sustain the excellent work of the intelligence agencies, and to ensure that these standards are met in practice, it is vital that whenever allegations are made they are fully investigated.
You will know, Mr Speaker, that the previous Government began the process of publishing the consolidated guidance given to our intelligence officers, which was a process finished by the current Government earlier this year. It was and remains our view that all measures possible should be taken to satisfy ourselves, the public and our allies that if any wrongdoing is alleged, it is fully investigated, that any evidence is gathered and passed on, and that it is dealt with to conclusion. That is why the previous Attorney-General referred two cases where concerns had been raised to the police for investigation, and that is why we look forward to the judge-led inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture now that the civil cases are settled.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the police will be able to conclude their investigations before the judge-led inquiry begins? Obviously, the House has not been privy to the detail of the settlements and the negotiations, but he will know that there are legitimate questions about the settlements that the Government have come to that mean that these 16 cases will no longer be resolved individually in the courts. We understand that the Government have had to consider this in the light of the ruling by the Court of Appeal in May. Can he confirm to the House that the settlements reached will not pre-judge the inquiry or pass judgement on the actions of our security services in advance of a full investigation?
Will the confidentiality agreement prevent the Secretary of State from telling the House and the public the sums of money involved in these settlements? If so, will he reconsider and agree with us that there is a public interest in knowing the total sum involved in this settlement? Will he commit to scrutiny of the settlements by both the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Public Accounts Committee? He said that the claimants would be able to give evidence to the Gibson inquiry. Can he tell the House what investigations within the scope of the inquiry will take place into the allegations in those specific cases? Will the inquiry pass judgment on each individual case? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the scope of that inquiry has changed since the Prime Minister’s statement to the House in July?
Finally, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman also tell the House whether any other cases remain unsettled, and if so, what decision has been taken on their effect on the inquiry? It is important that the inquiry can be thorough and that its access to documents held by the Government should be as full as that enjoyed by the courts. Can he therefore confirm that the Gibson inquiry will have access to all the same information that has been or would be available to the courts? Everyone will appreciate the need to ensure that Britain’s security is not compromised, and that must be reflected in the way that the inquiry operates. However, as the allegations are comprehensively addressed, it is important that the public should have confidence in the process and its outcome. We say again: there is no place for the torture or mistreatment of detainees.
Mr Clarke
I, too, regret the leak. I am having a bad week for leaks. I made a statement yesterday that had been leaked by somebody at the weekend, and last night I was at dinner when I was told that ITV had details of this statement. It is early days in government to have them so frequently—but ’twas ever thus. I will do my best to ensure that there are no leaks of this kind in future.
We continue to press the Americans for Shaker Aamer’s release. We are trying to ensure his release, and we are in constant contact with them.
So far as the other questions are concerned, the determination of this Government, as soon as we took office, has been to try to draw a line under these cases and move on, in the light of the policy that the right hon. Gentleman supported, and on which all parts of the House agreed. This country is against torture. This country has a good, high-quality security and intelligence service. We wish to make it quite clear that it is not complicit—and must not be complicit—in the torture or ill-treatment of detainees, so the sooner we resolve these doubts and enable it to get on with its proper job of intelligence, the better. We were bogged down in litigation and complaints which were slowly going not exactly nowhere but could have taken years to resolve, because of all the difficulties with the admissibility of the evidence and the hearing of evidence in public.
For that reason, we have sought to draw a line under things. We published the guidance on treatment of detainees, as the right hon. Gentleman said, which is the first step that we took. We have now resolved these issues in a way that enables us to move on. We still have to wait for the police inquiry, to which he also referred. That is entirely a matter for the police, and no one—no Minister or anybody else—can intervene and start instructing the police on how to conduct such inquiries. We cannot get the Gibson inquiry under way until the police inquiries have been resolved. I do not know how long they will take—I hope that they will not take too long—but that is a matter for the police. If those inquiries lead to prosecutions, we will have to wait for the resolution of those prosecutions. If they lead to no prosecutions, we really will be clear to get on to the inquiry that lies beyond.
The settlement, which involves no concession of liability or withdrawal of allegations, does not prejudge the Gibson inquiry in any way. It will be entirely for Sir Peter and his colleagues to decide on the inquiry once its terms of reference have finally been settled. We see the inquiry as looking at the problem in general—that is, looking at the history and deciding whether there were problems and whether there are any lessons to learn, as well as making inquiries about how we might ensure that the standards that the whole House would want to uphold are put beyond doubt for the future. We have not altered the scope of the inquiry since the Prime Minister made his statement, and we expect it to have access to a wide range of information—indeed, all the information that it could reasonably expect. The problem with the courts is either that they cannot have access to a lot of the information because of all the security problems, or that they cannot share it with the complainants and the public. So far as I am aware, the settlements cover all the British residents and citizens from Guantanamo Bay who are making complaints. We are not aware of any other cases that could be raised on all fours with those.
The settlement has saved us money and, most importantly, time. It has stopped the intelligence service spending man-hours on sifting through evidence and coping with litigation, but it must remain confidential. It is legally confidential and could be reopened if either side broke that confidentiality, so I am afraid that I am unable to tell the right hon. Gentleman the precise sums involved, but the gain that has been achieved by mediating the claims is considerable and in the national interest.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is much interest in this subject, and immediately afterwards we have a ten-minute rule motion followed by the first day in Committee of a very important constitutional Bill, so there is a premium on brevity from Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members alike.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
Having been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee for the past five years, I have reached the uncomfortable conclusion that if there is not to be a total breakdown in the intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States, my right hon. and learned Friend has reached the right conclusion. However, does he agree that he must now find a way of conducting such litigation without compromising national security? Has he considered expanding the scope of the Green Paper from civil cases to criminal cases?
Mr Clarke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sensible proposition. The same issues arise, and I will certainly bear his suggestion in mind. The problem crops up over and over again. We currently have an inquest into the highly important matter of the explosions on 7 July, which has decided to extend itself into an inquiry into the activities of the intelligence services in informing themselves about possible risks to security throughout the country. Wholly foreseeably, it has run crash into the problem of exactly what evidence is supposed to be adduced about that in public. I have no idea—it is for Lady Justice Hallett to resolve—how we move on in that particular case. The Green Paper will be difficult. It will be difficult to reach clear conclusions, but we wish to do so as quickly as possible and the purpose of the Green Paper is to address that problem so that we can be sure that justice is done without compromising national security. At the moment, there is a tendency for claimants, the security service and everyone else to get bogged down in interminable litigation and judicial review. That has to be resolved.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s statement and the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). Picking up on the remarks of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it will be possible for Sir Peter Gibson, who has great judicial experience, to feed into the important work on the Green Paper on the use of intelligence in judicial proceedings?
Mr Clarke
Sir Peter Gibson has indeed been the Intelligence Services Commissioner, and still is, although he will probably have to give that up when he takes on this inquiry. If he wishes to give his views on this difficult question, I am sure that they will be welcome, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, he is a considerable expert on the subject.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Is it a reasonable assumption that the UK Government would not agree to a mediated settlement if there were no evidence whatever of UK involvement in any illegal act?
Mr Clarke
The settlement is not to be taken as an admission of liability, as it were. It was not in the interests of either party to get stuck into civil litigation with a wholly unforeseeable outcome. As I have said, it could have taken years and cost tens of millions of pounds. Its resolution was holding up the wish of the Prime Minister and the Government to get on with sorting out the allegations and having a proper inquiry into them. It has cost us quite a bit of money to mediate them, because the complainants were pressing their claims. The situation is obviously difficult and unusual, but it was right, in the public interest, to pay the money. The idea that we should carry on arguing for the next five or six years—it could have taken that long—and find ourselves in a pale reflection of the Saville inquiry running on and on would not have done anyone any good at all, so we paid the money so that we can move on. I think we have saved public money by not continuing to contest the claims.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
I think there will be natural concern on both sides of the House about Government payments of compensation when culpability has not been admitted. It is, however, important to welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s statement today. I also welcome his repetition—word for word, if my memory serves me right—of the previous Government’s position on torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. May I bring him back to the subject of the police inquiries and the Gibson inquiry? Like him, I hope for a speedy conclusion to the police inquiries so that the Gibson inquiry can get on with its work and bring some facts to a debate that often sadly lacks them. Would it be possible for Sir Peter Gibson and his team to start work now, even if their public and other work cannot get going yet? It would be a pity if the police inquiries were to drag on for many more months, delaying bringing clarity to this area.
Mr Clarke
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s statement of this country’s values as far as torture and ill-treatment are concerned. I also share his impatience to see the Gibson inquiry get under way. The Government cannot, however, have the inquiry proceeding in parallel with either civil or criminal proceedings on part of the same subject. For that reason, we must make it clear straight away that both will have to be resolved before we can proceed. If Sir Peter were to start, and if there were a prosecution arising from the police inquiries, a criminal trial might be running in parallel to his inquiry. That would not be possible. We shall wait to see what the police decide, and the moment those matters are resolved, Sir Peter will be able to begin his work.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Without prejudicing any of the facts of this case, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that any act of torture, or conspiracy to commit acts of torture, by any UK citizen anywhere in the world will be a criminal offence, and that, as a matter of public policy, any evidence obtained by torture will always be inadmissible in UK courts?
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I thank the Justice Secretary for giving me advance notice of his statement. Given the need to preserve confidentiality in relation to the settlement, how long does he think that that confidentiality will be preserved, bearing in mind the two serious leaks from his Department this week?
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
Might it be appropriate for us to seek to recover the costs of the compensation payments from those individuals who are responsible, in particular the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has made tens of millions of pounds since leaving this House?
Mr Clarke
The costs have been incurred in civil litigation between the detainees and the Government, and we have settled the matter. I do not think that that would be proper—I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s suggestion, and I do not think that there is really the slightest claim against the previous Prime Minister.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that many people will find this settlement a bitter pill to swallow? Will he confirm that, if our intelligence relationship with the United States were to break down, which was a real possibility, it would imperil the lives of many, many citizens of this country?
Mr Clarke
I agree that the Government’s relationship with the United States and the close relationship between our intelligence services and those of the United States make a vital contribution to our protection of the security of this country and the lives of individuals here. That must not be jeopardised.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be wrong to infer from the fact that there is a confidentiality agreement about the substantial sums paid to these individuals that that confidentiality agreement was imposed at the behest of one side rather than the other?
Mr Clarke
The other side wanted confidentiality as well, I am assured. It is not at all unusual, when mediating an action of this kind, for both sides to agree that they wish to have confidentiality. My hon. Friend is quite right: there is no point in trying to read into this that either side has resiled. Anyone who has been involved in any kind of civil litigation on a less serious matter will know that, often, a party that has been busily protesting its side of the argument can be quite well advised to stop running up costs, to stop wasting management time, to make a reasonable offer and to get out of it. In this case, the considerations were much more important for the public interest. How much longer did we want man-hours in the intelligence services to be absorbed, and how many tens of millions were we prepared to spend on interminable litigation?
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Leaving aside the cheap political point made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) a moment ago, let me tell the Justice Secretary that I find it difficult to understand—as will many people—how compensation could be paid unless there was substantial substance to the allegations made by those who claim that they were transferred illegally and tortured abroad. Surely the clear lesson to be learned is that a state such as ours, based on the rule of law, must ensure that all its officials observe the rule of law, and must not be complicit in any way with agents abroad who carry out torture.
Mr Clarke
It is not unusual in many walks of life for a settlement to be reached with neither party making any concessions on their arguments, but both parties agreeing that the settlement constitutes a sensible way of reaching a compromise in the dispute without going further.
I entirely agree with the statement of principle in the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government are opposed to torture. Torture is a serious criminal offence. We are opposed to the ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners in any circumstances. We will not condone it, and we will not be complicit in it. Those are the essential values that we must defend, even when we face such dangers as we do now from terrorism in the world.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement. Further to his comments about Shaker Aamer, does he agree that if we are to achieve closure gradually over the next few years, it is important that Shaker Aamer is released to this country so that he can give evidence to the torture inquiry in person?
Mr Clarke
Yes, I do agree. I know that there are people who feel very strongly about the release of Shaker Aamer. We continue to be in contact with the United States, and we continue to hope that he will be released and returned to this country. I know that my hon. Friend has been arguing and campaigning for that for some time. I agree with her, and we are doing our best.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State comfortable with the fact that millions of pounds are being paid out during the week in which he is announcing big cuts in the legal aid budget? Should we not be ensuring that if those who receive the money themselves breach the confidentiality agreement, or their lawyers do, the money is taken back from them?
Mr Clarke
That might involve reopening the settlement, which I would not be willing to do. We must be careful about the confidentiality because, certainly in principle, the settlement could be reopened. I entirely understand that there are a large number of aspects of this with which everyone is uncomfortable, and which some people will strongly dislike. However, we must keep our eye on the ball, and decide what is truly in the national interest. What is truly in the national interest is allowing the intelligence services to get on with their job, allowing us to put the reputation of this country beyond doubt, and learning lessons that may have to be learned—we do not know yet—from anything that Sir Peter Gibson puts forward.
As for the legal aid proposals, we said that legal aid would still be available, on a means-tested basis, to anyone who wished to challenge the state by way of judicial review. Other claims would have to involve exceptional public interest.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the statement. I am sorry that we did not do more to speak out against Guantanamo Bay and everything that it stands for. The creation of the term “enemy combatants” allowed the nation, indeed the world, to ignore the Geneva conventions.
My I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to turn to the issue of compensation for British victims of terrorism overseas? As he will know, those who were caught up in the 7/7 bombings were adequately supported and compensated, but as soon as such an event takes place abroad we see that there is no support whatsoever, whether it be in Bali, Mumbai or Sharm el Sheikh. That is simply wrong, and it needs to change.
Mr Clarke
I know of my hon. Friend’s continuing interest in this subject. As part of our policy considerations in the light of the public spending review, we are having to examine the criminal injuries compensation system and the proposed terrorist injury compensation system. We are having to decide how we should judge the Government’s responsibilities for compensating those who have been injured by crime, either at home—we have always compensated those people—or abroad: I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning for that.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
A year ago, I wrote on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee to the previous Attorney-General, asking about the police inquiries, and I see that the Secretary of State is surrounded by Law Officers today. While not seeking to influence or instruct the police, which would be totally improper, surely it is in everyone’s interests that we know if there is a timetable. What is holding up this inquiry, which has gone on for several years?
Mr Clarke
If the police follow these exchanges, I am sure they will note the right hon. Gentleman’s impatience that we move on and get some resolution to inquiries, which I think have been going on for about 15 to 18 months. He knows, because he is as good a lawyer as anybody else involved in these discussions, that it would be quite improper for anyone to approach the police and put pressure on them to put in place a timetable or to press them one way or the other.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I welcome the Gibson inquiry, and I agree that what has been announced is necessary for the sake of our national security, but will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge the concern expressed by many people that a settlement has been paid using British taxpayers’ money for foreign nationals—non-British citizens—detained in a foreign country by a foreign Government?
Mr Clarke
The cases involve British nationals or British residents. Although there is one case where that is a slightly doubtful statement, it had already got under way before we came into office, and at some stage the jurisdiction had been accepted. Twelve cases are already before the court, and four would have come before the court if we had not proceeded as we have. We have not started compensating people at large for what happened in Guantanamo Bay. We have only dealt with British residents and British citizens.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Have I got this right? Is the Secretary of State paying out large sums of money—he will not tell us how much—to people who are giving no guarantees about not breaking confidentiality? Can it be true that he cannot say to the House that this matter has ended? Is he not buying time? This sounds like money for old rope. The other week, the Conservatives were giving prisoners votes; now they are giving them lottery millions. I think I have already discovered the soft underbelly of this Government.
Mr Clarke
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, no, he is not right: the confidentiality is binding on both sides. The people who brought the claims have bound themselves by confidentiality and so have the Government. That is a perfectly usual term of a mediated settlement of what was going to be a hugely expensive problem for the British taxpayer if it had not been resolved.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I welcome the statement. As I understand it, the mediation is designed to address the potential cost of litigation arising from the Guantanamo cases and is estimated to be between £30 million and £50 million. The inquiry is also wider than that, and will deal with non-Guantanamo cases where individuals have been detained in other countries. What is the estimated cost of the potential litigation in those cases?
Mr Clarke
I agree that the Gibson inquiry does have wide terms of reference, although these matters finally have to be settled. It is looking at the whole question of the ill treatment of detainees generally, although, of course, usually in cases where there is some British involvement, such as where our allies have been involved or where we have been engaged in theatre. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) takes a great interest in these allegations and as he cannot be present today he has been on the telephone to me, because he is very anxious that rendition should be included.
I cannot give an estimate of the cost, but we are anxious that there should be a reasonable time scale, and so is Sir Peter. We do not want this to go on for ever. The inquiry will take a general look at the position, and it will take such evidence as it feels fit and go as wide as is necessary to guide future British policy. Beyond that I cannot go, however, because in the end this will be a matter for Sir Peter and his two colleagues on the panel.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We know that the settlement was under £30 million because that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was the minimum cost of the alternative. I confess that I am not a lawyer—most British people are not lawyers—but I cannot understand why the Government, in making this settlement, took the view that they wanted to keep the sum of money involved a secret from the British people. Why was that the Government’s position in this case?
Mr Clarke
This was negotiated and the other side wanted confidentiality, and it was settled on the basis of confidentiality, subject to parliamentary accountability. I understand the hon. Gentleman, and, with great respect, I anticipated his questions, as they are going to occur to quite a lot of people. We could settle this on the basis of confidentiality and we have done so. We have notified the National Audit Office, I think that we offered a briefing to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and we have briefed the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but it would be folly to break the legal confidentiality, which was part of the settlement, if the result is to jeopardise the settlement and put us back where we started.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I am sorry to strike a discordant note, but ordinary decent people out there are going to think that the world has gone mad. People making wild, unsubstantiated and baseless allegations of torture are getting more money than victims of terrorism here in London. If, as the Secretary of State says, it is the law that has forced him to do this, what people out there will want to hear from him are assurances that he will accelerate proposals to change the law and ensure that we never have any of this nonsense again.
Mr Clarke
It is the rule of law, I am afraid. The hon. Gentleman is prejudging the claims that were being fought out before the courts. The claims were for compensation for serious problems that these detainees had suffered—I have met these people. The argument was about the complicity of the British security services, which was not and is not admitted. The detainees were bringing a legal action. It might be that had this ever been fought to a conclusion, the court might have come to the hon. Gentleman’s conclusion that these claims were baseless, but we are never going to discover that now, because we have settled this. We did so as it was not worth discovering, because the bigger public interest was in making sure that we could put a line under all this, get back to having the reputation of our intelligence services restored and get Sir Peter Gibson to advise on how to make sure that that reputation remains intact in future.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that if these allegations were wild and unsubstantiated, as has just been suggested, the Government would not have been keen to settle these cases?
Mr Clarke
I think that in all forms of litigation it is wrong to start reading whether a settlement made with no admissions on one side and no withdrawal of allegations on the other indicates which side was winning—it does not necessarily do so. The fact is that these two sides were locked in litigation, which was going nowhere fast because of the very difficult legal problem of what evidence can be admitted and whether that evidence should be admitted publicly. If Members want, they can read into this that one side was admitting it or that the other side was producing frivolous claims and got away with murder. The court was entertaining these claims; 12 civil actions were under way. But I think everybody understands from the most extraordinary circumstances of this case that it was better to settle it than just to let it go on to see who eventually won. No one should read into this admissions of liability and no one should read into this that one side packed up its claims; we just agreed to come to a very sensible mediated settlement.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Can we demonstrate that we have learned the lesson of the damage done to our reputation by the protracted nature of these investigations by guaranteeing that when fresh allegations are made of bad behaviour, such as the 21 cases cited by The Guardian following freedom of information requests, those present and future allegations will be investigated swiftly and thoroughly?
Mr Clarke
That is why we need the Green Paper, in order to try to establish some rules on the admissibility of intelligence evidence or evidence that may be of relevance to national security. As I believe I said in answer to an earlier question, this issue is cropping up with ever more frequency and we need to resolve it. This is not just something that the Government or Parliament can simply declare we are going to do. We have to resolve this in a way that is compatible with the rule of law, with the judgments that British Courts are likely to come to and with the strong opinions held by the judiciary in this country in their role of defending our fundamental rights, the rule of law and the independence of the courts. We have to consider our international obligations. It will not be easy to produce a Green Paper, but that is the secret to getting back to resolving these matters at a decent pace. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s wish that we could do that, so that they can be sorted out pretty clearly, fairly and straightforwardly whenever they arise.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
You will know, Mr Speaker, that my former constituent Feroz Abbasi was held for many years in Guantanamo Bay in intolerable conditions without charge and was later freed. May I ask the Justice Secretary that if members of MI5 or MI6 are found to be complicit in torture, what penalties will they face?
Mr Clarke
That is speculative. I should make it clear that the allegations in these cases were not, so far as I am aware, that any member of the British security services had directly been involved in torture or ill treatment. They were argued to be complicit—that is, they had known that others were doing that and had somehow been complicit, which is not admitted by the security services. That was the issue. No one, I think, has been accused of torturing. It would be a very serious matter if anybody in the British intelligence services was ever found to have taken part in torture or the deliberate ill treatment of a detainee.
Points of Order
(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised with you yesterday in a point of order the amount of time that the House would have to debate the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill when there was a possibility of there being one statement today. We have now had two statements that have taken an hour and 10 minutes out of our time. Members will, I think, find it particularly galling that one of those statements is the result of the leak on damages settlements, on which we have just heard the Justice Secretary report to the House. In these circumstances, Mr Speaker, what protection can Members be offered so that we have the opportunity properly to debate and discuss a major constitutional Bill that will change the way in which our democracy operates?
Mr Speaker
I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I fully understand the seriousness of his point. The short answer, however, is that these decisions—that is to say, decisions on the timing of Government business—are ultimately for others to make. Specifically, these matters are in the hands of the usual channels and, in particular, of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman might wish that it were otherwise, and many might agree with him, but that is the position as it stands. However, I simply say to him, as I was able to say to him yesterday, that his opposite number, the Leader of the House, is present. He will have heard what has been said and it is open to the Leader of the House to respond if he so wishes.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It was not the practice of the previous Administration to add injury time when we debated constitutional Bills on the Floor of the House and it is not our habit either.
Mr Speaker
The exchange has taken place and we will have to leave it there for the time being.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a subject at the heart of public debate to do with the credibility of Parliament and the honesty of Members of Parliament. You will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has made numerous statements on the need for openness, transparency, probity and honesty with the electorate. Yesterday, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister asking for a copy of the paper on tuition fees written for him by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 16 March along with the paper by the Education Secretary on the same subject. Those papers are not Government publications but are public interest papers. Would you, Mr Speaker, be prepared to give the Library permission to hold those papers after I receive them?
Mr Speaker
I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Lady has said and I shall happily look into this matter for her and for the House. Ultimately, of course, the decision on which documents that are in the hands of members of the Government are published by the Government, including perhaps being put into the Library, is a matter for the Government. However, as I have said, I have heard what she has said, I shall look into it and I shall revert to her when I have done so.
We come now to the ten-minute rule Bill, for which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) has been waiting very patiently.
Employment Retention
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a statutory right to an employment retention assessment to determine entitlement to a period of rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people and people whose existing impairments change; and for connected purposes.
This is the fifth time that I have raised this subject in a ten-minute rule Bill, so if God loves a trier, he must adore me. I hesitate to add that I have seen off three Labour Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions; I hope that this coalition Secretary of State will be my first and last. Throughout my years of toil, it has become clear to me that there is firm consensus across the House that support should be provided to ensure that people who develop an impairment or become disabled can remain in work. The widespread support I have always received for this Bill is testament to the fact that the matter is not confined to the margins of society.
Every quarter, about 600,000 people become sick or develop an impairment as defined by the late Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Within a year of doing so, 13%, or 78,000 people, will have left work. Of those people, about 25,000 a year permanently leave employment owing to illness or disability and never return. That works out at more than a quarter of a million people since 1997, which more than cancels out the previous Government’s creditable achievement of having helped 200,000 disabled people into work in the past decade and will no doubt hinder the current coalition.
We know that as a result of such barriers, a disabled person is nearly five times more likely to be out of work and claiming benefits than a non-disabled person. Crucially, once a disabled person is out of work they are far less likely to get back into employment. Behind these statistics lie people’s lives, which often become unrecognisable as they suddenly have to come to terms with a permanent life-changing impairment while facing the prospect of losing their employment, their source of income and even, in some cases, their home.
I have made these points before and I will continue to do so until a Government address the problem. Last week, the Secretary of State outlined his new universal credit reform of the welfare system, which aims to move more people from benefits into employment, but today I find myself again making the point that we need to focus on retention if we are to stop people falling into the welfare trap in the first place. I welcome some of his welfare reforms, and if he truly intends to make a constructive effort to put more people into employment, I hope that he will consider me and my Bill as a help and not a hindrance.
I support the underlying principle of simplifying the benefits system and providing real incentives to work by creating a universal credit, but the universal lesson that the Government must take on board is that we will not get more people off benefits and into work if there is no work for them to go into. I agree that there should be real obligations, backed by sanctions, on people receiving out-of-work benefits, but they should be matched by rights and guarantees to work. An approach that involves too much stick and not enough carrot will not work.
There are areas in which I am at odds with the Government. I find their plans to cut housing benefit by 10% for people who are out of work for 12 months, even if they have done everything possible to find a job, abhorrent. That is the wrong approach and, without going into more detail, is completely wrong, and not just on moral grounds. It will only add to the burdens of people who are already heavily laden with a disability, or are in rehabilitation, and will make it twice as hard for them to find a job.
Another issue on which I disagree with the Government is the cut in local housing allowance, which will mean that nearly all the claimants in my constituency in private rentals will lose about £43 a month. That might not seem a huge amount, but for too many of my constituents, including those who have been hit by a debilitating injury, degenerative illness or ailment, it could mean having to find a massive chunk of their rent from somewhere else, thereby adding a further economic hurdle to those who want to remain in work.
Another obvious area of contention is the employment and support allowance, which replaced incapacity benefit and income support. The Government plan to reduce the length of time for which someone can receive ESA, and some think that the sole aim of that measure is to reduce the welfare bill rather than to make sure that recipients return to work. We know from the previous Government’s initiative in this area, pathways to work, that many unemployed people with disabilities take longer than 12 months to secure employment. The Shaw Trust, one of the largest charities to work with employers, social services and the disabled to help people with disabilities find employment, states that out of all the clients whom it has placed in work so far this year, 20% had been supported for more than 12 months before moving into work, and of those, a third had taken about 18 months. The trust also states that 63% of all its clients on incapacity benefit included in these figures had taken more than 12 months.
Under the Work programme proposals, the Government estimate that around 58% of the 1.5 million incapacity benefit claimants will be moved on to the ESA work-related activity group. This would mean a large number of people being rushed through the programme, potentially only to leave that job because they cannot cope, have not adapted to their new disability, or are just not suitable, thus going back to square one. Matters could be made worse, as those with a new disability could be cut off long before a resumption of work or before rehabilitation is completed. Although the Government need to elaborate further on this area, they have not ruled out sanctions being imposed if ESA recipients have not secured a job. In any case, ESA recipients would face a reduction in income which would, in turn, place homes and family members at great risk.
I mentioned that my Bill has received widespread support in the House and that this is shared outside the Chamber. On previous occasions when I have brought the Bill before Parliament, I have found support from a wide range of stakeholders, ranging from the Trades Union Congress to disability charities such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Disability Rights Commission and even the CBI.
Being made unemployed through ill health will have an effect on the individual’s long-term well-being, and will also have an impact on the economy as many disabled people never return to work. The result is a strain on the state, a burden on pension funds and benefit payments, and even additional recruitment costs for employers to replace and train staff. Through the Bill, the Government, at relatively little cost, would be able to ensure that any regulatory burden on employers is kept to a minimum. It would be an investment that would reap the benefits in the short term for employers and employees, but in the long term for the Government through benefits savings and tax collected. As the Minister knows, for every 100,000 people who go on the dole, the cost to the taxpayer is £500 million. If we can reduce spending by 1% and raise revenues by 1%, we can reduce the deficit by £12 billion. In this Bill I offer the kind of thinking that will help us towards such goals.
I hope that the coalition Government will get behind the Bill. This year alone, 25,000 people will be in need of these changes, and 125,000 people since I first raised the issue. All I ask of the Government is that they support the Bill, prove that they want to keep people in work, and work with all parties to achieve that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Robertson, Jim Sheridan, Cathy Jamieson, Miss Anne Begg, Valerie Vaz, Lisa Nandy, Alan Keen, Mr Mike Weir, Alun Michael, Jack Dromey, Jon Cruddas and Jenny Willott present the Bill.
John Robertson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed (Bill 107).
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:38 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:53 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I beg to move amendment 11, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘7 May 2015’ and insert ‘1 May 2014’.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘2015’ and insert ‘2013’.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 7, leave out ‘fifth’ and insert ‘third’.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 7, leave out ‘fifth’ and insert ‘fourth’.
Amendment 32, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) In determining the polling day for a parliamentary general election under subsection (3) above, no account shall be taken of any early parliamentary general election the polling day for which was appointed under section 2.’.
Amendment 13, page 1, line 13, leave out ‘“fifth” there were substituted “fourth”’ and insert ‘“fourth” there were substituted “third”’.
Amendment 9, page 1, line 13, leave out ‘fifth’ and insert ‘third’.
Amendment 10, page 1, line 13, leave out ‘“fourth”’ and insert ‘“second”’.
New clause 4—Devolved legislature elections—
‘(1) A devolved legislature election may not take place on the same day as a United Kingdom parliamentary general election.
(2) If a devolved legislature election is scheduled to take place on the same day as a United Kingdom parliamentary general election, then the date of the poll for the devolved legislature general election must vary by—
(a) not less than two months, and
(b) not more than twelve months and one week before or after the United Kingdom parliamentary general election date.
(3) The appropriate authority shall make provision by order to vary the date of the devolved legislature general election, subject to agreement by the relevant devolved legislature.
(4) The following election to that devolved legislature will take place on the first Thursday in May in the fourth calendar year following the polling day for the previous election.
(5) A devolved legislature election is an election to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly.’.
New clause 5—Varying of elections by the National Assembly for Wales—
‘(1) Section 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (“Power to vary date of ordinary general election”) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after “May”, insert “, subject to subsections (1A) and (1B)”.
(4) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) If the scheduled date for a National Assembly for Wales ordinary general election is the same date as for a United Kingdom parliamentary general election, the National Assembly of Wales general election must be held—
(a) not less than two months, and
(b) not more than twelve months and one week before or after the United Kingdom parliamentary general election.
(1B) The Secretary of State for Wales shall by order provide for the date of the poll of the National Assembly for Wales ordinary general election, with the agreement of the National Assembly for Wales, subject to subsection (1A).”.’.
Clause stand part.
Jonathan Edwards
I wish to speak also to amendments 12 and 13 in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends, as well as new clauses 4 and 5. The amendments go to the crux of the Bill—the establishment of a specific period between elections and the date on which we hold the next UK parliamentary elections.
My party is in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, for many of the reasons outlined on Second Reading. A fixed-term Parliament removes a Prime Minister’s ability to seek the dissolution of Parliament for pure political gain, taking away that significant incumbency advantage—more of which later in my speech. It would end speculation about the timing of the next election and a near-obsession with opinion polls and psephologists about when an election might be called. It provides stability for the political programme, as we have found with the One Wales agreement in Wales, a four-year term, where parties understand what can and cannot be achieved within the required legislative time frame—even in our case where the byzantine workings of legislative competence orders have held up the progress of our law-making, denying us prompt action to solve our problems. By providing a settled timetable, fixed-term Parliaments provide a firm basis for electoral administration, taking away the shock of a snap election and giving a more generous timetable to ensure participation in the voting process.
However, I cannot understand the Government’s reasoning behind the insistence on a five-year legislative term, either in this parliamentary term or in the future. To be perfectly honest, there does not seem to be any reason. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government have consistently failed to provide a good reason why the next election should be held in May 2015, not in May 2014. On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister, with bizarre Liberal Democrat logic, presumably taken from a “Focus” leaflet bar graph, claimed that a five-year Parliament would probably amount in practice to a legislative working term of four years. As many hon. Members will already know, the five-year maximum term was implemented in 1911, but even that was introduced with the expectation that the working parliamentary period would probably be four years—a period in which, as Lord Asquith said at the time, a Government had either the political mandate from the previous election or the unwillingness to commit to unpopular decisions ahead of the next election.
Four years—the length of time between elections for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the London Assembly, the London mayoral elections and local authority, community and even parish council elections in all four parts of the UK—is quite clearly and obviously the norm for the electoral cycle in the nation states.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, internationally, the four-year term is pretty much the norm, particularly in Westminster Parliaments? Is he further aware of the academic opinion from Robert Hazell at University College London’s constitution unit to Professor Blackburn, who consistently say that five years is too long and smells like a political fix?
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. For every legislature where the Executive is decided from the legislature, the average is four years rather than five.
The only elections that break that cycle in the UK are the European elections. The elections held and the terms that we expect are the same for elections at all levels, so why are the UK Government seeking to introduce a term that is different from all meaningful precedents?
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that France has a different length, as does Australia? What is so special about four years?
Jonathan Edwards
I shall try to address those points later in my speech. I think that I addressed some of them in my answer to an earlier intervention.
If four years is good enough for a local councillor, why should an MP be given any longer without once again putting themselves up for election to secure a democratic mandate? The argument has been made that, because the current system allows for up to five years between elections, that should be set in stone as the new norm, but that hardly seems proportionate or common sense. When there is a range of options, it is not normal to go for the most extreme, because more moderate measures make greater common sense and attract greater consensus, especially in this Chamber. Let us be honest: amid the rushed and hasty constitutional changes that the Con-Dem Government have been steamrollering through, consensus, consultation and a genuine attempt to reach cross-party agreement have, unfortunately, been greatly lacking.
A fairer litmus test of how long a fixed-term Parliament might be is the average length of time between elections. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who I am glad to say will break with tradition tonight and, I hope, vote for an amendment in the name of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, noted on Second Reading,
“the average length of a peacetime Parliament”—
going all the way back to the Great Reform Act of 1832—
has been three years and eight months.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 625.]
That is a very important point.
Similarly, as Robert Hazell of University college London’s constitution unit noted in his written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, although the balance of Parliaments has been between four and five years, those that went the whole term were those governed by Prime Ministers who did not believe that they would win an election after four years. A five-year parliamentary term, as we saw between 1992 and 1997 and 2005 and 2010 in particular, is often therefore a result of the unpopularity of the governing party. It seems ironic that this Con-Dem Government, one of whose parties is already highly unpopular in Wales—with just 5% support, according to the most recent poll, in north Wales—should opt for the length of time that is associated with the failure to govern successfully and to govern with public support. Perhaps that is just an expectation of things to come.
Why should this Parliament be for five years and not four? Why should we hold the election on 7 May 2015 and not on 1 May 2014? After all, when John Major and when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) stayed in power for five years, they were accused of holding on to power. Is the same accusation not true of the current Government? There appears to be no great reason why five years should be the chosen length of the new fixed-term Parliament.
When questioned on Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared loth to give a fuller explanation. I hope that we hear a better account this evening, because neither was an explanation more forthcoming from other Government Members. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) reminded us that his party’s election manifesto was for a four-year fixed-term Parliament, the proposal that my party supports. He said that he did not know when the policy was changed by the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
I have heard much from the Liberal Democrats in recent months about the need for agreement and compromise in coalition, but I am not entirely sure at whom the message was aimed, because my party has been part of a successful coalition in Wales since we signed the One Wales agreement in 2007. The key to success, I can tell the Liberal Democrats, was agreeing the policy programme before signing the deal, not making it up as we went along, which seems to have been the case with the UK Government. Being part of a coalition does not mean that we have to sell our souls; it means that we reach a practical agreement on policies.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
My hon. Friend talks about the merits of coalition Government, but in these islands there is a Government who have only 46 Members but manage to pass their budgets with majorities in the 70s and 80s. Coalition government is not always the way; there is also the minority government model, which is working very successfully in Scotland.
Jonathan Edwards
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I was remiss not to mention it.
Jonathan Edwards
We will have that debate later.
A five-year Parliament was not in either governing party’s manifesto, and was not put to a public vote. I often wonder, as I watch the coalition Government’s policies morph before me and see stories about the coalition discussions leak out in books and in the Sunday press, just how much influence Back-Bench Lib Dems had over the policy negotiations. I wonder whether they, like me, wake up and wonder which policy of theirs will be changed today. As we are getting used to saying in Wales, “Another day, another Lib-Dem U-turn.”
So, we are still no closer to understanding why five and not four years is the chosen length for a fixed term of the UK Parliament. Perhaps a wag on the Government Benches—by that I mean a wit, not the more common tabloid usage of the word—was correct when she referred to the next election date as being “ the date of the next election, cementing the coalition”. Others think that this is a response to the economic cycle, and the hope is that by 2015 the worm will have turned and the tremendous gamble with our economy, our livelihoods and our communities that we witnessed in the comprehensive spending review will have paid off, and we will be enjoying the fruits of a hard-won recovery. Either way, it appears to be a decision made from political expediency, and that is not in the best interests of the electorate or democracy.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister currently has the right to extend this Parliament to 2015 if he wishes, so how is it an aggregation of power for him to give up the right to call an election at the time of his own choosing?
Jonathan Edwards
I think that the debate is about whether there is to be five years or four years between elections. I will try to address the hon. Lady’s point as the debate progresses.
Many would say that the decision to run five-year electoral terms is a result of political expediency. I have a fair bit of experience of coalitions, and their policies should not have to be welded together in a back room in the way that those of the Con-Dem coalition have been. There is huge irony in the Deputy Prime Minister’s coming to this House to say that the coalition is taking away the Prime Minister’s right to call an election at the time of his choosing, because it is not. This addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe). The one who is currently in charge can choose the longest possible time to be in charge providing that he can keep his own party happy.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee notes that much of the evidence it received was against the idea of a five-year fixed parliamentary term. Neither constitutional experts nor the public are in favour of the new electoral system being set at this length of time. Indeed, some experts saw a note of irony in that by spacing out the time between elections at this maximum length, the active participation of many voters in the electoral system will be reduced rather than increased or improved, as many people, sadly, choose to mark their ballot paper only in a UK general election and do not participate at other levels of democracy. That is another issue that has not been considered properly in the discussions so far.
On Second Reading, many Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), drew attention to the most salient concern—that of having the elections on the same day as other elections, specifically those of the devolved Administrations. There is nothing of what Aretha Franklin, or even George Galloway, might describe as “Respect” in the UK Government’s treatment of the devolved Administrations in this affair, which has been notably lacking in meaningful consultation.
Mr MacNeil
Is not that point all the more serious with a UK general election, a Scottish election and a Welsh election possibly happening at the same time, lined up with the referendum? We want to avoid that because we know the media cannot handle it. That disservice will be done to Scotland not only this time but yet again in four to five years’ time.
Jonathan Edwards
My hon. Friend is correct—it is a double insult. If these plans go through unamended, the next devolved elections in Scotland and Wales will be terribly skewed.
During the debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, we discussed at length the principle of holding a National Assembly for Wales election on the same day as a referendum on the electoral system for the UK Parliament. Despite the objections of Opposition parties and, perhaps more importantly, those who make up the Welsh and Scottish Governments, that Bill was passed, once again showing up the Con-Dem Government’s disrespect agenda for Wales and the other devolved nations. Ironically, even their best argument—the idea that savings would be made through combining the polls and that electors would not have to traipse to the polling station more than once—means little in the Welsh context, as we will already go to the ballot box in March for a referendum on the transfer of powers to the Welsh Government under part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and then again in the following May. Of course, the referendum on further powers is far more relevant to the National Assembly elections than the referendum on AV.
I am not here to repeat the arguments we have already had, although they remain equally relevant and valid to the amendment as they did to debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. That clash of elections will occur once every five terms for the devolved Administrations and once every four terms for Westminster elections. As yet, we have no idea when a reformed House of Lords will be elected. I am a great believer in not underestimating the public, and in publishing the Bill the UK coalition Government are failing to learn from previous practices and errors. Many will remember that the 2007 Scottish Parliament and local elections were held on the same day, with the result that there were an astonishing 147,000 spoilt ballot papers.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with saying that all the spoilt ballot papers were because two elections were held on the same day. The reason was the poor design of the Scottish Parliament election ballot paper. There were two columns, and people had to put a cross in each, but the instructions were not clear. That was the reason for the spoilt ballot papers, not the fact that there were two elections on one day.
Jonathan Edwards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but I was about to explain some of the complexities involved.
That was, of course, the first election after a new system was introduced, with the single transferrable vote being used in local elections in Scotland. Fortunately, we in Wales had already learned lessons and decoupled our local authority and Assembly elections by a year.
Mr MacNeil
Although it is true that the main problem at the last Scottish election was the design of the ballot paper, covering both the constituency and list votes, the man who looked into the matter, Mr Gould, nevertheless suggested that different elections should not happen on the same day. There was a feeling that that had contributed to the difficulties, even though the main difficulty was the design of the ballot paper.
Jonathan Edwards
My hon. Friend makes a more informed contribution than I do, but I was just getting to the Gould report. It was an independent review by the Electoral Commission, and its conclusions and recommendations stated:
“One of the more controversial issues in the 3 May 2007 elections was whether the Scottish parliamentary and the local government elections should have been combined on the same day. We were not surprised by the concerns that were expressed to us about this issue because pursuing combined or separate elections involves a trade-off of different objectives.
If local issues and the visibility of local government candidates are viewed as a primary objective, then separating the…parliamentary from the local government elections is necessary in order to avoid the dominance of campaigns conducted for…parliamentary contests. In addition, separating the two elections would result in minimising the potential for voter confusion.”
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making some incredibly powerful arguments. Would he like to comment on the fact that not only would Westminster and Scottish parliamentary elections clash every five years, but the exact situation referred to in the Gould report—a clash with Scottish local government elections—would happen every four years? We could have the alternative vote system for Westminster while running the single transferrable vote system for the Scottish local government elections, which, as the Gould report highlighted, would be a disaster.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and that seems to me a recipe for disaster.
The words in the Gould report that I quoted make it clear to me, first, that elections should not take place at the same time when there is a trade-off between different objectives, as there clearly would be between a UK Westminster election and an election to the National Assembly for Wales or the other devolved Assemblies. Secondly, they show the problem of the dominance of one election over another. National Assembly for Wales elections are in no way inferior to UK general elections. To many people they mean much more, as they are a way of directly influencing the health and education policies that have an impact on everybody in one form or another.
We must consider the impact of our media, and even the failure of our politicians to understand what is at stake at different levels. Who can forget, for example, the Conservatives using in a UK general election campaign the words of a woman in Wales, Julie from Llandudno, about her concern for education, even though the matter was not even being voted upon in Wales, where education is devolved? Such things have an impact on the perceptions of the electorate.
In the spring, we faced a bizarre, presidential-style contest that was alien to our democracy, in which we elect candidates to Parliament and then usually select the leader of the largest party in the legislature to head up the Executive. There is no doubt that giving three party leaders additional prominence had an impact on an election in which minority party candidates were forced to buck the trend to be elected. Were that to happen at the same time as a Welsh election to the National Assembly, it would cause untold damage to our democracy as Welsh issues, concerns and policies would be steamrollered by the UK media. In Wales, and to a lesser extent in Scotland, we face media that are largely published in England and understandably promote English issues and concerns. When the King report was published two years ago, it was noted that in a month of prime-time reports on health and education, both of which are devolved issues, not once in 134 stories was there any mention of the fact that those policies did not affect Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. That was a criticism of the BBC—a public service broadcaster.
Mr MacNeil
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was as appalled as I was by a “Question Time” programme about two weeks ago. The issue of fiscal autonomy or independence, which is of crucial relevance to Scotland and, in a way, the UK, too, was raised by Nicola Sturgeon, but David Dimbleby just did not want to hear about it. Does my hon. Friend not think that that typifies the attitude of the BBC? Although the attitude was writ small in that case, in the event of an election it shows that there would be no interest at all from a London-centric point of view to air and properly discuss issues that affect the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Jonathan Edwards
Once again, my hon. Friend makes my point for me. What is important in this context is that the BBC is a public service broadcaster. I hesitate to say that the private sector is worse because it could hardly do much worse than nought out of 134. If this issue affects the BBC, it will certainly affect the private press as well.
The English or the UK-based media, which are, by and large, one and the same thing, have difficulties handling devolution issues. Given its high penetration into Wales, it would undoubtedly skew the National Assembly elections. That is a salient concern and one that the UK Government would be wise to heed before continuing down this route.
The Gould report of 2007 says that although turnout is important, it is not the only or the most important consideration. Its conclusions and recommendations state:
“More important is that they engage with the campaign in a meaningful manner and make a knowledgeable decision on their ballot paper.”
It recommends separating parliamentary and local government elections.
It is quite clear that the recommendations of the Gould report could equally apply to a separation of UK and devolved elections, which involve very different objectives and issues—not least in devolved issues such as health or education where some parties will be giving voters mixed messages due to the different policies that operate in different parts of the UK.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Despite the fact that the majority of Welsh MPs asked for a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee, which was set up for such a purpose, the Secretary of State for Wales refused that request. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that is?
Jonathan Edwards
The right hon. Lady knows that I am in full agreement with her. It was very important that those issues were discussed. It was a disgrace that the Secretary of State refused that request.
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. We are moving on to Bills that have already passed through the House. Please can we focus on the amendments before us?
Jonathan Edwards
These changes will have a clear impact as electors find themselves not merely with the added burden of an extra piece of paper to complete, as they will in the clashing elections next May and the alternative vote referendum, but voting for different constituency locations. I am proud to serve on the Welsh Affairs Committee in my first term in Parliament. The Committee received evidence from a number of organisations on these potential problems, and reported on them in our first publication of this Session, entitled “'The implications for Wales of the Government’s proposals on constitutional reform”. We heard, for example, testimony from Lewis Baston, senior research fellow with Democratic Audit. He said that
“the elections for Westminster and the Assembly would be taking place on different systems on the same day, and more complicatedly on two sets of boundaries which will hardly ever correlate with each other.”
Philip Johnson told our Committee that the coincidence of elections could have “horrendous” consequences in 2015.
Chris Bryant
I respect Lewis Baston enormously, but he is slightly wrong: there would be three different sets of boundaries in Wales and Scotland, because there are majority elected seats as well as regional seats. There is no guarantee in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that UK parliamentary boundaries will respect the boundaries of the regions used for Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections, so there will be three different boundaries.
Jonathan Edwards
I was coming to exactly that point. Electors will have three ballot papers: one for the Westminster constituency, which will be a separate location from the Assembly constituency, and a third paper for Assembly regional candidates. Scotland already has distinct UK and Scottish Parliament boundaries, but they remain fixed in Northern Ireland.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way to me again. If the Scottish parliamentary and UK elections were held on the same day, is it outwith the realms of possibility that my constituents would have to go to two separate polling stations?
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman highlights the potential for organisational chaos in the 2015 elections. I am concerned about those elections from an organisational viewpoint.
That decoupling might lead to Westminster and the National Assembly for Wales having very different constituencies, and surely to confusion between different candidates, different policy areas and different locations. Just as importantly, there will be confusion because different electoral systems are used and different local authority electoral services will take responsibility for different counts.
Mr MacNeil
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), surely the answer to avoiding the clash of dates is to give the devolved legislature or Government the power to change the date of elections, whether in respect of Cardiff, Holyrood or Belfast. If people foresee a clash with the US presidential election, for example, a Westminster election or—who knows?—the cup final, they could change dates.
Jonathan Edwards
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. That is the intention of some of our proposals and I am grateful to him for that important contribution.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes the reasonable point that there is a risk of confusion, but will he cast his mind back to the situation that pertained in London in 2004? We had a mayoral election, a Greater London assembly election, which featured a top-up list, and a full European election on the same day. The reality was that there was no sense of any great confusion among Londoners. I am sure that the Welsh electorate is no more stupid than the London electorate, and therefore that it would find a way to make the proposals work.
Jonathan Edwards
Obviously, my fears might come to nothing, but I see no reason why democracy should be held hostage to fortune in that way. The complication, of course, is how the media report different elections. That is the big difference between London elections and those for the devolved Administrations.
We are aware of the potential pitfalls, and I see no suitable way of dealing with them except by holding the different elections apart from each other. Of course, those are the known unknowns. As yet, we have no way of knowing the unknown unknowns between now and the next set of elections.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned one problem with holding different elections on the same day. Many who apply for a postal vote for the Westminster election will assume that they will automatically receive a postal vote for every election, but in fact, they will not, because they need to apply separately for a postal vote for the other elections.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the potential for organisational chaos in 2015 and about participation in those elections.
From the perspective of candidates, another argument against the five-year fixed-term UK Parliament and the clash with devolved Administration elections is that political parties in those countries will need to find suitably more candidates to contest those elections—probably about 90 in Wales, if the Con-Dem Government have their way with the boundary changes enacted in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and about 180 in Scotland.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes a lot of pertinent points about the difficulties in Wales in particular. Can he enlighten us on what consultation has taken place with the devolved Assemblies on these proposals?
Jonathan Edwards
I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s point simply: hardly any.
Returning to the point about candidates, I am confident that my party will have no difficulty in finding quality candidates the length and breadth of Wales, although it might be a different matter, of course, for smaller parties, such as the Liberal Democrats. However, ensuring quality coverage, so that the electorate can become familiar with the people, and not only the party, for whom they are voting, will be doubly difficult if they are all fighting for air time.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am sure that my hon. Friend is looking forward, like I am, with great anticipation to finding out how the Minister will reply to this debate. On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was minded to move the date of the election. Is my hon. Friend aware of any Government amendments dealing with this matter, or is this yet another Liberal broken promise?
Jonathan Edwards
My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. Obviously, if there had been changes since Second Reading, I would not have had to make this speech or table these amendments.
Mr Reid
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be arguing that the right length of time for this Parliament is four years. His whole case seems to be that there will be a clash of elections every 20 years. I agree that it would be a bad idea for both elections to be on the same day, so were the Government to give the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly the power to alter the date of their elections, would he withdraw his new clause?
Jonathan Edwards
I made it clear earlier that my preference is for four years and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has said, the norm has been three years and eight months. Why go to five years, therefore, if the norm over the past 200 years has been three years and eight months? That seems tried and tested.
Pete Wishart
Why on earth should it not be this House that moves its dates? When this Bill was introduced, the Government knew there was to be a Scottish parliamentary election in 2015? Is it not the ultimate disrespect that this place expects the Scottish Parliament to move on its behalf?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is being a little unfair to the Liberal Democrats. So far it is not a broken promise, but just a promise. It might become a broken promise, but at the moment it is just a promise.
Jonathan Edwards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction.
On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared somewhat surprised that having elections on the same day might cause problems. In fact, he seemed slightly perplexed, as if he had not previously considered the possibility. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who noted that there was provision in the various devolution Acts for those legislatures to vary elections by up to four weeks only, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“That is exactly…why we need to consider whether the existing provisions are sufficient.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 627.]
That was commented on shortly after by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who, quite understandably, wondered why, if the Deputy Prime Minister was already aware of the potential for problems, no provision had been made in the Bill to counter them. Admissions of that sort show up this Bill as having been flung together, rather than considered and properly scrutinised.
Mr MacNeil
Would it not be a great sign of maturity from the Government if they could accept new clause 4 and accept that various legislatures—be they in Westminster, Holyrood or wherever—have the right to pick their own window for an election in order to avoid clashes with another legislature and to allow the media the time to communicate properly with the populations? The latter will be difficult, as BBC “Question Time” the other week proved.
Jonathan Edwards
That would certainly further the respect agenda that we have heard so much about from the UK Government since their inception.
I am afraid that admissions of the sort that we heard from the Deputy Prime Minister show this legislation up as having been flung together rather than considered properly. The UK Government told us on Second Reading:
“We take these issues seriously and are not just paying lip service to them.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 702.]
However, we have no new amendments on the issue to discuss in Committee, and no answers have been given to the questions posed about how the Government plan to deal with those concerns. I hope that we will hear more from the UK Government on the issue today, as requested by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in our first report. Nobody in Wales has any confidence that their voice is being heard for as long as the UK Government continue to steamroller their policies through without time for due consideration and scrutiny.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
If the Northern Ireland Assembly were to say that it wanted its elections to run alongside the Westminster elections, would the hon. Gentleman accept that that should be able to happen? Or is he saying in his amendment that that should not happen?
Jonathan Edwards
In our view, the decision should be made at the appropriate level.
There are four-year electoral terms for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and all other devolved bodies and councils. The arrangements should be the same for the UK Parliament. We do not yet know when we will be voting for the House of Lords, a principle whose implementation we have been awaiting for quite some time, or for our police commissioners—an idea that excites no one save those on the Government Benches. The five-year terms of the European Parliament are an aberration from our electoral norm. The proposals in the Bill would also be an aberration.
A four-year Parliament beginning in 2014 would have the advantage of avoiding the problems associated with clashes between UK general elections and those of the devolved legislatures, which are many. The Bill has been presented to Parliament as a fait accompli, with no good reason as to why the next election must be in 2015 and why there must be five-year Parliaments. Political expediency is not the best principle on which to base good law-making. I fully support the concept of fixed-term Parliaments, but I cannot support a five-year fixed-term Parliament that will have strongly negative effects on democracy. I hope that the UK Government will see sense on this matter and respond positively to this suggestion, rather than putting their head in the sand and trying to brazen through a five-year parliamentary term without consensus in this House or among the other Parliaments in the UK. We shall be pressing amendments 11 and 12 to a vote, and we will not support clause 1 if it remains in its present format.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I shall support all those amendments that propose a four-year fixed-term Parliament, and in so doing I shall invoke someone who when I was growing up was considered a great Liberal. Mr Asquith spoke in the Chamber that preceded this one, and, in a recent debate on 21 February 1911 on the Parliament Bill which was to change the Septennial Act 1715, he said:
“In the first place we propose to shorten the legal duration of Parliament from seven years to five years, which will probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years. That will secure that your House of Commons for the time being, is always either fresh from the polls which gave it authority, or—and this is an equally effective check upon acting in defiance of the popular will—it is looking forward to the polls at which it will have to render an account of its stewardship.”—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. XXI, c. 1749.]
Asquith’s reasons have been borne out in all the years since then. The average length of a Parliament is not far off four years, and his points relate to the electorate. None of the constitutional proposals of the Deputy Prime Minister—who I again note is not following his own Bill on the Floor of the House of Commons—strengthens the position of the electorate versus the Crown as represented by the Government. The proposals are therefore abandoning the principle that a Government have the authority to govern but must be mindful that there is a time after which the electorate should make a judgment on the actions, activities and success of that Government. That is all being cast out for what I believe to be a profoundly cynical purpose: the entrenchment, or attempted entrenchment, of a particular Parliament for five years. That requires a Bill. I do not know whether it is possible to present clause stand part arguments on the basis of parliamentary privilege and the series of very serious arguments that lie behind what we are discussing.
Mark Tami
The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that the Bill was really all about the current Parliament, and about holding the coalition together. No thought has been given to what it actually means for the future; it is just about holding the coalition together today.
Mr Shepherd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I believe that that will be the wider judgment. What was reflected in a previous Bill is emphasised in this Bill.
The Bill has not, of course, received pre-legislative scrutiny in the traditional way, but nor did Asquith’s Bill. That Bill was an attempt to bring together the threads of our constitutional history. What distresses me most about this constitutional arrangement, and the actions of the coalition Government, is that they think that we are all back-of-the-envelope legislators who set aside the traditions and history of our own constitution. They are trying to legislate for something that I believe is unnecessary. A Government last for as long as that Government can command a majority in the House of Commons: that is a fundamental constitutional proposition in the Parliament Act.
Mr Mark Field
My hon. Friend will know that I share many of his fears about the Bill, along with the other constitutional change that has been proposed. However, in so far as we are to have fixed-term Parliaments, might it not be regarded as even more cynical if we moved away from the five-year norm which has, as my hon. Friend says, been in place for the last 99 years, even if that five-year norm is a maximum?
Mr Shepherd
The point is that the coalition Government have set their heart on five years, so that is the proposition that we are examining. I was trying to advance the arguments that were presented to the House as recently as 1911, but the post-1945 chart, featuring 17 or 18 elections, shows that, in all but four cases, the average length of a Government has been about four years. The principle behind that is fairly closely related to what Asquith said. It is right that there should have been a recent renewal of a Government’s mandate; it is right that a Government should be mindful that they face an election. But if we are to adopt fixed-term Parliaments, what is the right period, given that the Government concerned command a majority in the House?
Mr Mark Field
In fact, there have been 17 elections since 1945, and the average length of a Government has been three years and 10 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the four-year term has been the norm, that has been because a Government have gone to the country at the time that they feel is best for them, whereas when a term lasts for the full five years, that has generally been because the Government in question had very little choice? In other words, there has been an element of expediency—one might even call it cynicism—behind the actions of Governments who have used the maximum five-year term for their own benefit.
Mr Shepherd
There is, of course, no question about that in my mind. Governments will try to engineer an election at the moment that is most convenient for them, although it may not be the best point in the cycle of public opinion, or relate to the sense of the House as a settled House.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman said that Asquith’s Bill did not receive pre-legislative scrutiny. Does he agree that we might be more relaxed about a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny if the Government were willing to reach out, listen, and take ideas on board—considered ideas that were not on the back of an envelope? May I suggest, in the context of new clause 4, that whether we support four years or five, it makes sense to allow other legislatures in the United Kingdom to alter, or tweak, what they are doing in relation to either Westminster or a five-year term?
Mr Shepherd
There is a simple amendment which the hon. Gentleman did not table, and which was not discussed in the lengthy and closely read speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). That amendment would state that the general election must take place on, let us say, the first Thursday in October. That would meet the point for which the hon. Gentleman argued at such great length—that he should not have to deal with the coincidence of elections on the same day. He did not table that simple amendment, however, and as it is not on the amendment paper I cannot speak to it.
I find Professor Blackburn a most interesting speaker on the constitution. In the evidence he gave in a memorandum on electoral law and administration, he makes the following point:
“In the UK, there can be little doubt that the period between general elections should be four years.”
That is what we are debating now, and it is arguable. He continues:
“The proposal for fixed term Parliament as a whole should fit as closely as possible into existing constitutional expectations, and the idea that four years is about the right length of time between elections is very prevalent. It was the period expressly approved of as being normal in practice, when the Parliament Act set the period of five years as a maximum.”
That is a reference back to Asquith. Professor Blackburn goes on to say:
“In an ideal democracy it may be that there should be elections as frequently as possible—even annually as supported by the Chartists in the eighteenth century”.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is present, has tabled an amendment proposing a period of three years, and we could refer back to the Chartists, so it is clear that these arguments were not unfamiliar at different times in the history of this country. There was an argument that we should have annual elections; that was a powerful movement in the early 19th century. It was thought that Parliaments and Governments must not move too far from the opinion of the public and the electorate.
Tristram Hunt
Professor Blackburn’s speech is particularly interesting, because he goes on to say—[Interruption.] Well, I will let the hon. Gentleman read it out then, because the key point is in the following paragraph.
Mr Shepherd
I have lost my place as a result of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, so let me recap what Professor Blackburn said:
“It was the period expressly approved of as being normal in practice, when the Parliament Act set the period of five years as a maximum. In an ideal democracy it may be that there should be elections as frequently as possible—even annually as supported by the Chartists in the eighteenth century—but a government must be allowed a sufficient period of time in which to put its programme of public policies into effect before submitting its record of achievement, or otherwise, to the voters. Three full legislative sessions, and certainly four, is sufficient for this purpose.”
I believe that that is correct.
Chris Bryant
I agree with the point made in that quotation; indeed, I was going to refer to that passage in my speech. For the sake of accuracy, however, I should point out that the Chartists were really in the 19th century, not the 18th. I hope that that does not invalidate the historical record.
Mr Shepherd
What a trivial point, but I thought I had said the 19th century. I stand corrected if I did not, and I am sorry if I misinformed the Committee. [Interruption.] No, I do not think I was quoting at that point. [Interruption.] I said the 19th century, I think. I am well aware of that fact; it was part of my own training.
The central issue, however, is the legitimacy of Governments and the determination of what is the right period for enabling the people to have a view, and control, over the Crown as represented by the Government in this place.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. I can see from his face that he is not particularly happy about it. However, may I ask him to make his position clear? Does he feel that there should still be flexibility in the calling of elections, or does he support a four-year term? I am a little confused as to where he is taking his argument.
Mr Shepherd
I am sorry if that is the case. I am speaking in support of those amendments that call for a four-year Parliament, as opposed to the Government’s position, which is that there should be five-year Parliaments. I accept, of course, that Governments face exigencies. We well remember that Mr Blair postponed an announced date of an election because of a nationwide country alarm over foot and mouth disease. There has to be an element of flexibility for such circumstances. War would clearly alter the schedule for elections too, and Parliament has within its means the ability to extend the period at such times, because this is the sovereign body for the United Kingdom. That point should be borne in mind: however much I may rejoice in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, in Wales and the Welsh Assembly, and in the arrangements in Northern Ireland, the Westminster Parliament is the fount of the authority under which national elections for this place are held. Therefore, although the House should bear in mind any exegesis on inconveniences, ultimately it is for those of us who are sent here by the people to represent them to decide what is in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole in the formation of a Parliament that holds to account the Government whose Members sit on the Treasury Bench in this House. That is all; I am, in truth, making a very simple argument. I think four years is more appropriate than five. That is what this is about. I think there is sufficient flexibility.
I have cited certain authorities, such as Professor Blackburn and Asquith. I do not want the argument to be lost to a lot of academic writers, however. Professor Hazell at University College London is a former civil servant; he worked in the Cabinet Office. I want to hear about the great constitutional writers who informed past debates, but that is singularly missing when this House comes to discuss what is right. We do not talk about the experience of previous times.
What is the reasoning behind this clause? It appears to suit the personal convenience of a coalition. Most people I meet see and understand that perfectly well. Why would we support such a measure if we are representing the people and the interests of this House of Commons? That is the burden of the arguments I am putting forward for a four-year term rather than five years.
I also want to repeat that I regret that the Government have made no case for five years. That has been a major omission in all these constitutional debates. They assert, without authority or reference to anything, that the needs are such that five years is somehow a more suitable period. By and large, I do not believe in international comparisons, but I note that most modern democracies—the United States, for instance, with its 200-year-old constitution and President—work to a four-year cycle in determining who is to be their chief executive. The United States works to a six-year cycle, with third terms, for the Senate, and a two-year cycle for its equivalent body to our House of Commons. Our tradition has been different.
Mr Mark Field
Does my hon. Friend not appreciate that if we are to have a fixed-term for this Parliament, five years is the only acceptable period? If any other term had been proposed, that would have been felt to be entirely cynical. Is not my hon. Friend’s argument essentially that these changes should be put in place only for future Parliaments? We were all elected on 6 May on the basis of a set of rules for getting rid of a Parliament and for the terms and duration of it. These proposed measures for fixed-term Parliaments should take effect for future Parliaments; they should not bind this one.
Mr Shepherd
I was elected under the law as it then stood, and I expected that the length of term in place at the time would apply. I also expected that any Prime Minister would make decisions in that context. As well as my question of the relationship of the electorate to the House of Commons to the Executive, there is another that hangs over this entire argument: why do we need any of this? What improvement does it bring to the current position?
Mr Shepherd
The proposal suits the Government for their own purposes, and that is why the nation at large is cautious, as are many Members on both sides of this Chamber.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many of us may well be cautious, because although we are concentrating on the question of a fixed-term Parliament, when we move on we will be examining the question of an early general election and questions of confidence—confidence in whom and for what? We will also deal with whether such questions should be decided by a simple majority or one of two thirds. These hugely important questions go straight to the heart of the future of this Parliament.
Mr Shepherd
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. This is a hugely important constitutional Bill and we should not doubt that. Every commentator of any serious worth has noted that this is an enormously important constitutional issue and we will try to tickle out its ramifications, including for parliamentary privilege, within our very tight timetable. What he says is true and just, and we should listen to it.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I note my hon. Friend’s observations about America. Of course, its terms really are fixed: the Senate cannot alter its six years, the President cannot alter his four years and Congress cannot alter its two years. What we are saying, which is consistent with the Parliament Act 1911, is that five years would be the expected norm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) notes, at least two mechanisms could bring an end to a Parliament should this House decide, so we are stopping the Prime Minister from having an election early for expedient purposes. Instead, we are saying that there should be a five-year term, as suggested in 1911 and as used by several Parliaments afterwards—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief. I think that Mr Shepherd has got the gist of the point.
Mr Shepherd
I make the gentlest of suggestions to my hon. Friend that he misleads himself. I provided the quote from Asquith which set out the position as the House then understood it, and it has turned out, by and large, to be correct over the intervening years. I do not want so to close down the options of this House that when a Government fail or cannot command a majority there is not a general election, as such an election is necessary for the public will. However, as the long title makes clear, we are looking at a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and the suggestion on the table is for the term to last five years. I do not understand where my hon. Friend is coming from if he thinks that in 1911 the proposal was for a full five-year term—it was not.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
This is a most intriguing debate and my hon. Friend speaks with great passion and impartiality about these important matters. Surely this Parliament can opt for a five-year Parliament but it cannot bind future Parliaments. Should those Parliaments wish to change the arrangement, they will be able to opt for a four-year or a three-year Parliament, or whatever they should wish for at the time.
Mr Shepherd
But the options are closing. This measure is part of a constitutional package. We passed a piece of legislation that may introduce a new electoral system and that may ensure that no one party has an overall majority in the future, so to say that we are able to change something will be a matter of great negotiation across the Floor of the House. That is why I am very cautious about accepting changes to established norms and constitutional practice as we have experienced it over my lifetime and since 1911.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman talks of Asquith, but may I bring him up to date with perhaps a less illustrious modern Liberal, the Deputy Prime Minister? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this measure is all about survival? It is about a Liberal deal to try to get this coalition through and not at all about any great, grand constitutional reform. It is about the survival of the Liberals in this Government.
Mr Shepherd
We all draw our own conclusions, and I suggested something. What we are clear about is that the Deputy Prime Minister has just repudiated Liberal Democrat—as they now call themselves—fixed positions on two Bills. The first was the voting system, and the Liberals are doing the same on this measure; they had a fixed position but it is gone. We ask what the motives are, but there is no point in my attributing motives—the world and its wife will do that for us, so we do not need to worry about it.
What we want to maintain is the constitutional right of the people we represent and the balance of power within this Chamber between the Opposition and the Government, and between Front Benchers and Back Benchers. All that is now at risk and has been for a long time. We have to have that respect in ourselves back in this House; we have to believe that we can talk to Government freely and frankly. The purpose of my speech was, in part, to create a debate, rather than just to make a statement of fixed positions, because the calibration of each Member of Parliament is an important right in itself. This House must find that when dealing with something that most of us have not experienced before: a coalition. One party of that coalition took no part in the negotiations that formed what I call the “image of gold” but what is known as the coalition agreement; no one on my side formed that, other than those who are now in the Executive. So this matter is very difficult and very sensitive, which is why people are very delicate about it. However, we are now dealing with the substance of our old constitution and the merits of that, and it is its merits that I believe are stronger than the proposals put forward by the coalition.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments 7 and 8, which stand in my name and ask for triennial Parliaments. That makes me feel positively like a constitutional Trotskyite, coming forward as the blazing radical in this song and dance for a five-year or four-year term. Amendment 11, which proposes a four-year term, is perfectly acceptable as it is a good amendment. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) quoted from Asquith’s powerful and effective speech. I was going to refer to it at length, but I shall not now do so because he has given us it pretty well in full. That speech set out that in legislating for five-year terms the then Liberal Government were actually saying that the expectation would be for earlier elections, so that was to be a maximum term, not the norm. The provision before us attempts to create a norm of five years.
Andrew Bridgen
Would the hon. Gentleman just remind the House how long the previous Parliament ran for?
Austin Mitchell
If the hon. Gentleman bides his time a little, I shall deal with exactly that point. He is making the very sensible point that bad Parliaments last for five years and Governments in precarious or disastrous situations try to hang on for as long as possible. That perhaps indicates why he is not going to support this Bill: it is an indication that his Government are going to try to hang on for as long as possible—for five years.
Neil Carmichael
At least one manifesto that has come to my mind was entitled “The Next Five Years”; I believe it referred to 1959 to 1964, and so it turned out to be. So at least then the norm was five years, and there really are more normal expectations of that than meet the eye.
Austin Mitchell
Again, that was because the then Government were hanging on, as Macmillan was replaced by Sir Alec Douglas-Home. They had to hang on to the bitter end, which was October 1964, because they were disastrously placed in the polls. That is another example to support my argument, which is that bad Governments want the maximum. This Government are a bad Government and they are trying to legislate for the maximum—they are trying to set bad practice in concrete.
Mr MacNeil
As I listen to the hon. Gentleman, I wonder whether cause and effect are a bit mixed up. One complaint that we have had in the past is about the Government holding an election at a time of their choice when they feel the runes are looking good for them rather than fixing the democratic process in some way so that the gerrymandering of polity and of the climate in the country could not happen. The idea of having a fixed Parliament is exactly that. It is best fixed at four years, I think—the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is best fixed at three—but the problem in the past has been that it has been for five years and was then cut short. It is not the length of time that makes a Government bad; it is just that bad Governments run out of time but would keep going for six or seven years if they possibly could.
Austin Mitchell
I accept that point. The argument for fixed terms used to be that Governments would manipulate the economy to suit their own purposes and would go to the country when it suited them. Now Governments are so disastrously buffeted by economic circumstances that they will seek to hang on as long as possible.
Neil Carmichael
How bad does the hon. Gentleman think the Attlee Government were from 1945 to 1950?
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. First, it is not necessary for the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) to wave—he simply has to stand up. Secondly, can we stay within the scope of the amendments? I think the Attlee Government might be a little wide of them.
Austin Mitchell
The second Attlee Government lasted from 1950 to 1951. However, that was an attempt to detour me and I do not want to be detoured down all the happy little roads that Government Members would rather turn us into.
I think that four years is perfectly acceptable. It would be good and I would be happy to support—indeed, I will support—that amendment. Three years would be better. It is not a downward option—it is not like the old programme that Yorkshire Television used to do, so that we go five, four, “3-2-1”. I will not go as low as the Chartists’ demand for annual Parliaments; I am staying at three. Around the world, a pattern can be seen—the more democratic the society and the polity, the more frequent and regular are the elections. I would put at the head of that democratic tree Australia and New Zealand, which have three-year Parliaments that work happily. I used to write about New Zealand that if there was a seizure of power by the Chinese Communists, New Zealanders would still be standing outside the polls in November of every third year ready to vote because they have the conditioned habit of voting. It is a good conditioned habit and three years is a good term.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Is not the important point about this Bill the fact that it is a five-year Parliament Bill?
Austin Mitchell
I agree entirely. I am sorry to have interrupted my hon. Friend’s intervention with the answer to the question, but that is right. This is an arrangement by two parties seeking to hang together, to bind themselves to each other and to carry on for five years. There is no system of constitutional thought or political theory—it is sheer, simple opportunism.
Tristram Hunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) did not give the key quote from Professor Blackburn, who said:
“It is likely that the Coalition’s concern with concretising its political alliance, and having the longest period possible in which to implement its tax increases and cuts in public expenditure and then recover sufficient popularity in time for its next meeting with the electorate, has affected its judgement in this matter.”
Is it not politics that is driving this rather than any grander constitutional vision?
Austin Mitchell
As an ex-academic, I find that the best way of alienating the House is to quote other academics, so may I just say yes to that question and move on?
I was making the point that around the world, the most democratic polities—I gave Australia and New Zealand as the examples—have more frequent and more regular elections. The less democratic polities have longer spaces between elections—witness the French presidential system, where it was seven years, or the old British constitution when it was an oligarchical system with seven-year terms. This is an issue of basic democracy.
The measure is not an attempt to think about the constitution and to reform it along sensible lines; it is a political fix. The Government have just gone for the longest time they think they can possibly get away with. That is it. They want the coalition to be bound together, nailed together and stuck together for five years and they hope that they can do that with this measure. They are entrenching bad practice. Most Governments in this century have gone for shorter terms than sitting out the maximum. As I said earlier, it is only the bad Governments—the failing Governments—who have gone right up to the buffers. Governments who are in a mess cling on because they are deeply unpopular.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
On the specific point that it is always a failing Government who go the five years and cling to power until the last before leaving, I recall that the 1987 to 1992 period resulted in the same party being returned.
Austin Mitchell
I am baffled—I mentioned Governments in a mess and a Government Member stands up to tell me that the mess was bigger than I thought it was. Is that the point he is making? My point is quite simple. There are deeply unpopular Governments—Governments in such a state as this Government have reduced themselves to in six short months—who hang on to power.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman refers to a Government reduced to the state that this Government are in. They are easy words, but will he clarify his comments?
Austin Mitchell
Falling behind in the polls, implementing unpopular measures, failing and visibly disagreeing with each other—is that not a description of the coalition Government at present? They have achieved that after six months. It took John Major’s Government more than four years—certainly within five—to reach the state that this Government have reached in six months. That is my point. Governments in that situation normally try to hang on. The two examples that I would give are the Major Government, which went right to the buffers, and my own Labour Government this year, which should have gone to the country in 2007, when a new Prime Minister took over, but hung on hoping for better things that did not come.
Neil Carmichael
May I just say that this debate has nothing to do with changing the Prime Minister during the five years? That is not in the Bill at all. We are discussing the length of the Parliament.
Austin Mitchell
I see another detour on the route map so I shall not go down that road. I had my own proposals once for a maximum six-year term for Prime Ministers. The current Prime Minister said during the course of the election that if the Prime Minister changed, there should be an election within six months of that change—something that seems to be missing from the Bill but which may have been relevant.
The Government are trying to entrench bad practice in this Bill and our amendments—mine for a very democratic three years and amendment 11 for four years, a sensible and statesmanlike version of my democratic stirrings—are trying to stop them doing so.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Gentleman talked about bad practice. Does he agree that an example of the worst sort of bad practice was the farce that was the autumn of 2007 and the election that never was?
Austin Mitchell
I just said that it would have been sensible had the Labour Government gone to the country in 2007—not only because we would have won, but because it was good and it would have been right to ask for a new mandate for a new Prime Minister. The Labour Government made a mistake and in consequence they hung on too long towards the end. I cannot see that I can break down and make any more confessions in the Chamber. That is an assessment of political reality. That is what Governments who are in difficulty do—they hang on—and that is what the Bill seeks to entrench.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some very good points about Governments hanging on for five years, but is not the crucial point that if all precedent and practice in this country are for four-year Governments, and four-year terms for other directly elected positions, the Government need to advance a strong case for extending the period to five years? They simply have not done that; indeed they refuse to do so. Is that not what we should consider today?
Austin Mitchell
I agree absolutely, but that argument relates to amendment 11, which seeks four-year terms, whereas I am arguing for more democratic three-year terms, so I must have a more radical argument than the statesmanlike argument that we have just heard. We should all ask ourselves where the five-year period comes from. Where have the Government plucked it from? What is the inspiration behind the Bill? Perhaps we could have some explanation of why a five-year period has been chosen. It was not in the Conservative party manifesto.
Austin Mitchell
And trains could run on time, but they do not always. If the hon. Lady had been here for the speech by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, she would have heard the answer: five-year terms are the maximum, but the expectation is that Governments will go to the country sooner. Most do go sooner because that is sensible practice, which is what the amendment seeks to install.
Mrs Laing
I am afraid that I have to disagree. There is no expectation that a Parliament should run other than for five years. In the past century, there have been some five-year and some four-year Parliaments. There is no such expectation, but there is a law and it says five years.
Austin Mitchell
It says up to five years, and the Government are seeking to make five years the compulsory length of a term, so far as they can entrench that in the constitution. Had the hon. Lady heard the preceding debate, she would have realised that, historically, most Governments have gone to the country before their five years were up.
Alec Shelbrooke
That is all very well and good, but the hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that, for the first time, Parliament, and not the Prime Minister, will have the power to dissolve Parliament.
Austin Mitchell
Parliament will have the power to dissolve Parliament on a two-thirds vote, I think, in this ludicrous legislation, so I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am saying that we should legislate for three-year Parliaments, which would be sensible, and I am asking where the five-year term has come from. How did it come into the heads of this Government? Did it spring fully armed from the head of the Prime Minister?
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Austin Mitchell
I have taken enough interventions for the time being. I want to make a few points of my own instead of being forced to respond to questions about hypothetical situations that I have not dealt with.
The Conservative party did not mention fixed-term Parliaments in its manifesto, but we did: Labour had a fixed four-year term in its manifesto. The Liberals, insofar as they had a position—they always have a lot of contradictory positions—had what the Deputy Leader of the House said when he was their spokesman on constitutional affairs, when he urged four-year terms. Perhaps he has had a message from the new leadership telling him to rescind his speeches from when he was the Liberals’ constitutional affairs spokesman. Will he listen? I know that he is very comfortable on the Front Bench—he is built for it—but there is no need for him to change his views on this issue so radically and dramatically as he seems to have done.
So the Liberals wanted four-year terms, the Conservatives had nothing about it in their manifesto and I argue that five-year terms are too long. I agree that we should have had an election in 2007. That would have meant the Labour Government going much sooner. Why am I proposing three-year terms? The Executive always want longer terms, because they want to be in power for as long as they can and because longer terms allow more time for more mistakes and for tough measures to hit the people. There are certainly some tough measures coming from this Government, which might be why they want a five-year term. Regular and more frequent elections hand power back to the people, which is what the people want. They want us kept on a shorter leash. That is what the feeling of hostility to politics, Parliament, parties and politicians that built up last year indicated to me. Triennial elections would certainly keep us on a shorter leash because we would have to go back to the people more regularly. They are suspicious of us; they think that we are out for ourselves and they want to control us more effectively.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being customarily generous in giving way. Does the experience in the congressional elections in the United States not show that their two-year terms mean that members of Congress, once re-elected, are constantly considering fundraising, canvassing and campaigning for their re-election, thereby undermining the electorate’s faith and trust in them?
Austin Mitchell
The US House of Representatives, which is the equivalent to our House, has a two-year term, which is very democratic, but I am proposing a three-year term, which would cause us to go back to the people much more regularly than we do now. The people want to be heard. An outstanding feature of our democracy as it has developed is the people’s desire to be listened to by this place, which they so angrily asserted in 2009. It is frustrating for people to feel that we do not listen. What better way is there of consulting the people? We should do it not through polls but through regular elections, as in Australia and New Zealand, where three-year terms work very effectively.
The people want us to be accountable, and more regular elections are the best way of keeping us accountable. Elections bring a great renewal of energy and contact with the people. They are great for concentrating our role of representing them and voicing what they want in this place; they recharge the batteries. More frequent elections would make us more vulnerable, more amenable and more prepared to listen to the people because we would have to be out there every three years listening to and meeting people and persuading them in a way that is not provided for anywhere else in our system.
This House is a great hiding place: the longer we stay here between elections, the more out of touch with the people we get. They want us to be more accountable and to listen more and they want more frequent contact. We cannot dodge that responsibility or say that reasons of statesmanship or coalition politics require us to stay hiding in this place, out of touch with the people, for five years. The condition of our being here is that we need to renew that contact as regularly as possible.
I seem to have been here for so long that I could have come in with that Asquith election victory that led to reform of the House of Lords in 1910, but I began my political career by dreading elections because one has to go out and force oneself on people and they may not want that. One has to leap up to them with a handshake and a fixed grin. One has to give them one’s opinions, listen to them and ask them questions—talk to them. That was a nervous ordeal for me and I was terrified, but over time I have come to like elections more and more, particularly if I win. That is another reason why I would like more frequent elections. They are a form of renewal and of contact with the real world that we do not otherwise get in this place.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
It is very entertaining to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s campaigning techniques and fixed grin, but would three-year terms not simply promote short-termism? One thing that the electorate do not want is short-term thinking in their Governments and politicians. They want them to take the right long-term decisions for the good of the country.
Austin Mitchell
And what happens now as Governments sit in power for up to five years? They tremble at what the Daily Mail says to them about the angry middle classes, they fear what The Daily Telegraph says and they are denounced by the Daily Express. That kind of jelly-like impact is something that I want to avoid. Let us not listen to what the Daily Mail tells us the people think—let us listen to the people. Let us go back and listen to them more frequently, because their opinions are honest. They are not distorted for some party political purpose by a newspaper like the Daily Mail or The Daily Telegraph, which caused my Government and cause this Government to quake. Let us listen to the people and not to those who arrogate the voice of the people for their own purposes.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is always entertaining, and I pay tribute to the fact that on the day the Labour party lost a 22,000 majority in 1977, they returned the hon. Gentleman in Grimsby, but will he tell the House how many people in the Dog and Duck in Great Grimsby have said to him, “I won’t vote for you, Mr Mitchell, because the term will be five years instead of four ”?
Austin Mitchell
None, but perhaps people will not vote for a candidate because he is too old and might not last a full term. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the issue is not frequently raised, but there is a feeling, and there was at the end of the previous Government and at the end of the Major Government, that the Government have gone on too long. That is what I want to avoid.
There is a feeling among the public that they want us to go back to them more frequently. They want to meet us more frequently. They want us out there in the streets, canvassing more frequently. That is why I say that more frequent and regular elections are basic to democracy. They put the people in power and they make the politicians prostrate before the people. The people can tell us what they want, and that is what it is all about.
The role of the House, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, is to hold power to account—to hold the Executive to account. We do not do it very well because, with a party majority, the Executive and the Prime Minister drive a steamroller through the House. Mrs Thatcher would shout down at us “Get out of the way,” and we would tremble. With John Major, the steamroller wandered all over the place, but the Executive are still powerful.
The only real way of holding power to account in this country is to put it before the people more regularly in triennial elections and give them the power to throw the rascals out—give them that choice every three years. That is basic to democracy.
Mr Shepherd
And does not the Front Bench demonstrate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making? There is not one Cabinet Minister in attendance on an issue of constitutional principle. There is no one arguing or representing the Administration in a proper sense on a major Bill. As he well knows, I respect the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), but the point is made.
Austin Mitchell
I accept that point from my hon. Friend. It is a shame that even the Deputy Leader of the House has gone out to check whether he supported four years when he was a constitutional affairs spokesman—or was it three and a half? He is probably on his BlackBerry now, checking the figures. It is demonstrably wrong that a Government should propose to the House a basic alteration to the constitution, which has enormous constitutional repercussions and which has not been discussed or properly assessed or pre-digested, force it though by a party majority, and not bother to attend the debates to speak in favour of it.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has clearly outlined the need for the democratic process to operate over a three, four or five-year period, but does he agree that there is something wrong with such a Bill coming before Westminster without consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament to have their view on the process, so that we can all have a democratic say about what happens?
Austin Mitchell
I agree absolutely. That is the best indication that this is a constitutional fix, a coalition deal, a rather squalid political manoeuvre, rather than a matter that can be discussed and presented to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and discussed with the legislatures there, because it has repercussions for them as it does for us.
I had better come to a conclusion. The conclusion is simple: three-year Parliaments would give the people the power that they need and want not only to keep us accountable, but to throw the rascals out—throw out the Government if they do not like them—every three years. I hope it is a power that they can exercise sooner than May 2015 on the present lot.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I shall make a short contribution. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) for a four-year term. I am not quite so enamoured with the idea of three years, and I shall say something about that in a moment.
However, I could not agree with the manner and the tone of some of the contributions in the past hour or two from the Opposition Benches. Silly comments about Con-Dem Governments, political posturing and so on are not helpful to an important debate about the constitution of this country. I do not believe for one moment that any kind of dodgy, underhand dealing is going on.
Mrs McGuire
If the hon. Gentleman repudiates that intention, why was there no attempt to reach a cross-party consensus on a major constitutional Bill?
Andrew Percy
I am just a lowly Back Bencher. I cannot answer that question, but the right hon. Lady has made her point and no doubt Ministers will respond to it when they come to the Dispatch Box.
It is important to remember that the subject of the Bill is not one that electrifies the public. We are all in agreement about that. In the Dog and Duck they do not talk about it. In my village the pub is well known—the Percy Arms—and the topic does not come up a great deal there. It is not something that people are talking about or that is tripping off people’s tongues, but that does not mean it is not important. It should be debated properly. Perhaps that is a partial response to the right hon. Lady’s point.
I have been staggered by some of the comments by Opposition Members—the feigned outrage about a five-year term. Many of them were in the previous Government over the last five years—[Interruption.] Sadly, the country knows what it was like as well. I want a four-year term because the experience of the last Government, and perhaps earlier Governments, shows that a five-year term is not necessarily in the best interests of the country. Governments generally expect to go to four years, although there is no requirement for them to do so. When they have run to five years, it is usually because they have known that they were about to be booted out by the electorate. We thus end up with a year of incredibly poor decision making, and this Government have to deal with the consequences of the appalling decisions taken in the last year of the Brown Government.
Alec Shelbrooke
On my hon. Friend’s point about Governments campaigning in the last year, one of the things that I find most disturbing is the premise that in a five-year Parliament, Members take no notice of their constituents until the last year. That may explain why the majority of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) fell to just 714.
Andrew Percy
I hope that politicians on all sides take notice of their electorate at all times. The problem with going to a three-year term is that they may take less notice of their constituents and a great deal more notice of the newspapers. Given that Governments tend to be most responsive to newspapers in the last year or six months before an election, the risk with a three-year term is that the Government would be beholden to the newspapers and chasing headlines for the entire term of office.
On the clash of elections, I have sympathy with those representing countries with devolved Assemblies. I would not want a Welsh Assembly election or a Scottish Parliament election on the same day as a general election, but it is a bit inconsistent for some on the Opposition Benches to suggest that a clash of elections is always bad news, because they deliberately arranged for that by holding European and local government elections on the same day, using two different voting systems. However, that is best avoided. I accept that the case for a general election is a little different and that a general election should be held separately from the elections in the devolved regions.
I have no academic or study to quote on the four-year term; I just feel in my gut that it is the right length of time for a Government. A four-year term is better because it would fit with local government elections and devolved assemblies. The Canadian Government changed from five to four years a couple of years ago, and we have heard about the three-year terms that exist in Australia and New Zealand. For me, four years would be a more appropriate term for us to be in office. There is an acceptance that after being in power for five years, we tend to be a little too detached from the electorate, and consequently end up making bad decisions. However, I cannot support the three-year term proposed by my near neighbour, next door but one, in Great Grimsby. That would throw us into a perpetual state of elections. It is often said about US congressional elections that American Congressmen are in a perpetual state of election, which is why they have so many earmarks and pork barrelling; they have no sooner got themselves to Washington DC than they have to run back to their electorates to try to gain election.
Mr Stewart Jackson
My hon. Friend refers to the American political system and reiterates my earlier point, but is it not true that at the other end of the scale US Senators, who have a six-year term, can take a broader view of both national and international issues? Very few people say to an experienced American Senator that they are past it or clapped out, or not thinking of the good of the country because they are in their fifth or sixth year.
Andrew Percy
The problem with the American Senator term is that a third of the Senate is elected every two years, which means that they, too, are in a perpetual state of elections, so that idea does not carry over completely.
The other experience of more regular elections is that there tends to be a greater propensity on the part of the electorate to re-elect their incumbents. As I am now an incumbent, that is not necessarily something that I would take issue with. I suspect that all hon. Members would be happy to see incumbents re-elected—[Interruption.] Well, yes, perhaps their own incumbency re-elected. I was particularly intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that elections offer the opportunity for politicians to recharge their batteries. That is certainly not an experience I have ever had in an election campaign.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Are not comparisons with the Congressional elections inappropriate, because Congressmen, by and large, manage to insulate themselves from the electorate because they do not have independent boundary commissions but negotiate their constituency boundaries so that 85% of the seats are safe? Therefore, there is no real comparison; when they go to face the electorate most of those Congressmen know they are going back.
Andrew Percy
I was involved in that in New Jersey in 2000. Such matters were determined on a state-by-state basis and depended very much on who was in control in that state. It is not quite the case that Congressmen themselves are busy dividing up their own seats, but there are examples where that happens.
I conclude where I started. For me, a four-year term feels more natural. As I said, I have no academic support for this argument. To go to the electorate every four years, which fits in properly with the elections in Scotland and Wales, feels the right thing to do. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments and I look forward to the comments of Opposition Members who, having enjoyed a five-year term, now seek to criticise the Government for seeking to continue them.
Chris Bryant
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on advancing his amendment before I got to the Table Office when I would have tabled exactly the same amendment. His alacrity is in the interest of the whole House, and he is right to have tabled his amendments, as I hope to lay out.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), who always speaks with an independence of mind, which compliments both the House and his electors. He is right that this is about the entrenchment of Government. This measure is not proposed because there has been some grand constitutional convention that has consulted the country about the appropriate length of the Parliament and has consulted academics or voters; it is simply here to entrench this Government at least until May 2015. That is primarily why it exists. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said that he felt—I was not sure whether he said in his waters or in his guts—that four years was better than five, and he is absolutely right. If one looks at the contributions made by most constitutional experts, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked us to do, all have said that four years is a better term than five. It is also right to say that the process that has been gone through for the Bill is inappropriate.
Neil Carmichael
Surely those points ram home the argument that five years is a good spell, because the hon. Gentleman has just admitted that from time to time we could break it and have an election earlier, but the norm would still be five years.
Chris Bryant
I will come on to why I think five years is an inappropriate length of time. However, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I will admit lots of things in this speech, but I will not admit what he has just told me to admit.
My argument is essentially that four years is a better term for a fixed Parliament than five years. A five-year legislative provision for a maximum length of a Parliament has served us not too badly and may well be okay, not least because it has meant in practical terms that Parliaments have tended to be more like four years, precisely as Asquith intended in 1911. But a fixed five-year term is overlong, and the main reason why we have that is that the Government want to continue until May 2015, which is an inappropriate use of constitutional reform.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole said that he was absolutely certain that there could not have been any underhand skulduggery. I think he was using irony, if not sarcasm, and irony does not always translate perfectly into Hansard. His Dog and Duck test is right. The vast majority of voters are not obsessed with the length of a Parliament, but they do know when a Parliament has had its day, and for the most part, by the time we get to four years in this country, certainly since the second world war, most electorates have started to say, “You know what, it’s time we had a general election.”
Alec Shelbrooke
First, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no reason right now why this Parliament will not go to May 2015—it is perhaps just wishful thinking on the Opposition Benches—and, secondly, will he confirm whether his party supports fixed-term Parliaments?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I was just about to come on to the point that I wholeheartedly agree with fixed-term Parliaments. It was wrong for Conservative, Labour and, for that matter in the past, Liberal, Whig and any other kind of Government to be able either to cut and run, as the Deputy Leader of the House said in a sedentary comment earlier, or to choose to hang on until something comes along. It is better to have a fixed term.
Interestingly, in 1950, Stafford Cripps—your predecessor, Ms Primarolo, by I do not know how many—argued forcefully to Clement Attlee that there should be a general election before a Budget, because, if the election were held after, it would look as if the Government were trying to bribe the electorate, which would be wholly inappropriate.
Chris Bryant
Those were the days, eh? When high-mindedness ruled.
The point is surely that it should not be within the power of the Government to determine the rules. It is like the situation in which everybody is running a 100 metre race, but the starting gun is held by the person in charge, and sometimes he decides to shoot some of the runners instead of just starting the race.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I agree that constituents reach the point at which they feel that the Government need to change, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is often in part because constituents are desperate for the Prime Minister of the day to announce a general election? Having such certainty to a reasonable extent will therefore obviate the need for constituents to wonder, “When is the election going to happen? When is the date? It can’t happen soon enough.” That certainty will surely improve the situation.
Chris Bryant
Yes, of course. The hon. Lady is right in the sense that constituents will not have to worry about the date of the election. In fact, newspapers and the BBC will have to employ considerably fewer journalists, because they will know the date of the general election and actually have to obsess about something else. However, the past 50 years have shown that, for the most part, once a Parliament has run for more than four years, either the Parliament itself is so fed up with the Prime Minister that it chooses to change the Prime Minister before holding a subsequent general election, or the country is becoming pretty fed up.
Mr Cash
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, really, this is not a fixed-term Parliament Bill at all? I mean not to criticise but to ask him a question, because, contrary to what he says, the Government do not make all the rules, the House of Commons does. If the House decided to go for a confidence motion because it happened to be fed up with the Government in question, as it did over Maastricht, we could end up with the situation in which the Government lost control. Then there would be a general election, and there would be no fixed term at all.
Chris Bryant
That is right, but that is a point in relation to clause 2 and at the moment we are dealing with clause 1. [Interruption.] At the moment we are talking about clause 1. In fact, the Bill is not really a fixed-term Parliaments Bill, because it does not determine how many days it should sit within those five years; it is a fixed-term elections Bill: it determines when elections shall be. There are things that we need to change in relation to Prorogation and so on, and we shall come on to that at another point in the debate, but, for the most part in this country, after four years and often before, the mandate on which the Government were elected becomes pretty thin, and they start doing things—sometimes pretty unpopular things—that were not clearly outlined in their manifesto. The party or parties might have made all sorts of commitments before they went into government, but events come along or the Government suddenly discover things that mean they have to break those manifesto promises or commitments, and the longer that a Government go on after four years, if they do so, the more likely they are to undermine respect for Parliament.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman, in his outrage, is almost saying that we are attempting to increase the length of a Parliament, but we could go to May 2015 as things stand in statute today. That does not involve extending the length of this Parliament. His other point is that Parliaments can run out of steam over five years, but that has been the problem of previous Governments, because they have governed in the short term, rather than for the long term and for the good of the country.
Chris Bryant
That is where there is a need for a balancing act, and that is why I do not support a three-year Parliament, which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) advocates, or a five-year Parliament. I support a four-year Parliament, which in most constitutions throughout the world seems to be the period at which people have arrived. The Government would have at least three good Sessions in which they could advance their legislative cause, and if they wanted to do difficult things in the first and second years but retain their ability to recover their position in time for an election after four years, they would be able to do so.
One of the other things that happens in government itself is that, after four years, a lot of people become pretty tired. That was certainly true in the previous Parliament, in John Major’s Government and in Baroness Thatcher’s Government, and, because of that concatenation of tired people, many more ex-Ministers no longer have an investment in the future and do not intend to stand at the next general election, so in practice attendance in the House is much lower during the last year of a five-year Parliament than in the preceding years.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, and he is making an engaging argument on a threadbare premise, if I may say so. Is not his argument essentially weakened by the fact that there is a mechanism to deal with an atypical event? I refer him to the controversy of 1979 over the Scotland Act 1978. That Parliament had been going for four years, and there was a vote of confidence on 28 March 1979. In other words, four-and-a-half years into that Parliament, the issue was considered of such import to the affairs of state and to the House that a motion of no confidence was tabled. Such a motion can still be tabled under this Bill. Therefore the value judgment between four and five years falls down. It would only really stand if the House had no capacity to dismiss itself and enter into a period prior to an election.
Chris Bryant
I have to presume, as does the House, that the Government will go through with all the various provisions that they have laid down in the Bill, and in clause 2 there are two provisions for an early general election: the first determines what happens if there is a motion of no confidence, although it does not say what such a motion is; and the second relates to a motion for an early general election, although it does not say whether such a motion would name the precise date of that election. The Government presume that we will need a two-thirds majority in the House to achieve an early poll, so on the Government’s argument—and, if the hon. Gentleman is going to support the Bill as it is, on his argument therefore—the presupposition is that there will not be many early general elections. Indeed, the Bill, by trying to make it almost impossible to have an early general election, is much tougher than the vast majority of other constitutions that I have looked at throughout the world. That is another reason why four years is better than five. In fact, the hon. Gentleman has helped me to make part of my argument.
In relation to the intervention by the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), I believe that in practice the Bill will lengthen the Parliaments of this country. Since 1832 there have been 45 general elections: the average peacetime length has been three years and eight months, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr said; even including the lengthy wartime Parliaments of the first and second world wars, the average has been only four years; and, during the period when the maximum allowable duration under the Septennial Act was seven years, from 1832 to 1911, the average was three years and 10 months. In practice, by fixing elections as “every five years”, we will lengthen Parliaments and ensure less frequent general elections.
Stephen Williams
While we are discussing historical events, will the hon. Gentleman concede that some of those shortened Parliaments occurred because of the practice, which no longer exists, that when a monarch died, Parliament was dissolved?
Chris Bryant
In fact, looking through the list, that applies to remarkably few of them. It is absolutely true that there used to be the provision that there should be a general election on the demise of the monarch. That has not pertained for quite some time, however, and it certainly does not apply to any of the general elections of the 20th century.
Ms Bagshawe
It is false to say, as the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have said, that the aim of this Bill is to entrench the power of the Government. If the Government wish to remain in office until 2015, they need do absolutely nothing, as they already have that within their power. Does not some of the weariness in Government to which he referred—a salient point—come from endless speculation about the date of the election, as in the previous Parliament, dating from 2007 when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) ascended to the prime ministership? [Interruption.] I am sorry for mispronouncing Kirkcaldy. If we know that there will be a fixed date for the general election, will not that remove the endless speculation that leads to weariness in Government?
Chris Bryant
Since the hon. Lady represents Corby, she should at least be able to pronounce the names of the Scottish parliamentary constituencies, as most of her constituents are Scottish. It is a great delight to see her joining us in the debate—we have missed her for most of it thus far.
Chris Bryant
I apologise if the hon. Lady has been there and I have not happened to notice her—she usually sits closer to the Front Benches.
The hon. Lady’s point is wrong. The main reason for large elements of the Bill, particularly in relation to when an earlier general election can be called, is the desire to keep the coalition together. That is why we had the options for 55% majorities, as originally proposed, and then 66%. It is the superglue element of the legislation, which is there wholly for cynical purposes to try to keep the coalition together. Otherwise, I suspect that there might be a point at which the leader of the hon. Lady’s party might want to cut and run and get rid of her unpopular lightning conductor of a Deputy Prime Minister.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a fixed-term Parliaments Bill that will entrench anything in the system, but rather a “fix for this Parliament” Bill that merely represents the expedient and the ephemeral embracing each other to cope with the unexpected?
Chris Bryant
Yes, indeed. That would be the ultimate “Brokeback coalition”, I suppose.
Neil Carmichael
I want to talk about the hon. Gentleman’s statistics. Looking back at the previous century, we had two elections in 1910, elections in 1923, 1924, 1951, 1959, 1964 and 1966, and two elections in 1974. He cannot give us an argument based on an average. He needs to highlight the Parliaments that really mattered, most of which were Conservative ones, as opposed to trying to massage his argument by bringing in Parliaments of a few months or a bit more. Funnily enough—[Interruption.] I was about to finish.
Chris Bryant
Funnily enough, of course I can advance an argument that is based on the average length of Parliaments, because the practical experience of voters over the past two centuries is that Parliaments have not gone on for more than four years. Therefore, if we are going to fix it for the future that they will always go on for five years, the hon. Gentleman and those who wish to take the Bill forward without amendment intend to extend Parliaments and provide for fewer general elections—that is just a fact.
Only four Parliaments since 1945 have lasted roughly five years. In three cases, a change of Prime Minister had intervened in the meantime: the Parliaments from 8 October 1959 to 15 October 1964, when Harold Macmillan handed over to Sir Alec Douglas-Home; from 11 June 1987 to 9 April 1992, when Baroness Thatcher —she was not a baroness then, obviously—handed over to John Major; and from 5 May 2005 to 6 May 2010, when Tony Blair handed over to the former Prime Minister. In addition, the longest Parliament of all in this period was John Major’s, which ran from 9 April 1992 to 1 May 1997. It is difficult not to argue that in each of those cases the electorate had wanted an election before the election was eventually held.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman think, by that measure, that the European Parliament should not have five-year terms and that they should be reduced to four years? If so, why was it not done when Labour was in government? [Interruption.]
Chris Bryant
You are telling me to deal with one Parliament at a time, Ms Primarolo, and I rather agree.
I have to say that I probably agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, that would require treaty change, and I do not know whether we would then end up with a referendum, which would be very difficult for the Government.
Mrs McGuire
I may have misheard my hon. Friend, but I do not think he included the Parliament of ’74 to ’79, which also had a change of Prime Minister when Harold Wilson handed over to James Callaghan. Even adding in that Parliament, only six out of 16 Parliaments since the second world war ran for five years.
Chris Bryant
Indeed. My right hon. Friend makes a very good point; she is right. I think that that Parliament ran for four years and seven months.
The second reason I think that five years is too long and four years would be better is that five years is longer, in practice, than applies virtually everywhere else, certainly within the European Union. Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Spain all have, for their lower Houses, fixed or maximum Parliament lengths of four years.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sitting there in his rotund way—[Interruption] I am sorry, orotund way—and providing me with the suggestion that I might refer to France. He is absolutely right, and I will indeed come to France. He might also have mentioned, orotundly, that Italy, Austria, Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg have provisions for five years. It is worth pointing out that in Italy there have been 17 elections for its Camera dei Deputati since 1945, and only twice in that time has the Parliament run for the full five years.
Chris Bryant
Of course. The hon. Gentleman is very peripatetic this evening.
Mr Cash
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might take on board the fact that the systems of all the other countries in Europe that he has rightly cited are based on written constitutions. Does he accept that the virtue of the British system is its flexibility? Moreover, there is the example of 10 May 1940—the day I was born, as it turned out—when Chamberlain was effectively dispatched because he had completely failed and Winston Churchill took over. That was on the very day that Hitler invaded the lowlands. In other words, we make our decisions based on whether we in this House, on behalf of the people, decide that the Government have had their day.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is, in effect, making an argument against the whole of the Bill, because he is basically saying that we should not have fixed-term Parliaments. [Interruption.] I am sorry—he is chuntering so I cannot quite hear what he is saying. However, I disagree with him. My argument is that if we are going to have fixed-term Parliaments, they should not be of five years but of four years, partly because otherwise we will end up having the longest-running Parliaments in the European Union.
In Italy, very few Parliaments have gone on for five years because the President has the power to suspend the Parliament early. In Austria, there have been even more general elections—20—although that country has had a fixed five-year term since the war. Malta has had 16 elections since the war, and only since 1998 has it stuck to the five-year period. Cyprus has had regular changes to its constitution for a whole series of different reasons, not least in relation to Turkey. Only Luxembourg has a fixed five-year term that it has stuck to since 1974. In all these cases—I thought that this is the point that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was going to make—the elections are held on the basis of a system of proportional representation, where there is an expectation that Parliaments might fall rather more frequently because elections do not tend to bring in one party with an absolute majority of seats in the relevant House.
Andrew Percy
As interesting as the examples from Europe are, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the countries that share our monarch and have exactly the same problems with prerogative powers and so on provide a better example of where we should be heading?
Chris Bryant
I will come on to them, and indeed they add to my argument, but I just wish to finish with France, for the further satisfaction and delight of the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). As I am sure he is aware, there have been 18 general elections to the Assemblée Nationale since 1945, which in large measure is because the President has the power to suspend the Parliament early if he wants to, and has frequently done so since 1945. The only restriction is that he cannot do that if he has already done so in the past year. In effect, therefore, there is not a fixed five-year term but a maximum five-year term, and elections have been held in October, November, March and June. In fact, the number of full five-year terms has been low. Again, that makes my point that a fixed five-year term for the British Parliament will mean that we have the longest Parliaments and the least frequent general elections of any country in the European Union.
As the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, it is not just the situation in the European Union that should matter. Five years is longer than in any of the other Westminster democracies as well. As he and others have said, New Zealand and Australia have three-year terms. They are not actually fixed terms in either case, they are maximum three-year terms, and I know that plenty of people there would like to be able to change to a four-year term because they think that three years is too short a time. In practice, three years ends up being a fixed term, because who would want to have elections more frequently than that? He is also right about Canada, where there is a four-year term.
However, there are some exceptions. I thought that the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell would leap up and ask, “What about India?” The Lok Sabha, whose Members are elected in a similar way to ours in the sense that there are single-member constituencies, is elected for a maximum of five years. However, leaving aside the suspension of elections during the state of emergency from 1975 to 1977, there have been Parliaments of one, two, three or four years on several occasions since 1952. In practice, because it is quite easy to hold early general elections in India, it does not feel as though there is a fixed term of five years. Again, we will be going longer than most.
In South Africa, the National Assembly has supposedly been elected for five years ever since independence, but every term between 1966 and 1989 lasted four years or less—some might say “fewer”, but it depends on how one looks at it.
Alec Shelbrooke
I say again to the hon. Gentleman that this Parliament will still have the power to have an election before the end of the fixed term.
Chris Bryant
Unless the hon. Gentleman is going to support us on amendments to clause 2—I look forward to his arguments, because we will have to ensure that he is consistent—he must accept that the Bill provides tough measures to ensure that the calling of an early general election will be pretty difficult, if not virtually impossible, given the parliamentary system.
To continue with Parliaments in the Westminster-style democracies, Papua New Guinea has consistently had fixed-term elections every five years since 1972, but it has more than 20 political parties, and only one party in the Papua New Guinean Parliament has more than eight members out of the 109. Again, that is a very different situation.
I therefore point out to Members that since the 1970s the only two places that have stuck to five year Parliaments, which are what the Bill is intended to give us on a permanent basis, are Papua New Guinea and Luxembourg. I just do not think that they provide an appropriate model. Even in the Dáil, which obviously has a five-year term and has done since 1923, the average term has been three years and three months. I argue that the Government are trying to extend the practical length of Parliaments, which is inappropriate.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr referred to Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh elections. His amendment 11 refers to the elections in 2015. I do not know whether the Government want to have a lot of elections on the same day, or whether they want to try to separate elections out consistently. In the USA, as several hon. Members have said, there is a deliberate constitutional construction to ensure that a lot of elections happen at the same time on the same day, on a two-yearly cycle. That is not the model that we have tended to adopt in the UK, although we have ended up with local elections, and now the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections, happening on the first Thursday in May.
Jo Swinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Does he accept that the situation he describes is not solely a result of this Bill, and that it was bound to happen anyway in 2015, when it is likely the general election would have been? As he says, there are already different boundaries in Scotland. It is right that we find some way of enabling the devolved legislatures to move their elections if they wish, but the situation is not just the result of this Bill.
Chris Bryant
No, no, no, the hon. Lady is wrong. She has a much easier way to solve all this—she can vote with us tonight. She only has to do so twice, first to ensure that the 2015 election is brought forward to 2014 and then to ensure that elections are every four years, not every five. She has to do both, she cannot just do one, because otherwise we would still end up with elections happening at the same time every 20 years.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I wonder whether we can get down to the brass tacks of this. In 2007, some 140,000 ballots in Scotland were void, nullified and not counted. People were disfranchised because there were two elections of different sorts on the same day. This matter is not ethereal, it is about practical politics and the enfranchisement of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When that point was made earlier in the debate some people said it was all about how the ballot papers were presented, and undoubtedly that was part of the problem. However, the point is that in Wales, an Assembly election feels like a general election. It will feel like a general election next May. Elections to the Scottish Parliament feel like a general election in Scotland, and I am sure the situation is somewhat similar in Northern Ireland. If they coincide with the UK elections every 20 years, it will be a bit of a muddle and voters will be confused. This is not about our convenience, it is about the convenience of voters and the clarity of the mandate that is provided. Without a clear mandate, we end up without good politics and with people distrusting the political system.
I say in passing that another element of the Bill is that the Government intend to stick to a short election campaign, both in any early general election that might be held and in the specific 2015 election. That will not be the same campaign as for the local elections or for the Welsh or Scottish elections. That will provide another level of uncertainty, particularly for treasurers of local election campaigns. They may be the treasurer for their local constituency association or their local party, and they are already given a pretty tough job to do with stringent legal provisions. Often they are nervous about what that might mean for them and whether they will end up in prison. We should not make the situation even more complicated by firing the starting gun for expenses for the various elections on different days. In addition to that, by choosing May we will always hit the problem of Easter. In 2015, polling day will be on 7 May and, because it is a relatively early Easter, Dissolution will be on Monday 13 April. In 2020, unless we change the legislation, polling day will be on 7 May, which will mean that Dissolution will be on Maundy Thursday 9 April, as both 10 and 13 April will not be working days.
Maundy Thursday used to be a day on which one did not have elections. It used to be provided as a bank holiday, but legislation in 1995 removed it from the list. None the less, it would be inappropriate to dissolve Parliament on Maundy Thursday in 2020. The bigger point is that we will constantly have the problem with the start date of the electoral campaign because Easter moves.
Ms Bagshawe
Although I respect the hon. Gentleman’s ecclesiastical background, I cannot resist asking him why it would be a problem for the Dissolution of Parliament to take place on a Maundy Thursday. It seems quite a bizarre point to make. Will he please elucidate?
Chris Bryant
Both days provide a specific role for the monarch. The point that I am trying to make is that because Easter moves, the number of working days’ measures that is allowed for in the Bill at the moment makes it more difficult to predetermine exactly how many days there will be. For the most part, it is inappropriate to have a general election across the passage of Easter; it makes it more difficult. I do not want to lay that down in legislation. I merely make the point.
The main point, however, is that it has always been the ambition of freedom that there should be frequent elections. There is a significant difference between having a fixed term and a maximum term for a Parliament. The Meeting of Parliament Act 1694—it used to be known as the Triennial Act 1694—stated:
“Whereas, by the ancient laws and statutes of this kingdom, frequent parliaments ought to be held; and whereas frequent and new parliaments tend very much to the happy union and good agreement of the king and people”.
It then went on to make provision for three-year parliaments, which is what, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is advocating.
I fear that the argument of the Government—in particular the argument of the Deputy Prime Minister—that plenty of time is needed to do unpopular things is rather closer to the Septennial Act 1715. That said:
“And whereas it has been found by experience that the said clause”—-
namely the one that provided for three-year Parliaments—
“hath proved very grievous and burthensome, by occasioning much greater and more continued expences in order to elections of members to serve in Parliament, and more violent and lasting heats and animosities among the subjects of this realm, than were ever known before the said clause was enacted; and the said provision, if it should continue, may probably at this juncture, when a restless and popish faction are designing and endeavouring to renew the rebellion within this kingdom, and an invasion from abroad, be destructive to the peace and security of the government.”
In other words, as in 1715, the Government want to be able to remain longer in power because they think that it is better for the country. On the whole, we should presume that shorter Parliaments are better. It is no wonder that the Chartists campaigned for annual elections. The petition that was presented to this House on 2 May 1842 by Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, the MP for Finsbury, argued for it and for the payment of MPs. The Parliament Act 1911, to which several hon. Members referred, came about in response to the battle over the powers of the House of Lords and the people’s Budget in 1910. Prime Minister Herbert Asquith then said that the change would probably amount in practice to an actual working term of four years.
In 1992, the Labour manifesto said:
“This general election was called only after months of on-again, off-again dithering which damaged our economy and weakened our democracy. No government with a majority should be allowed to put the interests of party above country as the Conservatives have done. Although an early election will sometimes be necessary, we will introduce as a general rule a fixed parliamentary term.”
In 2002, Tony Wright, the former Member for Cannock Chase—he was previously the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee—brought in a ten-minute rule Bill, calling for fixed-term Parliaments. He pointedly said that the fixed term had to be four years rather than five years.
In 2007, another ten-minute rule Bill was brought forward in the name of David Howarth, a very fine man who was then the Liberal Democrat Member for Cambridge. He argued very forcefully, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, that there should be a fixed-term Parliament. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for fixed-term Parliaments, but fixed at four years and not five. Their policy paper 83 “For the People By the People”—[Interruption.] I will not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has just said. The policy paper, which was introduced to the autumn conference in 2007, set out the commitment to a written constitution, which included fixed parliamentary terms of four years. It stated:
“Liberal Democrats have long argued that parliaments should last for a fixed term of four years. In a reformed political system coalition government might be the norm and stability can only be encouraged by a system which does not allow for snap elections when political relationships suffer temporary disruption.”
The best advocate of such legislation was the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). Indeed, he brought a Bill before Parliament. I have seen lots of photographs of him advocating a four-year fixed Parliament. As he is an honourable man who believes in consistency, I know that he will support us tonight in favour of a four-year rather than a five-year term.
Welcome to the Chair, Miss Begg. It is a delight to see you for the first time in the Chair in the full Chamber of the House. Let me repeat, there is no mandate for this provision. This provision is not the one that was in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. It is not the provision that was in the Conservative party’s manifesto, because the Conservative party said that it would introduce legislation to provide that if a party in Government changed its leader, and therefore the Prime Minister, there would be a general election within six months. That provision has completely disappeared, so there is no mandate for the precise nature of this Bill.
I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Minister have persuaded themselves of their argument. They have scrunched up their eyes and desperately persuaded themselves that this Bill does not try to extend the length of Parliaments. They have screwed themselves to the sticking point, and they are determined to get it through. The honest truth, however, is that this is a wrong measure. It is anti-democratic. It will mean that general elections happen less frequently. This House should support the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and all the other amendments that call for four-year Parliaments rather than five-year Parliaments and the next general election in May 2014 and not 2015.
Mrs Laing
I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg.
In the unavoidable absence of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), I should like to put before the House amendment 32, which has been tabled by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is chairman. I and other hon. Members here present are also members. Not all members of the Select Committee have put their names to this amendment, and I do not wish to press it to a Division. None the less, I want to put it before the House on behalf of the Select Committee because it was part of our process of pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. In the Select Committee’s words, the House should consider whether
“a Parliament following an early general election should last for only as long as the remainder of the term of the previous Parliament, and whether such a provision would make a super-majority for a dissolution unnecessary?”
I am sorry to be speaking about this matter after the shadow Minister because he may have wished to say something about the Select Committee’s deliberations.
Three eminent academics gave evidence to the Select Committee. Professor Robert Blackburn of King’s college, London, wrote that the amendment would help to
“ensure a governing majority does not abuse its ability to push through an early election resolution for no good reason other than being a favourable time to itself to go to the polls”.
Professor Robert Hazell of the constitution unit at University College London, wrote that the proposal would provide
“a strong disincentive to a government inclined to call an early election”
as well as
“a disincentive to opposition parties tempted to force a mid term dissolution”.
The proposal is also supported by Professor Hazell’s colleague, Professor Dawn Oliver, for similar reasons.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. It will be difficult for people to know on what basis elections are held if we do not accept amendment 32 or an amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill to ensure that boundary commissions report 18 months or so before the date of an election.
Mrs Laing
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman and I disagree profusely on the boundary commission issues that are currently being debated in Parliament, but we agree that it is essential that regular boundary reviews coincide with parliamentary terms. I expect that the Minister will also agree with that.
As I have often said when speaking to amendments that have arisen from the pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, amendment 32 is genuinely meant to be helpful to Ministers, and to forewarn them. If there are early elections, boundary commission reviews will be out of step. Having said that, this is a purely practical matter. I am sure that the Minister, once he has given it about two or three minutes’ thought, will have a perfectly good response. It is right that this Committee considers such points, because that is the purpose and meaning of pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Government put their argument against the amendment in their response to the Select Committee’s report. They say that
“a Government could be returned following an early general election with a large majority, in which case it would make little sense to ask the voters to return to the polls in as little as a few months.”
That is a perfectly good point and I cannot argue with it. They also argue:
“The people expect that when they go to the polls, they are being asked to elect a Government which will last for a full term with a full programme.”
If the Bill passes, the people will indeed expect that. Those points answer some of the points that the Select Committee made in its pre-legislative scrutiny, but not all.
As I said, not all members of the Select Committee support amendment 32, and I do not wish to press it to a Division. I am speaking to it on behalf of the Select Committee simply so that this Committee has an opportunity to consider the balance of the arguments. I am sure that the Minister will give very good reasons why he does not wish to accept the amendment, but I hope he will reassure us that the Government have considered the points made—perfectly properly—by the Select Committee.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady referred to the evidence given by Professor Hazell, so I am sure that she would also want to point out that he said that fixed terms should be for four and not five years. Does she remember 16 May 2008? She intervened on David Howarth in the Chamber to attack the idea of a fixed-term Parliament. She said:
“Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of this Bill because for nearly a century they have not had an incumbent Prime Minister, and have no prospect of having one for the next century?”—[Official Report, 16 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1704.]
Mrs Laing
I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises that and grateful to him. I very well remember 16 May 2008 —I have the Hansard here in my hand—and I am delighted that when I spoke from the Dispatch Box from which he just spoke, I did not encourage my party to vote against provisions for a fixed-term Parliament Bill. I doubted the motives of the Liberal Democrats at that point.
Mrs Laing
I am consistent on that point as in all other aspects of my political philosophy. In fact, the debate on 16 May 2008 was a full debate on this issue, and I urge hon. Members to consider it.
I have spoken to amendment 32 on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Having performed my duty in that respect, I am now free, and I should like to speak to amendment 11 on my own behalf, and not on behalf of that Committee or anyone else. There are two issues to consider when it comes to the length of Parliaments: first, the constitutional principle; and secondly, the prevailing political situation. Let us be honest: that is the crux of the matter.
On the constitutional principle, there is nothing strange, new or innovative about a five-year parliamentary term. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) asked from where the Government have plucked the idea of five-year terms. The fact is that the law permits five-year Parliaments, as it has for the past 99 years. The idea has not been plucked from nowhere—it is quite normal.
Jonathan Reynolds
Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the normal practice has been four-year terms? In fact, the average length is slightly less than four years. If we are to extend that period, we should at the very least be given an argument in favour of it, but such an argument has not so far been forthcoming.
Mrs Laing
No. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The Bill is not about extending Parliament. Four year Parliaments are not normal. Let us be realistic and honest about that, in political terms. We have had four-year Parliaments because they have suited Prime Ministers who believed that they had a better chance of securing a majority in the country after four years than if they went on for another year. The current system gives enormous power to Prime Ministers, and quite rightly so. There must be some power of incumbency, which is what the power to make such decisions is. There is no norm of four-year Parliaments, and averages are irrelevant—they are just arithmetic.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady is talking about what is normal. I venture to say that it has not been normal in the British system, since 1832, to have a five-year Parliament. There have been a few, but there have been very few. It has been more normal to have four-year Parliaments.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend is very familiar with these figures, but 10 of the past 17 Parliaments lasted longer than four years, and six of those 10 lasted longer than four and a half years. That probably supports her argument that many Parliaments run for much longer than four years.
Mrs Laing
I thank my hon. Friend very much for those statistics. He is absolutely correct, and talking about averages is neither here nor there. We should be looking at the number of Parliaments that have run for five years, almost five years or very much less. We cannot count the war years, and it is irrelevant to count unusual times. There is no norm of four-year Parliaments. The Bill does not extend anything; it merely enshrines the current situation.
Jonathan Edwards
On UK norms, is it not true that where institutions are fixed, whether in Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland, or in local authorities and town, community and parish councils, the norm is four years? The norm in the UK is four years, and that is the whole point of the amendment.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady accept, therefore, that the only other Parliament in the United Kingdom has a four-year term, and that is the Scottish Parliament, for which, I regret, she did not vote in 1997?
Mrs Laing
No I did not, but I would argue with the hon. Gentleman that, if he seeks consistency, which would not be unreasonable, the Scottish Parliament should change to five years. There is no problem with that.
The point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) about comparisons with local authorities is interesting but irrelevant, because we are talking about Parliament, the work of which has a long time lag.
Mrs Laing
The hon. Gentleman can wave it away, but he cannot change the fact that our country’s economic situation is dire, and that is because of what his Government did in their last five-year Parliament. I wish it had not lasted five years, but that is another point—[Hon. Members: “Ah!] Yes, but when I say that, I say it purely out of party political prejudice, and other people in the Chamber ought to admit the same when they are looking for a general election to be sooner, rather than later. It is not constitutional principle, but party political prejudice.
Nic Dakin
Is it not important that we focus on the people we serve, rather than on structures, time periods and so on, and is it not important that we renew our mandate regularly? If the norm is for the renewal of a mandate after four years for local elections, parliamentary elections in Scotland and Assembly elections in Wales and Northern Ireland, does it not make sense to recognise that renewal on a four-year basis is reasonable, especially given that neither of the Government parties took this to the British people in the general election? We have to recognise the norm, by which I mean the average.
Mrs Laing
I have answered the point about local authorities. We are not a local authority; we are the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Making that comparison completely negates the hon. Gentleman’s argument. However, he said one thing that was correct: yes, we should be mindful of those whom we serve. We serve them better by producing stable Government, and that is what the Bill will help to do. The fact is that no Parliament can bind its successor.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
Does not much of local government elect not every four years, but by thirds every year, so the argument made by Opposition Members is completely erroneous?
Mrs Laing
I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because he is absolutely correct. The argument is totally erroneous. If Opposition Members wish to turn this Parliament into the equivalent of a district council, I for one will oppose them all the way. It is an irrelevant argument. The Bill is a statement of intent and of good management by the Prime Minister, who could, as other Members have said, say nothing now, bring forward no legislation, but intend in his own mind to call the next general election in May 2015, and under the current system that would be entirely up to him.
I have dealt now with the constitutional principle. There is no such principle preventing a fixed-term Parliament of five years, and there is no principle that says that a Parliament of the United Kingdom should be anything other than five years—no principle, no precedent. On the second part of my consideration—the reflection of the current political situation—I noticed the other day that I have an old fridge magnet, purchased some time ago in that illustrious place, the House of Commons souvenir shop. It has on it a pithy saying from that brilliant political thinker, Spike Milligan—
Mrs Laing
It does not say that. It says: “One day the Don’t knows will get in, and then where will we be?” [Hon. Members: “They did.”] Precisely my point! I used to laugh at that fridge magnet and think that Spike Milligan was funny, but now I am sorry to say his prophecy was correct. Where would we be, if the electorate decided, “Don’t know”? We would be where we are now. We need a coalition, because that is what the electorate, in Spike Milligan fashion, decided. We have to have a coalition because it is necessary for stability, and that stability is necessary to resolve the economic situation and put this country back on its feet after 13 years of misrule by Labour Governments.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), speaking from the Dispatch Box for the Opposition, was not cynical—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said today that parts of the Bill are cynical—but practical when she said:
“The long title of this Bill should be ‘A Bill to ensure that the inherent contradictions in the coalition Government are suppressed for a full five years; to make sure that neither party can double cross the other; and for connected purposes.’”—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 697.]
Well, she was absolutely right: that is not cynical; it is practical. We need to have stability. We therefore need to have a stable coalition, and if having fixed-term Parliaments is part of that, we need to have fixed-term Parliaments. The Government are right to state that such a Parliament should last for five years, because in order to bring about the stability that this country needs, it needs to have the same Government continuing with the same coherent, stable economic and social principles in the long term, rather than for short-term political expediency. That is why five years is so important.
Chris Bryant
I think I must have wandered over to the Government Benches and left my notes for my speech there, because the hon. Lady seems to be reading them out. I can see why it might be practical to say that the next general election should be on 7 May 2015. However, against her argument, I cannot see why it is a good constitutional principle—one that should be set in legislation—that Parliaments should sit for five-year terms.
Mrs Laing
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, but I have said that I can see it. It is a perfectly proper constitutional principle that a Parliament should sit for five years. Now I am putting the practical side of the argument, which is that in the political and economic situation in which we find ourselves—as a result of the mismanagement of our country’s economy and social policy for 13 years by a bad, Labour Government, who did the people of the United Kingdom no favours whatever—it will take more than just two or three years to put this country back on its feet. Therefore, we should have a five-year term. It is what the people of our country need; it is what we as parliamentarians have a duty, in the name of stability, to give the people.
Mrs McGuire
Thank you for calling me, Miss Begg. It is a great pleasure to see you in your place today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on her dynamic speech. She has always been a participant in constitutional debates. We have often not seen eye to eye, and, frankly, I am not sure that we are going to change that this evening. However, she spoke with her usual vigour, vim and—in her way—logic. For those who do not know, she and I have always had an issue with some Members of this House who could never pronounce her name properly—that is, as we pronounce it in Scotland. I know that I am not allowed to mention names, but I am sure that she knows what I am talking about. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] In Scotland, we would pronounce the hon. Lady’s name “Lang”. I will leave hon. Members to work out the difference, because, without usurping the Chair, Miss Begg, we would normally—[Interruption.] No, sorry, we would say “Layng”, not “Lang”. After 13 years down here, I have almost gone native.
I would like first to comment on one or two other previous speeches in this debate. There have been some powerful contributions to this debate. On the principle of the four-year term, although I did not agree with the analysis on three years put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), he and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) made telling statements about re-energising our democracy at regular intervals. Frankly, it is arrogant of us in this House to assume that we should not go out there and re-energise our democracy at reasonable times. I am not convinced that five years is the right period to re-energise our democracy. Indeed, the dynamic of the British political infrastructure is built around four-year terms. The hon. Member for Epping Forest assumed that somehow Parliament was in a different position from the other elements of our democratic infrastructure, but I do not think that we are, in that they are underpinned by the same principle that if someone is elected by the people, then every so often, after a reasonable interlude, they should have to regain that mandate.
As an aside, the hon. Member for Epping Forest is a fantastic successor to Sir Patrick Cormack—I hope that she will take that as a compliment—in that she says the word “Parliament” with such gusto and conviction. Her articulation—I think that is the word—of the word “Parliament” brought back fond memories of Sir Patrick.
There is a dynamic in the British parliamentary system. There is also a logic to the four-year term, which has been built up over many years, yet the one thing that has been missing from the Government’s case in proposing five years is logic. There is absolutely no logic to their case, although the hon. Lady’s honesty perhaps got us closer than anybody else on the Government Benches was prepared to admit. This is not about logic or principle; this is about sheer political expediency. The current Government tell us that their activities in managing the economy will deal with the deficit in four years, so why are they afraid to go back to the electorate in four years? Why do they need to extend this Parliament for an extra year? Some elements of the coalition Government are in a lifeboat, waiting for the general election of 2015—a political equivalent of the Carpathia—to come by and lift them out of the seas in which they find themselves. That is the only reason for proposing a five-year term.
It is preposterous to introduce a five-year element into a well established cycle of elections every four years. It is almost like the Olympics: if we can divide the year by two, then it should be an election year. Every other democracy that we have highlighted today has gone down the road of four years—in the case of the American Senate, the division is by two. We have a well established political infrastructure in this country.
Graham Stringer
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for shorter periods between general elections, but when it comes to a coalition, is there not an even stronger democratic argument for shorter periods? By necessity, the policies of a coalition will have been opaque to the electorate at the last general election. Therefore, a coalition Government should go back to the people more often.
Mrs McGuire
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. We now have a different kind of Government. Had the numbers been slightly different, we might have been in a similar position—that is, in a coalition. However, I cannot imagine that one of our first Bills would have been to extend the life of that Parliament and put a statutory limit—not a flexible limit—on the length of our term, although some of my colleagues have asked why we did not think of the idea first, when we had a majority of 164 in 1997. Hindsight is a great thing.
As for the length of Parliaments, I want to offer my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) an apology, because he was right when he said that there were three Parliaments that ran in excess of five years. There were three others—I have just added up the years; I did not have the benefit of the chart—that effectively ran for five years. However, I hope that he will accept that, taken together, it has been unusual to go beyond four years.
There has been a strong element of honesty—certainly from this side of the Committee—about what happens in the fifth year of a Government. We have to be realistic about the dynamism and energy of a Government in their fifth year. I remember coming into the House in 1997 and hearing then Opposition Members—some of whom are now members of the Government—say that the fifth year of any Parliament is often the one in which the Government are tired and running out of steam. You might remember hearing similar comments, Miss Begg. I do not think that creating fixed Parliaments of five years will change that dynamic of politics. Four years is the time it takes a Government to put a programme in place and to deal with the major issues that it came to power to deal with.
Ms Bagshawe
Opposition Members return again and again to the same inexplicable argument. Will the right hon. Lady explain how the Government are seeking to extend the life of this Parliament when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may call an election on the very last day of the five years should he choose to do so without introducing any legislation whatever?
Mrs McGuire
There is a distinct difference between the flexibility in the constitution now, and a law that says that this Parliament cannot, without jumping over various hurdles and achieving various percentages, call a general election before the end of that statutory period. That is the fundamental divide in the Committee.
I return to the practical point of whether we should have general elections at the same time as other elements of our democratic society have their elections. The integrity of other elements of our democratic infrastructure should be protected. Frankly, the Westminster attitude that everyone else should change is not compelling, and is insulting to the tens of thousands of people who are involved in all sorts of political activity at local government level, and indeed at Assembly and parliamentary level. This Parliament established the Assemblies and devolved Parliament. We should keep faith with them and recognise that they have the right to pursue their own democratic mandate without our overlaying our election by statute and no longer as a matter of flexibility or choice.
Holding those elections on the same day will cause major difficulties, even if that occurs every so many years. We are discussing different systems for not just two of those elements, but for three or four. We could have the alternative vote system if in the referendum, whenever it is held, the people accept it for this Parliament. We have first past the post for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and over and above that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, a third and yet another system is the regional list vote. The issue is not that the people of the various countries of the United Kingdom may be unable to discern the different political arguments that might be made; complexity will be added to our democracy when we want to encourage more people to be involved in democracy. We are in danger of putting them off by saying, “This is how you must vote in this election, this is the way on that election, and this is the way on the second vote.”
On a practical point, we may pass legislation in the House, but it has to be implemented. Let us imagine the difficulty that returning officers will face in the first and subsequent elections when they conflict with those elements of our electoral system. We are asking returning officers and all the staff who make sure that our democracy works to do almost the impossible. Although there have been debates on why 140,000 ballot papers were spoiled at the last Scottish Parliament elections, it is fair to say that the response from returning officers and their staff was that holding different elections on the same day with complex voting systems did not help matters, albeit that there were issues with the ballot paper.
What worries me particularly about how the legislation has been introduced is that when challenged, the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer was that the date of the other elections should be changed. That is arrogant, and underpins the content of the Bill and the speed with which it is being steamrollered through the House and the other place. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills argued powerfully about constitutional change, and he will recognise that if such change has to happen, it should do so with consensus throughout the House. Constitutional change should happen because all political parties recognise the need for it. What we have here is a unilateral decision by a coalition Government who did not highlight five-year terms in their manifestos.
Mrs McGuire
Trust the Liberals to get involved in semantics. Everyone else knew what I was talking about.
I suggest to the Minister that there is general good will in the House for fixed-term Parliaments, fixed-term elections, or whatever phraseology we want to use to describe what we all know we are talking about. There is consensus on that principle, but the Government must decide whether they will listen to the voice not just of political opponents, but of people who want that constitutional change. It is not a long way to travel to recognise major constitutional and practical problems with the date that they have chosen, and with the five-year term in principle. A coalition is also about listening to people outside the coalition, and I hope that the Government will yet come forward with a change to the Bill so that the House can agree on fixed-term elections in a way that allows us all to move forward without making it an issue of acrimony between parties.
Thomas Docherty
I welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg. As I sat here this afternoon and this evening, I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and hon. Members on the Government Benches, and I had a feeling of déjà vu. I felt that we had been here quite recently, and it occurred to me that that was so.
We had a debate in Committee just three weeks ago—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Foyle said, it was to discuss a Bill with a different title, but one that also sought to change our parliamentary system. There are perhaps only two reasons why the Government did not amalgamate them in a single Bill. First, this is a back-of-a-fag-packet rushed job that they have pulled together, but they could not get their civil servants to work fast enough for the Deputy Prime Minister. I note that he is not here tonight, and I can only assume that after his 70-minute contribution to our eight hours of debate on the other Bill he is exhausted. I am sure that Opposition Members wish him all the best in his recovery from that exhaustion. The second reason could be that the Minister so enjoys spending time on Bills that he has been bouncing around all week in eager anticipation of listening to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda giving him an interesting lecture on constitutional history. Without further ado, I will indulge not that fetish, but that fantasy.
I was lucky enough to go on the visit by the all-party British-American parliamentary group to the United States some two months ago, and spent a lot of time studying the US constitution, and especially its constitutional convention, which is particularly apt given the comments by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) about interesting parallels between our parliamentary system and that of our colonial cousins across the water. I have to confess to being something of an anorak in these matters. In fact, I have been described as the Leonard to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda’s Sheldon when it comes to the constitutional process.
I should like to recommend to the Committee an excellent book by Professor Robert Beeman called “Plain, Honest Men: the making of the American constitution”, which I would be happy to lend to the Minister and to the Deputy Leader of the House if they would like to study it. They might be interested to know that when the Americans came to draw up their constitution and were considering the lengths of terms of office and the roles of the upper and lower Houses and of the Executive, they held a four-month constitutional convention in 1789. They brought together some of the great minds of the day, including Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and one James Wilson, who was a native of Fife and educated at St Andrew’s university, and who emigrated to the colonies in the 1750s. They spent four months debating those matters, and only at the end of that time, after a proper detailed debate, did they deign to bring forward detailed proposals for their terms of office, fixed terms and so on.
Mr Shepherd
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget one of the very important constituent parts of that whole debate—namely, the federalist papers. They laid out the arguments for the wider public, which were fiercely debated with proposition and counter-proposition. That was a formidable ingredient that involved an awful lot of people.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I apologise for not having touched on it. He is entirely right to say that the work of the likes of Madison and Hamilton was crucial, but that there was also a great debate. They did not try to rush their proposal through.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
We are certainly being educated here tonight. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Philadelphia convention was conducted on the basis of a tabula rasa, and that those people were starting from a base point? What we see here before us today is a foul, expedient hotch-potch of crisis and chaos spatchcocked together to try to allow the coalition to limp on into the future. To compare it to the great towering genius of Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison is to do them a disservice and to give the present coalition Government rather too much credit.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. When I look at those on the Government Front Bench, however, I see some nuggets of hope and principle, and I am sure they will listen carefully to the points that we are making.
The Minister might be interested to know that, when the Americans were considering term lengths for their parliamentarians and for the presidency, they originally considered a three-year term for the House of Representatives and a seven-year term for the presidency and the Senate. Before the Minister gets too excited about the idea of a seven-year term, however, I should tell him that they also considered making it for one term only. Indeed, they argued that the Executive branch should not sully itself by seeking re-election. I suspect that he would be less keen on that principle. Slowly, however, over that summer, they moved towards a settled will among the 13 colonies. In fact, I should say 12 colonies because, as hon. Members will know, Rhode Island did not attend any part of the convention. They settled on a system of two-year terms for the House of Representatives, six-year terms for the Senate and four-year terms for the presidency. However, the elections for the United States Senate have always been staggered—a point that I regret the Government have not taken on board—so that each voter in every state has the opportunity to cast their verdict on the Senate no more than four years apart. That point seems to have passed by some of those on the Government Benches.
Sheila Gilmore
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this debate, Miss Begg. I want to focus on the practical issues, as we have heard quite a lot of constitutional theorising, and, indeed, a great deal of fascinating history. When I first saw these proposals, I assumed, perhaps rather naively, that the Government had simply made a big mistake, and that they had not realised that, as a result of going for five-year fixed-term Parliaments with immediate effect—that is, in relation to the length of this Parliament—the date of the general election would coincide with the Scottish parliamentary elections, the Welsh Assembly elections and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I thought that once they realised that that was a problem, they would rethink their proposition, if only in purely practical terms and even if there were a theoretical argument for five years being better than four—and I have certainly not heard one today—but they did not do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) said that he hoped that when the Minister summed up the debate—on Third Reading, of course, the debate may be summed up by the Deputy Prime Minister himself—he would take some of those issues on board, but I fear that, if the previous constitutional Bill is anything to go by, that will not happen. The Deputy Prime Minister could have written his summing-up speech for the Third Reading of that Bill before the debate had even started. Indeed, I believe that he had, given that so little reference was made to the hours spent in Committee and the different arguments that had been put at that stage. It seemed that none of those arguments had been listened to.
I appreciate that many Government Members have no experience of the practical issues that we have raised. There is, after all, only one Conservative Member of Parliament who represents a Scottish seat. There are Scots who represent other seats, but there is only one Conservative MP who does so, and as far as I am aware he has not been present much during our debates or contributed much to them. Some junior members of the coalition—the junior partners—represent Scottish seats, but they too have been fairly conspicuous by their absence for much of the debate. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) has now arrived, and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was briefly present earlier.
Mrs Laing
I simply must intervene to defend the honour of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is indeed the only Conservative Member of Parliament in Scotland. He cannot take part in these debates because he is a Minister in a different Department, although he was here earlier, when the Committee was dealing with the important parts of the Bill that relate to Scotland. I cannot allow it to be on the record that he has not paid attention or that he has not taken part in these debates, given that he is not allowed to do so.
Sheila Gilmore
I accept the hon. Lady’s point that the Minister cannot take part in the debate, but I have not observed a great deal of discussion in the wider press, here or in Scotland, to which he has contributed.
The point that I was making, however, is that many Government Members have no practical experience of the position that obtained in 2007. I think that Government Members are inclined to make light of it and to imagine that we are stirring up a storm in a teacup over something that did not really matter, but it was important. It was a bad day for democracy when so many things went wrong with that combined election. Yes, it did have something to do with the design of the forms; I am not going to say that it did not, for the design did not help. However, the real issue in that context, which was addressed after 2007, was the decoupling of the local government and Scottish Government elections, with an arrangement to ensure that that would not happen again. It seems odd to voters in Scotland, and certainly to political activists there, that we are not just returning to the position in which we found ourselves in 2007, but, I would argue, putting ourselves in a considerably worse position.
Although this will not simply be a matter of practicalities, I should like to draw attention to some of the practicalities of which Government Members may not be aware. The boundaries relating to the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster constituencies are now very different. They have moved apart because the number of Scottish constituencies represented here was reduced in 2005. The Scottish Parliament boundaries have been changed very recently. Their size has not been reduced and the numbers have not changed, but there has been a substantial redrawing which, in most cases, has moved them even further from the Westminster boundaries. There are some very strange boundaries, making it difficult for people to understand who represents them and what constituency they are in.
People who live in the southernmost part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for Westminster purposes will be in Edinburgh Eastern for the purposes of the Scottish parliamentary elections next year. Given that they live in the far south of Edinburgh, they find it quite difficult to fathom why they have effectively been transported to a different part of the city. That will cause not just a potential for electoral confusion, but serious practical problems relating to the organisation of the elections.
Even more important is the blurring and confusing of the real political differences that have emerged since devolution. I am sure that the same applies to Wales, although I probably do not know enough about its politics or history. No doubt my colleagues will rush to enlighten me. Our politics in Scotland, however, have developed very differently. Not many of the political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament take the lines adopted by the coalition Government here.
For instance, the coalition Government have decided that they want to stop funding the building of affordable housing through grants—I assure you that this point is relevant to the debate, Miss Begg—and instead to fund it by raising rents, which means that tenants will pay for the building of their new homes. I am absolutely positive that no party represented in the Scottish Parliament, even the Conservative party, will espouse such a position in Scotland through the Parliament. In the past—although the situation may change—all the parties in the Scottish Parliament have signed up to free personal care for the elderly. At that time a different view was taken at Westminster, and a different view was taken by my party and by others. However, although some might find it surprising, the Conservatives in Scotland have signed up to that policy in the past.
Mrs McGuire
In a radio programme that I heard on Friday, a leading member of the Liberal Democrat party in the Scottish Parliament said that in no circumstances would the Liberal Democrats introduce tuition fees. Has my hon. Friend any idea how we could conduct a debate about tuition fees—given the position of one of the partners in the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrat party—while also trying to conduct a debate about funds for students in Scotland, with all that happening at the same time as the two elections?
Sheila Gilmore
I entirely agree. That is another illustration of where the difficulty lies. It is not that people are stupid. It is not that the voters cannot understand that there are two elections ongoing. It is that the issues will not be properly debated, and there will be confusion about what the various parties stand for. For example, Scottish Liberal Democrats may, as has been suggested, wish to campaign strongly about the way they think universities should be funded. As that is clearly different from the position taken by their leadership here at Westminster, they are going to find it much harder to get their point of view across.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I am surprised that the hon. Lady thinks this will cause confusion since Labour seemed to manage such a situation: they supported the abolition of tuition fees in Scotland as part of the coalition there while simultaneously opposing that for the rest of the United Kingdom from the Government Front Bench here in the last Parliament.
Sheila Gilmore
I was not suggesting that it is either confusing in general terms or wrong that parties in different parts of the United Kingdom should take different views. That has also happened in Wales, and it has happened on health issues and education issues. It is right that we should develop in that way; I think it is extremely healthy. It is a sign of the strength and success of devolution since 1999 that there can be such differences of opinion even within political parties that are very close and see themselves as part of the same party.
Thomas Docherty
For the benefit of those Lib Dems who are only arriving now, so very late to the debate, may I ask my hon. Friend whether she agrees with the following point made tonight by the leader of Plaid Cymru and others—that confusion will be caused by having two elections on the same day, especially as they will be preceded by TV debates with on one night the party leader for the UK saying that his party will pursue one policy and the following night the party leader in Wales or Scotland saying something else?
Sheila Gilmore
I absolutely agree. The problem is not to do with people taking different positions; it is to do with what will happen in the month or few weeks before an election when the issues are being debated on the hustings and being reported in the newspapers. I have an awful vision of us running two sets of hustings and trying to get people to come out to slightly chilly church halls to listen to completely different debates on different nights—although it is perfectly possible to get people to come out to such events when elections take place at different times. Why make this happen when we do not have to?
Chris Bryant
Is the point not that elections to the Assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Parliament in Scotland feel like general elections? Indeed, effectively the law treats them like general elections in that a free post is allowed through the Royal Mail and the broadcasters have to report events in certain ways. A conflict will arise if every 20 years we hold these elections on the same day.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend for that information, and I do not think that Government Members appreciate that aspect. What we are talking about is not a local government election that we might be facing next year or in 2015. The elections we are talking about are not less important than general elections for people in Scotland, because people in Scotland consider the Scottish Government to be the Government of the country for the purposes for which they have powers. They are a Government: they have a First Minister, a Cabinet and a national aspect in the sense that they are the Government in a Parliament that covers the part of the UK that is Scotland. I am not trying to ignore Wales or Northern Ireland at all in this, and the same principles apply to them.
If we respect what we have achieved through devolution, it is important that we do not allow that to be swamped. We have those different debates and policies, and people have their chance to vote differently, which they do—I am not for a minute going to suggest that people will not vote differently on the same day, because I know that that can happen. The genuine ability to separate out these areas of politics and to allow each legislature its real place and presence within our constitution is simply being ignored by these measures. As I have said, it seems to me that there is no reason for that.
Mrs McGuire
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on the practical issues. Has she also had time to consider how the broadcasting authorities will maintain some element of balance, as they will have to schedule programmes for two different elections with two different political dynamics—with different parties being in different positions in different parts of the country? Are we not placing an impossible burden on those whom we are asking to implement the legislation currently going through the House?
Sheila Gilmore
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Yet again, that is another aspect of a situation that we are creating. Apparently—the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) let the cat out of the bag—this is being done not for any good and strong constitutional reason or because we can argue about the history of the past 200 years, but because it suits this coalition Government to have this Parliament last for five years. It suits them to have this provision wrapped up with the other parts of the Bill, which will be debated later, to try to ensure that the coalition holds together. This is being wrapped up as a constitutional Bill and it is being presented as something that will last into the future but, given our constitution, it is possible for a future Parliament to change that, so we are not entrenching things.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend mentions the future. Has she, like me, worked out that if we have a second five-year term, we will run slap bang into the local government elections in Scotland, which we have put back by a year? We would then have an even worse situation than the one in 2007, with a general election and the local government elections leading to hundreds of thousands of spoiled ballot papers.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend for that information, because it adds to the important case that we are presenting. The people who find this highly amusing clearly have not had the experience that we had. It is incumbent on a Government who said that they would want to look at the evidence and make decisions on the basis of hard facts to listen to the evidence being given by people who have been through this process and who understand the complexities of devolution in a situation where we still have a UK Government. We have had experience of this, as have the elected bodies, which have given their view very clearly to the UK Government but have been ignored. They were not consulted before this, but they gave their view and told of their experience, so it is not asking too much of any Government to say, “Perhaps we have not got this right.”
Perhaps the simplest thing for the Government to do is not to try to see whether they could slip the election by a month, as has been suggested by some people. That would represent the worst of all possible worlds for the voters, let alone for the political parties. The simplest thing would be to say, “We have got this wrong, but we believe in fixed-term Parliaments.” The Labour party proposed fixed-term Parliaments in its manifesto and the Liberals believe in them too. I am not sure whether the Conservatives believe in them, but they introduced this legislation so presumably they now do. We all seem to agree that there should be fixed-term Parliaments. On that basis, why are we having this debate? Because the coalition Government are so determined to stick to their first thought, which was to have five years.
The Government may be doing that only for advantage and to feel that they have the longest possible time in which to be the Government. I have to say to the hon. Member for Epping Forest that she and others on the Government Benches may feel that they have an entitlement to sit for five years, having been elected, but a lot of people in the country have a very different view. The majority party in the coalition did not get a majority for its policies. The junior partner in the coalition went to the people on a different set of policies, so the people who voted for the Liberals did not vote for the programme of this coalition Government. The Government’s approach seems particularly unfortunate for democracy in this country, given that the Government do not have a mandate to rule in the majoritarian fashion that they are doing.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
Is the hon. Lady therefore saying that her party does not accept that a coalition of two parties is sufficient to run the country? Does she believe only in first-past-the-post majority rule, and must we keep having elections until we get some sort of majority Government by default?
Sheila Gilmore
Coming from Scotland and having seen both coalitions and minority Governments in operation, I am very open to various ways of running a Government. I would not for a minute want to suggest that it always has to be an absolute majority, that first past the post is what we need or that we need majorities.
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent and forceful argument, drawing on the arguments that we have heard before. She is saying very well that there is consensus in this House about fixed-term Parliaments, but that constitutional change should be undertaken very carefully to ensure that it creates a settlement that is sustainable and stable. Separating national elections from UK elections is an important part of that, because it makes for a crisper, more certain mandate from the people whom we have a duty to serve. When the people are going to the polls for the Assembly or the parliamentary elections, they should be clear that those are the prime elections to focus on. When there is a UK election, they can focus on that. For that reason, four-yearly terms would be much better at this time.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, with which I wholly agree.
Ordinary electors thought that a hung Parliament would be a good idea, because they genuinely believed that there would be openness and that people would listen to different points of view. That has not happened. The strong views of the elected Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have not been listened to. The bulk of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, of which I am a member, was clearly in favour of four-year fixed-term Parliaments. Why should that weight of evidence be ignored? Was that what people expected from a more consensual and open approach? I think that a lot of people thought that coalition meant that we would get the best bits from everyone and that everyone would sit around and have discussions—
Sheila Gilmore
The hon. Lady seems to think that they did get the best bits from everyone, but that makes it clear to me that she did not believe in the manifesto on which she stood because so many parts of it seem to have been ditched in favour of the policies of the other party.
A small and simple change—a very small concession—that would not in any way interfere with the principle of fixed-term Parliaments would make it far easier for the Bill to be passed relatively quickly. It would allow national elections in all parts of the United Kingdom to go forward in the best possible way and our devolved Parliaments and Assemblies to present their policies to the electorate in the way they want to.
Stephen Pound
It is a delight and pleasure to serve under you, Miss Begg. This evening has been an extraordinarily educative process. We have looked very far back into the past and I should like to imagine some time in the future. I imagine a group of fresh-faced young students in some constitutional history class at some as-yet-unbuilt school—perhaps the Tony Blair faith academy, the Ann Widdecombe college of dance and drama or, hopefully, the Eleanor of Epping college of education for the daughters of gentlefolk. In one of those as-yet-unbuilt but glorious buildings, some pernickety pedagogue will turn to the class and say, “Let us go back to November 2010 and see what the House of Commons was debating.” The pedagogue will say, “They were discussing the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill,” and someone will ask, “What was the context?” The Government amendments before us refer specifically to compromise, but the key point is the context in which the Government are bringing the Bill before the House tonight. It is based on expediency, not ethics. Just as no good fruit can grow from a diseased tree, the coalition is like the upas tree, poisoning the soil all around it. They are trying to poison our very constitution with this appalling Bill.
The Temporary Chair (Miss Anne Begg)
Much as I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow, I remind him that we are in Committee and that he must address his comments to the amendments before us, rather than the Bill in general.
Stephen Pound
I stand abashed, ashamed and corrected, but, as ever, eager to serve, Miss Begg. I was about to turn specifically to the amendment of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who speaks for Plaid Cymru. The amendment is supported by a broad coalition of the better brains in the House, including the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), whose constituency is possibly the most unpronounceable in Scotland. The amendment offers an alternative to the centralist, Stalinist, steel-like structure of a five-year Parliament. It offers something that we are prepared to support for the good of the nation although not all of us believe in it entirely in our hearts—a four-year fixed-term Parliament.
To see the amendments in the specific context, we have to think of what happened in May this year, when two groups of people were trying to buy a house. They were trying to bid for that great mansion of state that is this United Kingdom, and they found that even as the previous occupants were leaving with dignity from the front door, neither of them had enough money to buy the house, so they both moved in at the same time. Maybe they daubed the soffit with a bit of yellow and put a touch of blue on the eaves, but they had no choice.
You will no doubt be asking yourself, Miss Begg, how this relates to the amendments before us. That is precisely what I was coming to. I do not wish to comment on the sleeping habits of Liberal Democrats. That is far too exotic an area for me, but the camp bed in the living room and, in the master bedroom, surrounded by damask silken curtains, the great four-poster bed that the Conservatives occupy represent a compromise, which is the basis of the coalition.
The Bill on the Floor of the House today at the Committee stage refers to the creation of a structure that will bind together two disparate groups of people—the people who virtually bought the house and the lodgers on the camp bed in the front room. You may think that that is not relevant, and I would have to say, Miss Begg, that I agree with you, but the point that I am trying to make is that the Bill must be seen in the context from which it comes.
Chris Bryant
Is not the point, in relation to five-year or four-year fixed-term Parliaments, the one that was made by the professor of constitutional law at King’s college London, Robert Blackburn who, in his evidence to the Select Committee, said of the genesis of the Bill that
“it is, I think, fairly clear that it is driven by the political self-interest of the coalition Government. They want to fix the lifetime of this Government—not the Parliament, but the Government”?
The Temporary Chair
Order. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) will have seen from my body language that he is not pleasing me. He is continuing with a Second Reading speech. He must address the amendments—not just mention them, but address the content of the amendments.
Stephen Pound
Miss Begg, I am, as ever, attendant to your body language and I am interpreting every flicker of that elegantly sculptured eyebrow, even as we speak.
The Septennial Act 1715, as amended by the Parliament Act 1911, is the Act that we will lose, should the Bill reach the statute book. The key point is that if, in the interest of expediency and of pleasing the coalition, we bring in a five-year fixed-term Parliament in contra-indication and contrast to the existing legislation, we place this country in peril indeed. The Bill at present on the Floor of the House at Committee stage, which I read with great care a few moments ago, is hedged around with all sorts of caveats so that an election may not be held on a day of national mourning or thanksgiving or on Christmas day. The Bill is limiting.
I support the amendment because that limitation restricts the right and privilege of the House to decide, under certain circumstances. There are emergencies or there may be some dramatic situation where an election has to take place. The removal of the royal prerogative, on this day of all days, is not something that I wish to comment on.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman mentions days when the election can take place. Does he agree that the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies of the United Kingdom should be given proper respect, and therefore that new clause 4 should be supported? That would allow them to see whether particular days did not suit them. Whether it be Christmas, Burns night, Hallowe’en or whatever, they should be given the choice if there were a clash between the elections to this place and to the great Parliament of Scotland, and the attendant media were unable to cope.
Stephen Pound
Today is Eid al-Adha, and that is an important factor that should be taken into consideration. At the risk of offending my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and being too London-centric, there are different times in different parts of this United Kingdom when an election may not be appropriate. Judging by the results, it seems we may have had an election on Hallowe’en on a few occasions, but there are certain days on which demonstrably we should not be doing so. However, by limiting ourselves in this way, by applying this template of centralism to the whole structure, we put ourselves in danger, which is why new clause 4, an elegantly crafted piece of work, which stands by itself in all its wonder and majesty, is something that we should happily support.
Clause 2(4), to which the amendments relate, shows the dreadful problems that we have. It states:
“Before issuing a certificate, the Speaker of the House of Commons must consult the Deputy Speakers (so far as practicable).
What thought has gone into this, when it says “so far as practicable”? The amendment addresses that specific point.
The Temporary Chair
The amendments that we are debating relate to clause 1, not clause 2, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the amendments on clause 1.
Nic Dakin
I am following my hon. Friend’s argument very carefully, as all hon. Members will be. Is it not true that all the evidence is that in their fifth year Parliaments run out of steam and get tired, and the country is impatient for democratic renewal, and is not that why we should have four-year Parliaments or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) argued, three-year Parliaments?
Stephen Pound
One reason why I support clause 1, page 1, line 13, is not because I am massively enamoured of the joys of four-year Parliaments as opposed to five-year Parliaments, nor because I think that there is a natural rhythm in the political cycle that means that every few years we get exhausted and have to have an election, but because it is the least-worst option. It is unfortunately a fact that sometimes we have to present that option. I happily present the hon. Gentleman from the constituency that one day I will be able to pronounce.
Mr MacNeil
There has been confusion in the House that somehow five years is bad and four years is good. It is almost Orwellian. The fact that five years in the UK has turned out to be bad is because people tend to leave it to five years. The reason I support four years is not because I think five years is particularly bad, but four years is long enough to spend without going back to the people to ask for another mandate. It is a democracy, after all, and ultimately the people, through the ballot box, rule. Politicians and elected people are stretching the credulity of the electorate to go beyond four years. The example of Scotland again is tremendous for Westminster.
Stephen Pound
Amendment 11 addresses these points. The reality is that if we had a fixed-term Parliament—I appreciate I am arguing for a fourth year rather than a fifth year—what dreadful temptations would come the way of susceptible politicians? Legislation would be front-loaded, knowing that there was never the possibility of an early election by which they might be made accountable to the people. I appreciate that clause 1 may be influenced by future legislation on recalls. We could find ourselves with so many recall petitions that we in fact have a new Parliament in the middle. There are certain aspects in the Bill later—not specifically relevant to clause 1, before you mention it, Miss Begg—which refer to the power to dissolve. But the most important, most salient point here is that if we locked the system into a four-year or five-year cycle, we would lose that glorious uncertainty of the democratic oversight. We would lose that concern, may I say, even, on occasion, that fear of the electorate, which is the honest emotion that parliamentarians should always feel.
Mr MacNeil
The reason we want a fixed-term Parliament, particularly those in minority parties, who are never in the party of government in this situation—in Scotland we made sure that it is far more democratic—is not the fear of the electorate, it is the fear of the Government, using the particular wins that they have created for their own advantage in a narrow period of time. There is an advantage in a fixed-term Parliament. Some people prefer five, some people prefer four. I am in the four camp—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr MacNeil
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I make my own speech.
Stephen Pound
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because mention was made earlier—perhaps too much mention for many of us—of the American political system, where, by having fixed terms, there is permanent campaigning and fundraising, a permanence that takes away what I referred to as the glorious uncertainty borne of the possibility and potential of hearing the people’s voice. The voices of the funding committees and various other supportive bodies are heard, but that sword of Damocles, which should be hanging over the head of every politician in a modern democracy, is somehow removed, because it is winched slowly down by clockwork, instead of dangling from a piece of monofilament.
Now, I think that the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin) wanted to intervene.
Stephen Pound
Are you sure?
I hope that I have expressed tonight a sincere and heartfelt view that, just as everything must be seen whence it sprang, this Bill, which we are considering in Committee, has sprung from a coalition that is fundamentally unsound and based not on political realities but expediency. The group of proposed changes before us, which would set the date, elections and length of a Parliament, would go some way towards mitigating this—I dare not say “evil”, because that would be too strong a word—sordid, mean, pettifogging, limp, expediency of a Bill.
Mark Durkan
I confess.
My hon. Friend makes the point about the number of amendments in this group, and they aim to ensure not just that the term is fixed at four years, but that the cycle of fixed terms does not clash with the cycle of fixed terms for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland elections. This Chamber has already imposed a UK referendum on those elections next year, and now, under this Bill, the Government want to impose a UK general election on the devolved elections in 2015 as well.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend, not for the first time and almost certainly not for the last, makes a very powerful and pertinent point. If the Bill proceeds tonight without the benefit of the amendments that we are discussing, it will be not just the political cycle that is locked into a four or five-year time frame, but the economic cycle and so many other aspects of life. They will then be locked into a fixed term. That fixed term will apply not just to Parliament, but to the country, and that is dangerous. It is dangerous if we always assume that, no matter what a Government do, they can get away with it, because there will be no election for three, four or, heaven forbid, five years.
That is the danger, and that is when the markets start to build in an assumption of front-loading and when other countries assume that, although there may or may not be a change of Government in the future, there will not be one at that moment in time. That is when offence is given to all parts of this nation with different traditions, different histories and different days of great and signal importance. There are so many fears, so many concerns, so many worries, and the case made for the group of amendments is so powerful and so much a matter of righteousness that it would be otiose of me to continue to press it any longer.
I sit down, Miss Begg, with apologies if I may on occasion have strayed slightly from the purity of the amendments before us, but I hope profoundly that this House will tonight agree that the people matter more than political fixes, and that somehow this is about the constitution, not about the coalition.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
It is a great pleasure to speak with you, Miss Begg, in the Chair.
A number of Members said that they thought that the Government would be running out of steam, but it is a very clear sign that the Opposition are running out of steam when they have to wheel members of the Whips Office in to argue a case—a case, actually, against their own Front Benchers. Their Front Benchers are in favour of four-year terms, so the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) would have done a better job if he had troubled to read the Bill, the amendments and clause 1.
In addressing the amendments that deal with clause 1 on the proposed length of the fixed term and the date of the next election, it might be helpful to explain at the outset why the Government have taken the approach that we have set out in the Bill. The Government announced in the coalition agreement our intention to introduce a Bill for fixed-term Parliaments, and I have listened to a good number of arguments for and against the proposed five-year term, not least today. The Government strongly believe that a five-year fixed term is right, not only for this Parliament but for subsequent Parliaments, as it will provide the country with the strong and stable Government that it needs.
Mr Harper
Let me make a little more progress, and then I will give way.
We have heard arguments in favour of a four-year or three-year fixed term. However, the statistical evidence shows that if we exclude the three very short Parliaments since the war, the average length of Parliaments has approached four and a half years. The first point that I would make in respect of the arguments for four-year or three-year Parliaments is that those advocating them gave insufficient regard to the current arrangements, which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) outlined in observing that this Parliament is able to sit for five years. Indeed, if the Prime Minister wanted to achieve the aim of this Parliament sitting for five years, he would merely not ask the Queen to dissolve it for five years. The Bill has nothing to do with extending the term of this Parliament.
Mr MacNeil
If the hon. Gentleman is such a strong advocate of five years for a Parliament, would he extend that strength of feeling to the devolved legislatures to enable them to have five-year terms as well? If we do the multiplication—five times four equals 20—it is clear that we will have the problem of the two dates clashing every 20 years. Would he be happy for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to move to five-year terms as opposed to four?
Chris Bryant
The Minister is being extremely disingenuous. He said that the Prime Minister can keep going until 2015 if he wants to, but that is not the case—he does not have a majority. In fact, the words of Robert Blackburn to the Select Committee are right:
“The Liberal Democrats want to be sure that the Conservative leadership would not cut and run in the same way that a minority Administration with an informal pact with the Liberal Democrats in Parliament might—as in 1974”.
The other side of the coin is that the Conservatives want some guarantee that the Liberal Democrats will not change their minds. The Prime Minister needs this Bill to keep the coalition in power until 2015.
The Temporary Chairman (Miss Anne Begg): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that “disingenuous” is not necessarily a parliamentary word?
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, Miss Begg—I did not mean to suggest that the Minister was misleading the House. I think that his argument is misleading, but I am sure that he is not trying to mislead the House.
Mr Harper
I am grateful, Miss Begg.
The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. He says that the Government can continue in office only if they retain the confidence of the House. I will not dwell on this at length, Miss Begg, because that would be to move on to arguments that we will make when we come to clause 2. The Bill contains provisions whereby we will have a fixed-term Parliament, but subject to two conditions: first, this House will, for the first time, have the power to cause an early general election; and secondly, we are keeping the provision that a Government have to retain the confidence of the House. The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.
Some Members, in trying to argue that four years is the norm and five years is only for Governments who are clinging on to power, have pointed to examples of Parliaments that have lasted closer to four years than five. That completely overlooks the fact that elections that are called early, before the five-year term is up, are often those where the Prime Minister of the day thought that doing so might give their party a political advantage. It was not that they somehow thought that four years was the more constitutionally appropriate length of time for them to hold office.
Advocates of three or four-year terms are using as their strongest argument the very enemy that the Bill is designed to combat, which is political expediency at the expense of national interest. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who is no longer in her place, asked why Labour did not think of the idea in 1997. I can tell her that it was because the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wanted to preserve his ability to cut and run and seek an election at whatever opportunity he thought best.
Mr Harper
I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has not been here for most of the debate, so he can just stay in his seat.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) effectively makes the case for Prime Ministers being able to cut and run. The current Prime Minister is the first one who has put aside that ability in the move to a fixed-term Parliament.
Mr Shepherd
My hon. Friend sets aside the words of Asquith, who predates any shenanigans on the matter, but will he consider the fact that the longest-serving Prime Minister of the last century was Lady Thatcher? She had four-yearly elections like a metronome, so there is experience of the concept of Prime Ministers believing that four years is an appropriate time.
Mr Harper
I am glad that my hon. Friend mentions Baroness Thatcher, who of course was a great Prime Minister and served this country well. I remember the elections that she called in 1983 and 1987, which she won with resounding majorities and continued to serve the country. I am sure that if she were here, she would agree that when she asked Her Majesty the Queen to dissolve Parliament, she thought about the likely consequences of those elections and the likelihood that the Conservative party would be returned to office. She was a politician—a very successful one—and I do not think I do her a disservice if I point that out.
Mr Harper
No, I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the debate, so I am not going to give way to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) drew attention to one of our arguments about the need for long-term thinking. Many commentators, politicians and members of the public would argue that Governments can be too short-term in their planning and decision making. We want to encourage future Parliaments and Governments to take a long-term view rather than look for short-term advantages. As a number of my hon. Friends have argued, a five-year fixed term would provide the country with a strong and stable Government.
I turn to the amendments in this group. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is not in his place, seeks to set the length of Parliaments at three rather than five years. I think perhaps he did himself a disservice when he quoted remarks of his own constituents suggesting that a three-year term was needed so that he might last it, because of his age. I am only repeating what he said; I do not agree with it myself. However, I simply do not agree with his argument. The flaw in it came when he said that the Government parties wanted not a fixed term but a five-year term. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is perfectly capable, while the Government retain the confidence of the House, of having a five-year term of office. That has always been the constitutional position, and the Bill is not necessary to ensure it.
Tristram Hunt
In some of the speeches that we have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister—I understand that he is giving one to the Hansard Society tonight rather than being in the Chamber to discuss the Bill, which is rather scandalous—there has been much talk about the Chartists and how this great reform is an echo of the 1840s. The Chartists were in favour of yearly elections, so why does the Deputy Prime Minister deny the will of the people by keeping Parliaments at five years?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the point that the Chartists made, but I do not happen to think that annual elections would be a good idea, and from my experience I am not sure that the people of this country would be over-enamoured of us if we said that we would trouble them with a general election every year. I believe that they will be content with our proposal. We do not want to end up with a situation in which the people of the United Kingdom are subject to a permanent election campaign. That is the evidence that the Constitution Committee in the other place has received. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) drew attention to the matter when he looked at the US congressional experience in the lower House where, effectively, as soon as Congressmen get elected, they instantly turn their thoughts to their re-election and spend most of their period of office having to raise money for expensive election campaigns.
Mr MacNeil
Let me pick up on that point about the American Congress and the House of Representatives. There are a number of American politicians—those in safe seats and those who are unopposed—who are not on a constant campaign. The Minister made a fair point about Lady Thatcher, especially given the partisan point that he could have made. She looked at the party advantage of her electoral cycle and that is why she probably went for four years. If the Minister does not support the five-year terms for the devolved legislatures, will he support new clause 4 that would allow the devolved legislatures to avoid the clash with the Westminster Parliament?
Mr Harper
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will soon get to that point and to new clause 4. I just want to take this in order.
My final point for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—he did not address this in his remarks, so I can only assume that it is an oversight—is that his amendment would mean that the next election would take place on a Tuesday. He gave us no indication of why he would want to do that, so I assume that his amendment is technically as well as logically flawed.
Let me turn now to amendments 11, 12 and 13, the first of which was ably moved by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), and supported by those on the Opposition Front Bench. The amendments primarily make the argument for four-year terms, which is probably a good moment to pick up on the point about the coincidence with the devolved elections. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was a little too soon in her criticisms of what Ministers will do, because she had not actually heard what I was going to say. She did exactly the same when we debated the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and she was not correct in what she said. The Committee, of which she is a member, was behind an amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. Although we did not accept the amendment, we took it away and brought back a Government amendment to do exactly what the hon. Lady wanted, which was to reduce the ability of Ministers to interfere with a boundary commission report. It was not true to say that we did not listen to the House; we tabled an amendment that was inspired by the Committee of which she is a member. The Government do listen.
When the Deputy Prime Minister made the statement on 5 July, he recognised that the coincidence of the devolved elections in 2015 with the UK general election was qualitatively different from the coincidence of the referendum and the elections next year. He has discussed the matter with the devolved Administrations and the Presiding Officers. He said that he would look at the matter, and he has kept that promise. I can tell the House that we will consult the parties in the devolved Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly to give them the power to defer the date of their elections by up to six months—in other words, to move the election into the future to avoid coinciding with elections to this House.
I shall write to the First Ministers, the Presiding Officers and all the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly tomorrow to set out that plan. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will be available to discuss those matters with parties represented in the Parliament and the Assembly.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful for what I feel is the partial acceptance of new clause 4. How drawn is the Minister to the time of six months?
Mr Harper
That is something that we will be able to discuss when we consult Members in the other places. This power will only be exercisable in the years in which elections coincide, because it is to deal with that specific issue; it is not a general power. As for the ability of the Parliament and the Assembly to bring their elections forward, we feel that two-thirds of MSPs or AMs would be needed to support such a move. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not a power that should not be given to the Administrations; this is a power that should be given to the Parliament and the Assembly.
Mr Harper
I will give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) again, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda. If the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will give me a moment, I will get to Northern Ireland and then I will take his intervention if he still wishes to make one.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once more. I do not want to seem pedantic, but for the sake of clarity, does he mean that two thirds of the relevant devolved legislatures can move elections both back and forward, or only back?
Chris Bryant
I apologise if this is a similar point to the one made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). The legislatures already have the power to bring forward elections, but there is to be a power to extend. In effect, therefore, the Government are extending this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly for the convenience of the coalition. In essence, the Minister is saying that the motto of the Government is “Fewer Elections”.
Mr Harper
No. The hon. Gentleman must not keep giving the Committee misleading arguments. The Bill does not extend the term of this Parliament—this Parliament can run for five years. Members of the devolved Parliament and Assemblies have asked the Government to think about how they can make a decision on whether to move the date—a sensible provision—of elections.
Mr Harper
Let me finish setting out this point, because I might be about to deal with any questions that the hon. Gentlemen have.
The Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly currently have the power to vote with a two-thirds majority for early Dissolution. In Scotland and Wales, the relevant Acts provide that if the early Dissolution is more than six months before the scheduled election, the scheduled election must still take place. Elections to the devolved legislatures must be held on the first Thursday in May. We want to give them the power to extend, because if they have only the power to hold elections earlier, elections would effectively have to be held in the depths of winter. The Government have listened on that point, which is why we want to consult the legislatures on the ability to extend the date, which will give them much more flexibility.
It is worth making two other points. First, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections are materially different from local government elections in England. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are legislatures, and they already have a limited power to vary the date of their elections. In England in recent decades, general elections have frequently been combined with local elections. Combining local and mayoral elections with a UK general election is normal practice in England. It is easily managed and should continue unchanged.
Chris Bryant
The Minister is obviously making a sensible proposal in that regard, but I presume that such a change requires primary legislation, and that he intends to advance that in the Bill. I hope that he does not expect to make amendments in the House of Lords. Will he give an undertaking this evening that any such proposal will be made on Report in this House, and not at any later stage?
Mr Harper
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Labour party recognises that my proposal is sensible. We will consult with the parties in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly and introduce those changes at a later stage—I hope to do so sooner rather than later.
Mr Harper
I hope that it will happen sooner rather than later.
The position in Northern Ireland is slightly different. One difference in the Northern Ireland settlement is that if the date of the election is brought forward by whatever period, the original scheduled election does not have to be held. Also, the responsibility for Assembly elections, including the date, remains a matter for the Northern Ireland Secretary. He also holds the power to shift the date by two months either way, whereas the date for Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections can be shifted by only one month. I have discussed that in great detail with Northern Ireland Ministers.
Given the difference of the Northern Ireland settlement, and that next year there is a triple combination of Assembly elections, local elections and the referendum, Northern Ireland Ministers want to learn form that experience to see whether the existing power is sufficient or whether they wish to modify it. They will consult parties in Northern Ireland, both now and after next May, to see whether a further change needs to be made. If so, we will legislate to bring it into force.
Mark Durkan
I thank the Minister for recognising that the position in Northern Ireland is different. In putting my name to new clause 4, I was conscious that it was in clear tension with sections 31 and 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to which he alluded. Will he give an explicit assurance, however, that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office will involve all the parties in Northern Ireland in discussions? The 1998 Act was derived from the Good Friday agreement, was based on negotiations and agreements with all parties, and should be amended only by using the proper review mechanisms in full and true spirit.
Mr Harper
As in Scotland and Wales, we want to hold these discussions with all the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly, because this is a matter not for whoever happens to be running the Administration, but for the Assembly and all the parties represented in it.
Mark Durkan
Will the Minister indicate whether Ministers might at least be open to hearing a clear statement from all the parties, and perhaps the Assembly at large, that our preference would be for parliamentary elections on a four-year cycle, so that they do not clash with the Assembly? That would be the easiest way to avoid all sorts of problems. The formula that the Minister is using to allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to move its date might be an unachievable test: it might be impossible in the mixed-party circumstances of Northern Ireland ever to achieve a two-thirds majority, so we could be left with a political crisis and uncertainty. It would be a lot better to fix the cycles.
Mr Harper
There are two issues there. First, we recognise that the existing legal position and structure of politics in Northern Ireland are different, which is why we have adopted this different approach. There will therefore be extensive consultation with Northern Ireland Ministers and all the parties in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) hit on a second point though. Changing the cycles and adopting four-year terms for both this Parliament and the devolved legislatures would not solve the problem, because there can be early elections—if, for example, there is a vote of no confidence. If we had four-year cycles for everything and one early election, we could end up with the cycles coinciding not once every 20 years, as under our proposals, but at every general and devolved election, which would make the problem worse not better. Under our proposals, the coincidence will happen only once every 20 years, not more frequently.
Jonathan Edwards
In the light of the Minister’s concessions this evening, which we welcome, will he hold back Report to allow us to table further amendments?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman, who has been following the Bill’s progress very closely, will know that we have allocated the second day in Committee for next Wednesday, but we have not announced a day on Report, so there is not a date to hold back. We have not been rushing through the Bill’s proceedings at great pace.
There was great discussion about the Gould report.
Mr MacNeil
I have three points for clarification. Is the Minister guaranteeing that there will be no clash of election days between, say, Scotland and Westminster? Will he guarantee that the six months he has spoken about will be put into legislation? Finally, who will have the power to shift the dates? We feel that that should be for the devolved legislatures. Also, the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the difficulties of getting a two-thirds majority was apposite. But it is all in the mix.
Mr Harper
I thought that I made it clear that it would be a two-thirds decision for—in the hon. Gentleman’s case—the Scottish Parliament. It could not be a simple majority, because effectively that would give the power to the First Minister of Scotland or someone leading a majority Administration simply to choose a date that suited them—and that would be wrong. It would therefore be for the Parliament to make a choice about the election date.
Mr Harper
The Scottish Parliament would have the choice to consider the date. It could be moved by up to six months—it does not have to be six months—but it would be for the Parliament to make the decision. I gave a commitment that we would make that change in the Bill at a later stage of its progress.
Let me turn briefly to amendment 32, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) spoke on behalf of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform and which was effectively about whether we should reset the clock when there is an early election. The Committee’s train of thought, which she set out, was that if a party knew that it would get only the remainder of the term, it would be less inclined to pass a Dissolution motion or a no-confidence motion. Her Committee suggested that if that was the case, we would not need the super-majority proposal for an early Dissolution. There is a technical problem with amendment 32 as drafted, because it would allow an early election to be held at any time, right up to the next scheduled election, but would still force the scheduled election to take place, so we could have an election in March and then another in May, which would not be very sensible.
Mr Harper
Let me just finish this point. The Government could not accept amendment 32 as drafted even if we thought that keeping the clock ticking was the right thing to do. However, we thought about the issue carefully, which we also debated a little on Second Reading. The Government did not think that resetting the clock made sense for this reason. If there were an early election because the Government had lost their majority and gone to the country, and a Government were then returned with a significant majority, it would not be right for that Government, perhaps with a clear mandate, to be unable to put their programme to the country and carry it through. When people go to the polls, they expect that they are electing a Government who will last for a full term, with the ability to carry through a full programme. The Constitution Committee in the other place considered the evidence from other countries, including the Swedish model, and was told that the prospect of leaving the clock ticking actually protected the Government—the Executive—rather than the Parliament.
Mr Harper
Let me make some progress.
Finally, new clauses 4 and 5 would provide that elections to this House and the devolved legislatures could not occur on the same day. The problem with that proposal is that if it were agreed, it would provide that where a devolved legislature’s general election had been moved, the following poll would take place on the first Thursday in May four years later. For example, if one of the devolved legislatures delayed its 2015 elections by one year, elections to that legislature and the House of Commons would coincide again in 2020. New clauses 4 and 5 would mean that those elections would have to be moved again in 2020, so they are actually a back-door method of substituting a five-year term for the devolved legislatures.
I do not know whether that was the intention of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, who spoke so powerfully against a five-year term and in favour of a four-year term, but the effect of his new clauses would be to deliver a five-year term through the back door. For that reason I do not think that it would be very sensible to accept them. Also, new clauses 4 and 5 do not make provision for a super-majority, which appears to suggest that a majority Government in a devolved legislature could just play around with the election date to suit themselves, which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve in this Bill. The Government therefore cannot accept new clauses 4 and 5, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press them to a Division.
In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, particularly those who were here for the whole debate and those who have tabled or supported amendments to clause 1. The Government are convinced that our Bill as drafted provides the right approach. I would urge hon. Members not to press their amendments to a Division and to support clause 1.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am going to allow Mr Chris Bryant in, but I know that he is going to make a very brief contribution.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to you, Mr Hoyle. I want to speak only because the Minister made some announcements in his speech that are obviously significant. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, in a rather self-righteous tone, that he made them to Parliament, and we are delighted that he has done so—I presume that that is a criticism of his colleagues, not of anybody else in the Chamber. However, he has made some important announcements. He excoriated my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) for referring to the Government position before we had heard what it was, but as the Government chose not to make their position known until the very end of the debate, it is hardly her fault. As he knew that he was going to make his announcement this evening, he could perfectly well have written to all parties concerned to make it clear that he wanted to consult on the issue. I suggest that that would have shown slightly more respect to the Committee and to the various political parties involved.
The Minister is proposing a change, but I note that so far he has not been prepared to say whether, if he intends to table further amendments, he will do so in this House. I wholly respect the powers and intelligence of the House of Lords to make sensible amendments, and I hope that it will do so to several pieces of legislation. However, I believe that amendments to legislation that affects elections should be debated and made in the elected House, not in the unelected Chamber. That is why I hope that at some point the Minister will make good his suggestions, that he will guarantee to debate those amendments in this House first, and that we will not have Report stage until such time as those amendments have been made in this House.
Jonathan Edwards
Diolch, Mr Hoyle. We have had an interesting and informative debate. I shall quickly run through some of the contributions. As ever, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) made some passionate and honest points. He is always respected throughout the House. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) argued coherently and in detail. I cannot support his amendments, but I am glad that he will support ours this evening. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made excellent points about the need to ensure that UK general elections are held separately, and I am glad that the Minister accepted those points. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made pertinent points about the Bill essentially entrenching the coalition rather than being concerned with democracy. I can only apologise to him for getting to the Table Office before him.
With her usual eloquence, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) highlighted the views of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and I thank her for her comments. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) spoke passionately about the political motives behind the Bill. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) gave an insightful historical lesson on the US constitution and relevant comparisons. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) reminded us of the 147,000 spoiled ballots in Scotland in 2007 due to the coupling of the local government elections and the Scottish Parliament elections on the same day.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), as ever, made a compelling and entertaining speech, and I only wish that I had his oratorical talents.
Jonathan Edwards
That is important. It must be the Maesteg blood.
The Minister made the Government’s case, which was also made on Second Reading. I welcome his comments on consulting the devolved Administrations about changing their dates by six months. That is a significant step forward. If he were able to promise that he would legislate following the consultation on the National Assembly elections—in the case of Wales it would not be the Secretary of State who would determine that matter but the Assembly, as the sovereign body—I would press only amendment 12 to the vote tonight on the point of principle that the Committee should decide whether we should have a four-year or a five-year cycle. Diolch.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without debate
Hon. Members
Object.
POWER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS TO INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS
Motion made,
(1) That this House approves the Seventh Report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Session 2010-11, HC 578; and
(2) That accordingly Standing Order No. 150 be amended, by leaving out paragraph (2)(e) and inserting in its place:
“(e) to investigate, if he thinks fit, specific matters which have come to his attention relating to the conduct of Members and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate sub-committee thereof, unless the provisions of paragraph (3) apply.
(2A) In determining whether to investigate a specific matter relating to the conduct of a Member the Commissioner shall have regard to whether in his view there is sufficient evidence that the Code of Conduct or the rules relating to registration or declaration of interests may have been breached to justify taking the matter further.”—(Mr Barron.)
petition
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The petition, which is from Dr Michael Lynch and in the name of 1,750 other petitioners, states:
The Petition of Dr Michael Lynch, Derwent Practice, Norton Road, Malton,
Declares that the Petitioner has a strong objection to the way in which North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust have implemented the closure of Ryedale ward at Malton Hospital, without public consultation.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to reinstate what is a highly valued and much needed facility at Malton Hospital for the population of Ryedale.
And the Petitioner remains, etc.
[P000868]
Summertime (Scotland)
(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for providing me with the opportunity to raise an issue which, although not considered earth-shattering in its political significance, tends to provoke extremely lively debate on both sides. The question is whether it would be better for the UK as a whole to move away from Greenwich mean time and to adopt what is confusingly entitled single/double summertime. This would mean that instead of living in GMT, as we currently are and have been since the end of last month, we would have GMT+1 hour during the winter and GMT+2 hours in the summer.
We have this debate every year in this country, and the debate is particularly keenly followed in Scotland where, among certain commentators and politicians, there is always the temptation to indulge in the “poor us” victim mentality. This was effectively illustrated last week when John Scott, the Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament, asked the Scottish National party Minister, Fiona Hyslop, about the campaign to move to single/double summertime, and said:
“Does she agree that Scottish children walking to school in darkness is not an acceptable price to pay for an extra hour of sunlight in Sussex?”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 11 November 2010; c. 30349.]
There are times when I feel like holding my head in my hands and weeping for my nation, when such nonsense passes for intelligent discourse. First of all, there is the small point that it is not possible to create, reduce or ration the amount of daylight available to any part of our globe. That is a matter for God Almighty and the immutable laws of the physical universe.
Secondly, there is a dangerous laziness in summoning forth the bogeyman of the Auld Enemy. It plays fast and loose with the Union—it should be noted that Mr Scott’s party was once proud to describe itself as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, though admittedly that was many years ago now—in the hope of currying favour with a particularly aggrieved audience; and there is always an aggrieved audience for such messages, which is why it is so dangerous to indulge them by raising the spectre of a change which, it is alleged, would have a beneficial effect on England while disadvantaging Scotland.
I believe that claim to be nonsense. I also believe that there is much more support in Scotland for the change than has previously been the case. There have been various claims in support of a change to single/double summertime, some of which are harder to justify than others. The change would boost Scotland’s tourism industry, we are told. It would help us to reduce our greenhouse emissions, we would be a fitter and healthier nation, our streets would be safer to walk on, trade between Britain and Europe would increase, the lamb would lie down with the lion and Trident would be beaten into ploughshares. Actually, I made those last two up, but I hope that the point is made. The advantages claimed for the change are many, and they are valid, but I do not blame some of the public for being unconvinced by some of them.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the fact that he has given up his blog means that hon. Members and the wider public will not have an opportunity to see his views being promoted on the internet, and will he perhaps reconsider giving up his blog so that he can take forward this important issue?
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
On a more serious note, the hon. Gentleman brings up an important issue that will be debated in a private Member’s Bill very shortly. May I commend what he is saying to the House? I did some studies on this in Scotland and found that the farmers who were once against this, on passionate and logical grounds, are now either neutral or in favour of it. They appreciate the extra hour in the evening, because many of them have diversified into the tourism market where bed and breakfast and so forth provide value. The other aspect is road deaths. A net decrease in road deaths would be a significant improvement were the clocks to be changed. I welcome the debate that has been brought to the House tonight.
Mr Harris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those valid comments and trying to pre-empt the points that I hope to make in the next few minutes.
It is up to the Lighter Later campaign and its many supporters here in the Commons to make the case for all the benefits that will accrue from pushing the clocks forward an hour, and they can do that during the debate on the private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is in the Chamber. I will return to that issue shortly.
As a father of young children, I approach this subject from a particular direction. The other alleged benefits that I mentioned earlier notwithstanding, it is the effect on Scotland’s road safety record, particularly as it affects children, that most concerns me. We already know that road accidents are more likely to occur in the evening peak hour than in the morning. One will often hear the protest that drivers are not fully alert first thing in the morning when they drive to work, and are more alert as they return. I do not believe this to be the case, and the evidence is indeed to the contrary.
The 1998 study by Transport Research estimated that a move away from GMT would lead to an overall reduction in road deaths and serious injuries of 0.7% in Scotland alone. Based on the figures for 2009, that would mean 20 fewer deaths and serious injuries on Scotland’s roads, and 30 fewer casualties across all categories of severity.
John Scott MSP said that Scottish children should not have to go to school in darkness. Mr. Scott represents Ayr, and I grew up in that same county, and I know that by December children there will be doing precisely that anyway. Dawn can arrive after classes have begun.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way because he has been very generous with his time. I note the points that he makes in relation to John Scott MSP, whom I know well. He is a farmer in Ayrshire, so I was rather surprised that he did not agree with some of his farming colleagues. I am old enough to remember the last experiment in Scotland when I was a pupil. Will my hon. Friend say something to reassure those parents who have heard tales of children going to school in the dark with the high-visibility armbands securely attached to the duffle coats and torches to get them to the end of their streets?
Mr Harris
That is a valid point. It will have to be met head on by the supporters of the campaign, because there is no doubt that in the 1968 trial, although road deaths throughout the vast majority of Scotland reduced significantly, there was a small increase in the number of road deaths in the far north of Scotland. Of course that has to be taken seriously, and I will say as much later on, but let us remember that when it comes to generating publicity on a particular campaign, it is far easier for the media to publicise deaths and injuries on the road than to publicise deaths and injuries that were avoided.
We, as parents and—all of us, I think—as former children, know that when children head out to school in the morning on, say, a 10-minute journey, they allow almost exactly that amount of time for the journey. The return journey, however, is a different matter. It may sound counter-intuitive to suggest that children will be in a bigger hurry to reach school in the morning than to get back home again in the afternoon, but it makes perfect sense. Children adopt a more relaxed approach as they head home, perhaps taking diversions to friends’ homes, popping into a shop or chatting with friends at the school gate.
We see exactly the same phenomenon in our working lives. I saw it as a Transport Minister and when I worked in transport planning before being elected to the House. The evening rush hour is being extended every year and becoming longer and longer, as flexible hours mean more people leaving the office later, more people perhaps heading to the pub or to the shops on the way home, and evening buses and trains carrying the same total number of commuters on their return journeys as they did in the morning rush hour, but over a significantly longer period.
However, too much time in this debate—too much attention—is focused on the journey to and from school. In any one year, children in Scotland spend as much time travelling between home and their friends’ homes, and walking to and from various places of recreation, as they do travelling to and from school. Indeed, during the very darkest mornings in December and early January, children are on holiday from school and do not have to make those journeys at those early times, but they still make journeys later in the day, when the light is fading and they are far more at risk from passing cars.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend consider the remarks of the former Prime Minister, our right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who, at a regional Cabinet meeting in my constituency earlier this year, told a representative of the tourism industry that he saw real benefits of £3.5 billion in the move that my hon. Friend advocates and thought that there were merits in the idea of a three-year trial? I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that those comments are helpful to his campaign in Scotland.
Mr Harris
My right hon. Friend will know that I set great store by the comments of our right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) will forgive me, however, I must say that it is one of those claims that the public will have some difficulty accepting. Politicians throw such figures about all the time—£3.5 billion here, £10 billion there—but they do not have a great deal of meaning. Until we have a proper, scientific analysis of all the evidence, it will be quite fair for people to remain sceptical, but I shall come back to that issue, because the private Member’s Bill deals with it.
Scotland’s road traffic record is poorer than the records for England and Wales. Scots are 27% more likely to suffer serious injury as a result of a road accident than our compatriots south of the border. That is partly a simple consequence of lower car ownership—again, a counter-intuitive argument, as one might expect fewer cars to mean fewer road accidents. However, 20% more journeys are made on foot in Scotland than in England, meaning that Scottish pedestrians are more numerous, pro rata, and therefore more at risk.
I spoke rather blithely earlier of the other benefits that might—might—accrue to Scotland if the changes take place, and I wish to place on the record my sincere belief that those benefits would be real, if unquantifiable in advance. Of course, it would benefit Scottish industry if our trading hours were more in line with Europe’s. Incidentally, those Scots and some English who say that Scotland should stick with GMT even if England chooses to move to single/double summertime should remember that Scotland’s biggest trading partner is also our closest neighbour within the Union, and such a move would indeed be damaging to Scottish commerce.
There are arguments in favour of the premise that our tourism industry, our energy consumption, our community safety and our participation in healthy activities would all benefit from a move to single/double summertime.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
If the hon. Gentleman is a strong believer in putting the clocks forward an hour, surely he realises that those benefits would be magnified if we put the clocks forward two hours, three hours, four hours, five hours or whatever, but then we might see the nub of the problem and exactly what was being foisted on some people. Does he agree that in a spirit of conciliation, therefore, we need a shorter, symmetrical period either side of midwinter? Rather than changing the clocks seven weeks before midwinter and 14 weeks afterwards, as we do at the moment, why do we not have a five or six-week period either side of midwinter? We would then shorten wintertime by half and probably reach a consensus that would be welcomed throughout the UK.
Mr Harris
I am not sure what the Gaelic is for “coming at you out of left field”, but that intervention rather fits the description. On the hon. Gentleman’s first proposal about moving summertime more and more hours forward, if he wishes to bring a Bill to that effect to this House, I will be happy to express my opinion.
Inevitably, and rightly, there will be detractors—[Interruption]—as we can hear. Fair enough—there should be a public debate, but one based on facts, not on the exhumation of the English as evil bogeymen aiming to steal the sun from the Scottish sky.
Mr MacNeil
To return to the substantive point and away from the hon. Gentleman’s hyperbole, does he support the shorter, more symmetrical period, or not?
Mr Ellwood
There is a serious point here. We have 53 days on one side of the winter solstice and about 100 days on the other side. It is not symmetrical, and therefore this proposal would make sense. I ask SNP Members to allow the Bill to go through to Committee stage so that such detail can be debated. It needs to be given more time so that the country can understand the detail instead of the Bill being kicked into touch by talking it out on a Friday, which happens so often. I hope that the SNP will listen, wake up to what the nation is calling for, and support this proposal so that we can have a debate and see it through to fruition.
Mr Harris
The problem with such debates, in most cases, is that various Members raise specific and detailed technical objections which prevent the progress of the Bill and which, nine times out of 10, are intended to do so. The Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Castle Point is before the House, and I hope that the House will make a decision in due course.
Contrary to some rather excitable critics—yes, I am looking at you, John Scott MSP—the Daylight Saving Bill would not implement any permanent change to single/double summertime. It would simply oblige the Government initially to conduct a cross-departmental analysis of the potential costs and benefits of advancing time by one hour for all or part of the year. Only at that point, and entirely dependent on the results of that analysis, would a three-year experiment of single/double summertime be triggered. Crucially, if the analysis were to conclude that the anticipated benefits were unlikely to be realised, the three-year pilot would not go ahead. Given the very sensible caution outlined in the Bill—I congratulate the hon. Lady on promoting it—it is very difficult to see how any serious objection to it could be maintained, even by those strongly opposed to the scrapping of GMT.
I may be wrong in my support for single/double summertime. The critics of the Lighter Later campaign may be wrong. Even—this is extremely far-fetched, I confess—John Scott MSP might be wrong. But until we properly analyse all the available data, we will never know. Instead, we will have the same old arguments, twice a year, every year, when the clock changes come around in October and March.
I have called for this debate because I think that it is right that the Scotland Office sets out its own policy position. It has considerable influence in the Government and could, I imagine, scupper the hon. Lady’s Bill if it so chose. I intend to be present on 3 December when the Bill has its Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will also be present to support it so that we can draw a line under this debate once and for all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) for Glasgow South on securing tonight’s Adjournment debate. Perhaps his much lamented retirement from blogging has left his nights, light or dark, free for more exciting and productive activities such as this debate. However, given the lateness of the hour, he can be confident that Scotland’s nocturnal cyber-nats will be following our every word.
I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views and his support for the introduction of what is generally known as double summertime, which would see the United Kingdom using central European time. He is right to say that not everybody in Scotland is against such a change, but he should acknowledge that most are against it, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has made clear to colleagues in the Government. It is for those supporting change to make and win their case across the UK, including in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that has not happened.
David Mundell
The Scotland Office has carried out consultation on the Bill, both formal and informal, which supports the view that the majority of Scots do not support the measure at this time.
Mr Harris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, given how long I took over my comments. He said that a majority of Scots do not support the change, but he is now talking about consultation and qualitative research. If he is to maintain that a majority of Scots oppose the change, he has to come to the Dispatch Box with evidence of quantitative research by a polling organisation and the Scotland Office. Does he have that information?
David Mundell
Quite the contrary. The hon. Gentleman and those who support the campaign have to win the argument with the public in Scotland, with the body politic and with civic society.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
Just to clear up the issue, will the Minister agree to place in the Library all the information to which he has referred, which enabled him to make the claims that he has just made?
David Mundell
As the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is not possible to set out that information in the way that he seeks. What is possible is for those who support the change, such as the hon. Member for Glasgow South, to make their case and win the argument with the people of Scotland. He was very careful not to say that he was speaking on behalf of people in Scotland, because he knows that there is not majority support for the change in Scotland at this time. Rather than argue about polling evidence, which all of us in the body of Scottish politics know is amazingly unreliable, he should concentrate on winning the argument in Scotland if it is what he truly believes.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I appreciate that the debate is about how Scotland feels, but does the Minister accept that there is a spurious argument that the only objections to the policy are from Scotland? In reality, they will come from all over the UK. I have just checked, and found out that if we had the policy in place, sunrise tomorrow in London would be at 8.24 am, and on Christmas eve it would be at 8.50 am. May I suggest that even Londoners would find that objectionable?
David Mundell
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, the objections are not just from Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out clearly the position of the Government as a whole, including the Scotland Office: no change can be made without the consensus of the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland as well as Scotland. There can be no specific policy in relation to Scotland, because consensus across the UK is the key factor. Let me make it clear that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South alluded to, the Government are unequivocally opposed to any differentiated time zone for Scotland.
Mr Bradshaw
Why has the Prime Minister—like the leader of the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid—changed his position on that issue since the general election? He said quite clearly before the election, including to tourism representatives in the south-west, that he favoured the change. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), then the shadow Tourism Minister, explicitly said that he favoured the move. Is this just another broken promise by the coalition?
David Mundell
I certainly accept that the former shadow Tourism Minister is a powerful advocate of the case, but what the Prime Minister said then, and what he says now, is that we welcome an informed debate in all parts of the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might say, on this issue we are all in it together or not at all.
Mr Ellwood
I am aware that my hon. Friend has been following this issue carefully, but I would ask that his Department show some leadership and a little bit more interest, rather than just saying, “Oh, it’s for the others to make the case.” There is definite interest in the matter, because Scotland and the entire country can benefit. It is time that the Scotland Office considered the matter in detail and carried out an overt study, rather than one that they are not willing to publish, and then supported a three-year experiment. There would be a massive benefit to Britain, including Scotland, and I hope that the Department will embrace that rather than have a laissez-faire attitude.
David Mundell
I do not accept that it is a laissez-faire attitude to reflect opinion in Scotland within Government. We should welcome the debate and challenge those people who feel strongly about the matter to go out and win that debate in Scotland. It is quite clear that they have not yet done so. I agree that this has to be a factual debate and that it does not have to be an emotional one. Even if we move to double summertime, it will not mean that the United Kingdom has any more daylight hours.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that the last three opinion polls conducted in Scotland show that a majority of the Scottish public are in favour? I can give him that evidence tomorrow morning.
David Mundell
I have that evidence, but as my hon. Friend will know, the answer is determined by the question, and many people will say “yes” when they are asked whether they like lighter evenings, but they do not necessarily take on board the full consequences of all the issues in the survey. Although I accept and acknowledge that opinion may be changing in Scotland, I do not believe that the majority of people in Scotland support this change.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil
Might it not be an idea for those parliamentarians who are passionate advocates of change to resign and force a by-election on this very issue and test the opinion themselves?
David Mundell
That is another interesting suggestion. I was going to agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the change in wintertime and the fact that the change in October is so much closer to the shortest day than the change in the spring, and that is a live issue that people mentioned to me when I was in the Western Isles 10 days ago. We must also recognise that for people living in the Western Isles and the most northerly parts of Scotland, such a change would have a significant impact on their lives in winter when daylight would not come before 10 am, and that cannot be just glibly set aside.
Mr Foster
Given that the Minister is very keen for there to be more accurate data on this information and on having an informed debate, will he make it clear that he and his Department will support the Bill’s getting a Second Reading, so that that further research and informed debate can take place?
David Mundell
That will be a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills during the course of the debate, which is to be held on 3 December. I hope that all those Members with an active interest in this matter will ensure that the debate explores all the issues that cannot be explored in the short time that we have available this evening, and that those people who promote the view will continue to gather the evidence that they believe will support their conviction that the benefits of lighter evenings would outweigh the costs of darker mornings. Judging by his contribution, that is the sort of informed debate that the hon. Member for Glasgow South wants to move to, and we would welcome that in this Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament.
Secondly, a consensus within Scotland will need to be built, to convince the body politic, Civic Scotland and the Scottish public to support them. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) might tell me to the contrary, but I was unaware that the Scottish Labour party in the Scottish Parliament supported such a measure and had promoted it by speaking actively in its favour. I might have been wrong in that regard.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South highlighted the important issue of road safety and made some telling points. Thankfully, the UK already has one of the best road safety records in Europe, but the UK and Scottish Governments recognise that we can always do more. The introduction of central European time is not a panacea in that regard. Road safety experts acknowledge that other initiatives could have a greater impact. Indeed, even proponents of change acknowledge that the change may result in more road injuries in Scotland during the morning peak.
Mr Ellwood
I have a lot of respect for my hon. Friend personally and professionally, but I question some of his facts, because according to the statistics that I have seen, road deaths fell in Scotland during the 1968 to 1971 experiment. The statistics and analysis suggest that if the experiment were repeated, road deaths would fall again. I do not know where he gets his data from, but he needs to share them with us if we are to have a full and frank debate.
David Mundell
I recognise the passion with which my hon. Friend speaks, but his contributions have not necessarily been made from an objective viewpoint in relation to Scotland. The Government want and welcome an informed debate. As has been clearly stated, hon. Members will have the chance to debate this issue on 3 December on Second Reading of the Daylight Saving Bill, which is a private Member’s Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). They need no encouragement from me to take that opportunity.
Westminster Hall
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
Policing (West Midlands)
(14 years 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 Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. You and I have known each other for many years, and at one stage we had offices not far from each other.
There is concern in the west midlands and in its seven districts, but people should realise that that is against a background of economic difficulties that started with Lehman Brothers in America, and that should always be borne in mind when casting aspersions. At present, even with the situation that the Government inherited, we still have our triple A credit rating throughout the international monetary system, which tells us that although there were financial difficulties they were not on the scale that the present Government portray. Some of the measures that the Government have recently taken are unnecessary to deal with a situation that we had planned to deal with over the next four or five years. It is not generally realised that we had about 14 years to pay off our debts. It should also be borne in mind that when Labour came to power in 1997, 50p in every pound was spent on paying off the national debt. That tends to be forgotten; we had a two-year pause. However, the purpose of this debate is very much to discuss the impact in terms of police cuts in the west midlands.
The west midlands is a vital area for the British economy. This Government have taken a series of measures that have affected the region, where one in 10 people is unemployed. We have had cuts in education, and we have only to look around the seven districts to see what has happened as a result of the cuts in education capital programmes and in universities. Against that background, when trying to understand where the Government are taking the country, one is sometimes puzzled.
For the purposes of today’s debate, we should bear in mind that figures released in July this year show current police officer numbers at 143,734, which is nearly 17,000 more than in 1997; the Labour Government also introduced 16,000 police community support officers. Our manifesto guaranteed central funding to maintain those record police numbers. However, in a statement delivered by the present Chancellor, it was announced that central Government police funding will be reduced by 20% in real terms by 2014-15, which will have a direct impact on policing on local streets.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
It is of interest that Chris Sims, the chief constable of West Midlands police, has stated that, for his force,
“20 per cent equates to over £100m.”
When asked about job losses, he said:
“As more than 80 per cent of our budget goes on staffing costs it is inevitable that we will lose jobs. The funding cuts will be phased over four years, with a disproportionate impact on years one and two.”
Clearly, the west midlands, including my borough of Walsall, will suffer a lot as a result of what the Government have stated.
Mr Cunningham
My hon. Friend is spot on, and I shall probably come to that point later.
A July 2010 report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary stated:
“A cut beyond 12% would almost certainly reduce police availability”.
There is concern about the future of specialist police units, such as those for domestic crime and child abuse, which are no longer considered front line by the coalition Government. If we look at the regional impact, West Midlands police will be unfairly and disproportionately hit by the 20% cut to its police budget, due to its higher reliance on central funding: 83% of its funding comes from central Government, whereas only 17% is generated from council tax. Those cuts go way beyond what can be achieved through efficiency savings and better procurement. Some predict that West Midlands police could lose more than 1,200 officers and a similar number of police staff over four years. In real terms, it is expected that 400 police officers and 400 police staff will lose their jobs by March. In comparison, leafy Surrey, which has a lower crime rate, will get a better deal.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has made a really good point. It is very likely that Ministers will say, “Well, west midlands is getting exactly the same impact as everywhere else,” but he has made it clear that that is not the case. In reality, the impact on police officers, police civilian staff and services will be disproportionate. One thing we will be looking for from Ministers today is that they address the actual cuts that will take place in the west midlands, not just the notional ones.
Mr Cunningham
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. Anyone who works in local government, as I have, can tell us, as can experience, that an arbitrary cut across the board can be very punitive and disproportionate. What we have here is a punitive and disproportionate measure, because like is not being compared with like. That is one of the major problems with the proposals.
In the west midlands city of Coventry, as many as 40 police officer jobs will be lost over the next four years. These are only rough figures, and I am sure that they can be changed and contradicted, but we have the resources only to make some rough guesses about what is likely to happen. A combined total of about 29 police officers and staff could lose their jobs in each west midlands constituency before March, according to the chief constable, Chris Sims. If we look at the figures for police officers in Coventry, in 1997 there were 628; today, there are 843. That shows that the previous Government certainly tackled some of the crime problems in Coventry.
Let me take hon. Members back to 1997 and the years prior to that, which I certainly remember. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) will substantiate what I say next. During the Thatcher years, we had a problem in Coventry with youths terrifying neighbourhoods. My right hon. Friend experienced that in his constituency, and I am sure that he will recall that we had a number of meetings with the then Home Office Minister Lord Ferrers and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who eventually became Home Secretary, on issues such as witness protection. In those days, in line with the record of the previous Conservative Government, people were left to their own devices. I remember visiting some flats in Stoke Aldermoor, which was in my constituency at the time, and seeing that old people there had steel doors for protection. We did not have an adequate witness protection scheme at that time; as a consequence, old people, or anyone, giving evidence had to face the person they had accused in the anteroom before they went into court. They were terrified. If they did give evidence but the culprit got away with it, they got a second visit. That gives us a rough idea of what things were like before 1997, and we should not forget that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East will also remember that we heavily lobbied Ministers to bring in antisocial behaviour orders, which everyone—certainly everyone on the Government Benches—describes as discredited now. At the time, however, they came as a welcome relief to those families and neighbourhoods, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will confirm that.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recall that the entire antisocial behaviour agenda was led in large part from Coventry, as a result of some of the very serious problems that we had on one or two council estates. People were systematically intimidating others and believing that “on their manor” they could do what they liked. The ASBO agenda was all about breaking the power of those local thugs to impose themselves on the neighbourhood in which they lived.
Mr Cunningham
I thank my right hon. Friend for substantiating my argument.
Another measure introduced locally in Coventry was area co-ordination, which, for example, allowed the council to appoint wardens, who in turn got involved in local communities, won their confidence and gave them the confidence to go to the police if there were serious problems. Right hon. and hon. Members may remember that, at that time, a lot of members of the public were reluctant to talk to the police because they were intimidated and knew exactly what would happen to them.
It is worthwhile mentioning such things to encapsulate what happened before the Labour Government got anywhere. These days it is easy to rubbish everything that we did, but, on the contrary, we did a heck of a lot to make life easier for people in some neighbourhoods.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the challenges to do with resources, effective policing is not necessarily a function of absolute police numbers? The police—even West Midlands Police Federation—would accept that. It is important that we build on inter-agency working, because a lot of problems in the west midlands, including antisocial behaviour, are related to health inequalities and deprivation. We need to ensure that the police in the west midlands continue to work effectively in partnership, because the nature of policing in the west midlands is changing to deal with some of the underlying problems we face.
Mr Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not see how cutting police numbers makes their working with agencies more effective. The hon. Gentleman will have to work that one out for himself.
Mr Ainsworth
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) makes the same claim as the Home Secretary—that, in some way, there will be no impact on the street as a result of the cuts. It is nonsense to say that we will be able to get police out of the back office and on to the streets and that we will be able to cut the number of police by as much as is proposed for the west midlands without there being an impact on our neighbourhoods. That is ridiculous—it is nonsense. Surely my hon. Friend agrees.
Mr Cunningham
Hold on. Calm down.
That is why I deliberately described the situation prior to 1997, to illustrate what can happen when cuts of such magnitude are imposed.
Mr Cunningham
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.
James Morris
Chris Sims is a sensible and intelligent police officer. He has reiterated that, despite his resourcing challenges, it is perfectly possible for him to deliver the same levels of neighbourhood policing, even in the challenging situation that he faces. Even the West Midlands Police Federation has said that it thinks there can be better allocation of police resources to maintain levels of neighbourhood policing.
Mr Cunningham
I have known a number of chiefs of police in the west midlands over the years and they will all tell the same story. It depends on what Government they are dealing with.
Mr Winnick
Would not it help the case for policing in the west midlands if Conservative Members joined us, instead of just echoing Government policy? From time to time when my party’s Government was in office I criticised them when I considered it appropriate, as did other hon. Friends. New Conservative Members may take that lesson on board if they wish.
My constituents complain that there are not sufficient police officers. In certain places in my constituency, which is not unique by any means in terms of antisocial behaviour, residents want to see a physical police presence. The cuts that are coming will make that situation even worse. It is regrettable that West Midlands police will be so adversely affected as a result of Government policy.
Mr Cunningham
Not only that, but areas that are used to seeing a high police profile, including some more affluent areas, will now be badly affected by the measures. People in those areas will experience what people in the deprived areas that my hon. Friend is talking about have experienced. We accept that some of the newer Government Members are enthusiastic, but those of us with the benefit of experience know that, once they have seen the policies unfold and seen the impact at the sharp edge, they will really squirm.
Richard Burden
I should like to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, because it is important that we are all sensitive to the position of a chief constable. A chief constable cannot get involved in political debates. It would be wrong of the chief constable for the west midlands to do so. He will inevitably do everything that he humanly can to safeguard services, because he is an excellent chief constable—there is no doubt about that. But the mathematics are clear. The reorganisation—the chief constable’s undertaking Paragon—was founded on a solid number of neighbourhood police officers, backed up by police community support officers, with specialist teams at force level dealing with issues such as child abuse and domestic violence. If a chunk is taken out of that, something will have to give, whether that is the front line, or specialist work, or a police officer turning up at the community meetings held in all our constituencies and making the difference between their being successful and less successful. Unless all parties recognise that, we will be doing our constituents a disservice.
Mr Cunningham
My hon. Friend is right. I could not put it any better. We have always to remember that a chief constable is a professional person and that, as far as his job goes, he has no political opinions. If he is a good professional, he will make do with what he has, which is often not adequate, to say the least, and it will be less adequate as a result of the new measures.
It is not generally appreciated that Warwickshire police force often relies on West Midlands police to come to its assistance when needed. For example, the West Midlands police anti-terrorism squad will be involved from time to time in dealing with potential terrorist activities in Warwickshire. So Warwickshire has not escaped; the cuts will have an impact on the police force there. It is not my job to put the case for Warwickshire police, but it is my job to point out the impact on that police force as well. The results of the cuts will not be confined to the west midlands; they will flow across the borders.
The coalition has not chosen to prioritise the police. Since 1997, Labour added 1,423 police officers to the west midlands force, but that increase will be all but obliterated by the predicted cut of 1,200 officers over the next four years. The House of Commons Library—nobody would dispute these figures, would they?—estimates that crime in the west midlands has fallen by 35% between 1997-98 and 2008-09. Once again, the burden of the cuts will fall on those families who rely on these services the most—inner-city families. Anybody who lives in the inner cities knows that.
I hope that the Minister will answer the following questions. How will he explain the regional unfairness of the cuts to inner-city families in our constituencies, who see low-crime areas such as Surrey get a better deal? How will he assure the most vulnerable in our society—victims of child abuse and domestic violence—that they will continue to be prioritised when they are no longer considered front-line cases? Will he acknowledge the direct correlation between Labour’s investment in police officer numbers since 1997 and the 35% reduction in west midlands crime? How does he intend to ensure public confidence in the police service, while jeopardising their basic safety and security?
Consumer Focus research has shown that rank and file police officers cannot do their job as well without good community relations or the active support and co-operation of the public. Has the Minister considered the implications of fewer officers on neighbourhood watch groups, and the work of PCSOs? Has the Minister considered efficiency savings in the day-to-day operations of the police force before axing jobs? How can our police officers be expected to continue to protect and serve people in the west midlands to the same standard, when they have the burden of even more paperwork as a result of having fewer office staff?
That is as much as I can say at the moment, because my hon. Friends want to contribute to this debate. It was remiss of me not to declare an interest at the start of the debate, Mr Brady. Sorry about that.
Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. Four or five Back-Bench Members want to contribute and we have about 50 minutes. If everybody is reasonably brief, we should get everybody in.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I am proud to represent Erdington. It is a community that is rich in people, even if it one of the 10 poorest in Britain. It includes the great communities of Kingstanding, Tyburn, Castle Vale, Pype Hayes, Stockland Green—including Slade road—and Erdington itself. The area has seen huge investment under a Labour Government with more police officers on the beat being supported by more police community support officers in the streets of Erdington. It is a community that, like the rest of the west midlands, has seen a 35% fall in recorded crime. Over the past 15 years, it has seen an immensely welcome development—community policing. I remember attending the Castle Vale tasking group and seeing excellent engagement between the police service and the local community on how they would deal with problems together, including that of antisocial behaviour.
However, if the community is safer, there are serious residual problems. The police are a friend of Erdington, but they are also firm on crime and antisocial behaviour. Earlier this year, there was an upsurge in crime in Stockland Green. I met with the chief superintendent, the admirable Jim Andronov. He deployed an immense effort, including the use of intelligence, and as a consequence a number of charges were brought. Although there are still problems, it was a model of the police responding to the concerns of the community.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That was intelligence-led policing; it was not about flooding the area with a large number of police. Labour Members are making a direct correlation between numbers of police and falling crime, but the two do not necessarily match up. Many countries have larger police numbers but higher rates of crime. It is more important to use the number of police officers efficiently. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the situation in 1997. In 1997, I was a serving police officer in Lothian and Borders police, so I come with a certain amount of experience. The level of patronising talk directed at new Members by those in the Labour party who say that we are just parroting phrases that we are given is poor.
Jack Dromey
With the greatest of respect, the hon. Gentleman may once have been a police officer, but he is clearly not in contact with the modern police service. Locally, the police told me that they had the time and resources, including front-line officers backed by support and intelligence, to tackle quickly and effectively a problem that was giving rise to serious concern in the Stockland Green area. Precisely because the community welcomed such an initiative by the police, real anger is now being expressed about what is happening.
Mr Jim Cunningham
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), I do not think we are being patronising; we are passing on experience. More importantly, the hon. Gentleman may have been a serving police officer, but he was not the chief constable. The chief constable has the total overview and knows the picture. It is easy for someone lower down the ranks to have a perception about something.
Jack Dromey
I am guided by what serving police officers tell me about their concerns, including what they predict will happen over the next stages. I will come to that in a moment.
There is real anger because of a 20% cut to the police service and the consequences of that cut. Is it true that 2,500 jobs will go in the West Midlands police service over the next four years? Is it true that 1,200 police officers will go? Is it true that there will be 40 fewer police officers in each of the 10 constituencies in Birmingham? Are numbers of police community support officers already being cut back? An excellent PCSO came up to me on Saturday in Erdington high street and said, “Jack, there used to be six of us. Are they now going to cut it down to three?” Will the Minister confirm those facts? They are undeniable truths.
James Morris
Is it not also an undeniable truth that even if there had been a Labour Government, there would still have been 20% cuts in policing? Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to how he would have gone about implementing the cuts that would have been introduced anyway?
Jack Dromey
I will come to the contrast between the pledges made at the general election in a moment—they are revealing. During the general election, the Liberal Democrats said that there would be 3,000 more police officers. They did not add, “On the dole.” The Conservative party said that there would be less paperwork. The reality is that if numbers of police officers and PCSOs are reduced, they will have less time on the beat and less of the support they need to do their job, and therefore more time will be spent doing paperwork. That in turn will lead to less detection, as I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) knows from his own experience. It will affect the work that goes on in the back room by way of intelligence gathering and sifting. There will certainly be more paperwork, including more P45s for police officers and PCSOs.
The impact on the west midlands, as highlighted by my hon. Friends, will be disproportionately harsh. Whereas 51% of Surrey’s police service comes from the central Government grant, the figure for the midlands is 83%. Will the Minister acknowledge that there is a major problem for the midlands, and that the consequences of a 20% cut across the board nationwide will hit the midlands disproportionately hard?
I am proud of my local association with the police service, and I know that it will do its best. Chris Sims is an admirable chief constable. However, serving officers and PCSOs have said to me in no uncertain terms that simple realities will flow from what the Government are proposing. That is not least because, as one police officer said to me, history tells us that the combination of soaring unemployment—it is estimated that up to 400,000 people will lose their jobs in the midlands—and falling police numbers will lead to more crime, less-safe communities and criminals who are more likely to get away with it.
In conclusion, the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of our people and our communities. It is absolutely wrong for the Government to put at risk the safety of the people of Erdington. There is real fear about what will flow from the cuts unless the Government change course. Will the Minister be prepared to change course?
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I will be as brief as I can because some of the points that I wanted to make have been raised. However, I would like to reiterate one or two of them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) has just pointed out, the way that the cuts are being brought in is disproportionate. I asked the Home Secretary about the underlying reason for that, and I got no answer whatsoever, despite the fact that she claimed that she had prior notice of my question. Why are the high-crime areas being disproportionately hit in comparison with low-crime areas? The Minister knows that to be the case because of the proportion of policing that is paid for by grant. The cuts have been structured in such a way that the high-crime areas—including the west midlands, which has bigger problems although it is not the only such area—are being disproportionally hit by the way that the Government are making the cuts. I thought that we were all in this together. Why are people not being affected in proportion to the size of the problem that they experience?
It is disingenuous to say that there will be no cuts in the front-line service as a result of the measures being taken. There is no perfect organisation, but the West Midlands police service is recognised as one of the more efficient in the country. We are being borne down on all the time in terms of efficiency and pushing harder and further to get more police on the front line. That needs to continue under any regime, but I want to challenge Conservative Members. They will find over time that of all the organisations that they deal with as Members of Parliament, the police—more than any other organisation, in my experience—are under-resourced in terms of clerical support and back-up. When we write a letter to a police officer, we wind up with front-line officers having to respond to us because they do not have the back-office staff to anything like the extent to which some other organisations have them. Therefore, the cuts in back-office staff being planned in the west midlands—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington referred to a figure of more than 1,000—will drag police officers off the streets and into doing those jobs to an even greater extent than is the case now.
I also want to point out some of the difficulties that will be experienced in implementing the measures. We cannot make police officers redundant. Therefore, we shall probably have to enforce regulation A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 and discontinue police officers’ service at 30 years, thereby losing disproportionately extremely experienced police officers whom we can ill afford to lose. Does the Minister believe that the West Midlands police service will be able to cope with that without doing what I think the chief constable will have to do, which is freeze recruitment to that police service? I think that that is being planned and that that freeze will continue for the next four years, leaving a gap in policing that will move slowly through the force, giving it problems for a generation, never mind the next couple of years.
I want to make a point off the back of what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said. This issue does not affect only the west midlands, although the west midlands will really be in difficulty because of the proposed cuts. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that a month or two ago Warwickshire police authority, fearful of how on earth the Warwickshire police force would cope with the agenda being imposed on it—it is one of the smallest police forces in the country—proposed an amalgamation with the Coventry police service. It did so because it simply did not see how the Warwickshire force would cope. It is not only big forces such as the West Midlands force, serving high-crime areas, that will have huge problems. Smaller police forces, carrying a disproportionate overhead because of their size, will wind up with the problems that have been described.
Mr Winnick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I shall be going to the Select Committee on Home Affairs shortly, Mr Brady, which explains why I cannot stay for the winding-up speeches. Is it not the case that the only people who will get any satisfaction from what is going to happen in the west midlands will be criminals, who will hope, despite all the efforts of the police, that they will not be caught for committing various offences? They are the only people I can imagine who will get any satisfaction from what the Government intend to do.
Mr Ainsworth
Yes, I fear that that will be the case. Conservative Members say that there is no direct correlation between police numbers and crime. Yes, of course other issues impact on the police and we have to push the police for efficiencies, as we have to push every area of public service for efficiencies, but something that has a major impact on crime levels is the level of unemployment, and unemployment levels are about to go up considerably. We shall therefore see more people without work and fewer police officers to protect our communities. There is an inevitability about that, and this is where Chris Sims is caught. He wants to reassure the community that he represents. He is a good man, trying to do a job. He does not want to make people fearful, but frankly he does not know how he will cope with the levels of cuts that are being imposed on him and still be able to provide the level of service that he has been able to provide in recent years.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this important debate. I know perfectly well that the aim of the coalition—its ideological ambition—is to achieve a smaller state and that it has concluded that it can do that by cutting deeply into public services and blaming the previous Government for that reckless gamble. I understand that. The reality is that the people of the west midlands will deliver the final verdict on the coalition’s plans, but my fear is that we may witness a law-and-order disaster and an explosion in crime before the electorate are afforded that opportunity.
I have been involved in policing matters since I first came to the House in 1997. I have always believed that it is the duty of Government to give the police the numbers and the resources to do their job. I am proud of the Labour Government’s record in raising police numbers to record levels and in leaving office with crime lower than it was when we came in. Ours was the first Government to achieve that since the first world war. In addition, like everyone else here, I am proud that 16,000 police community support officers were put on the streets.
I do not know what happened to the review of the future of PCSOs that was to have been conducted by the former shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Some people may recall that it was announced with great fanfare at the Police Federation conference last year. I do not know whether it ever reached a conclusion.
Mr Jim Cunningham
If my hon. Friend wants to know what happened to the right hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that he was demoted.
Steve McCabe
Actually, I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal to review the future of PCSOs. I do not know whether that reached a conclusion, but the reality is that unless the west midlands force receives the grant necessary to sustain PCSOs, they will disappear from the streets of places such as Selly Oak. We shall suffer the folly of front-loaded cuts, as my hon. Friends have said. We shall see the destruction of a decade of improvements.
We are likely to see two effects on West Midlands police. The funding cuts will result in job losses for civilian staff. It will be called the reverse civilianisation policy. That means that the previous policy of recruiting civilians to perform crucial support but non-direct-policing tasks, thus freeing up police officers to fight crime, will be put into reverse. As a result, civilian staff numbers will fall and officers will be taken off the streets to perform clerical and administrative duties—and that is from a Home Secretary who claims that there is too much bureaucracy and she wants crime fighters rather than form-fillers. People will ring up only to be told that no officer is available; they are all too busy manning the CCTV cameras, typing up reports and answering the phone.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, it will not stop there. As the budget tightens, the chief constable will be forced to pay off some of his older and most experienced officers in a desperate attempt to save money. The West Midlands force risks being reduced to the status of a reactive response unit. Some estimates suggest that we will lose as many as 40 officers per constituency in Birmingham.
Initiatives that are the cornerstone of community-based and partnership policing—the very thing that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) supports—will be the first to go. Youth programmes that are designed to attract young people to sporting activities, such as those that I have witnessed at Chinn Brook recreation ground, and to prevent them drifting into vandalism and mindless antisocial behaviour will be lost. Local innovations such as police reward cards, which the police have pioneered in the west midlands to engage young people at a level that they appreciate and understand, will go. Social programmes, through which officers have worked with schools such as Kings Heath boys’ school and Highters Heath, Billesley and Hollywood primary schools, will be lost. Finally, as the force shrinks, crime will of course rise.
It is not too late for the Government to rethink their priorities. It is not too late for the coalition to wake up to the enormous gamble that it is about to take with law and order. It is not too late to recognise that having created an age of austerity, the last thing we should do is cut the police. There is still time to accept that the political gamble of police commissioners does not make sense when every spare penny should be used to keep police officers on our streets. Who else would pick this moment to blow £100 million on a reckless political gamble, when we should be trying to keep the force at a strength that will enable it to do its job?
The picture that I have painted is not inevitable, but it will be the inevitable outcome of the decisions that the coalition is taking: it will be the consequence of a Government who, by their choices, have demonstrated that they misunderstand policing. For the sake of our communities in the west midlands, I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is prepared to listen and to think again about the measures that are necessary to preserve high-quality policing in Birmingham and the west midlands.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I will make three brief points before the winding-up speeches.
First, it is easy in debates in the main Chamber, and sometimes in Westminster Hall, to get into political knockabout, where the role of the Opposition is to attack and the role of the Government is to defend, but at the end of which, nothing comes out. It is fair to say that Opposition Members have made political points in this debate—that is unsurprising, given that we are politicians. However, a serious question has been put to the Minister and I do not want to get to the end of the debate without hearing an answer. This question is vital to the service that our constituents receive. Several of my hon. Friends have posed the question, but allow me to pose it again, Mr Brady.
The west midlands is a high-crime area and a deprived area. Because of the structure of police funding, it relies on Government grant to make ends meet to a greater extent than many other parts of the country. It receives £579 million a year from the Treasury. Although we agree with inter-agency working and that policing is about more than numbers, 20% cannot be taken out of the budget without having a serious effect on deprived communities in the west midlands. Does the Minister recognise that problem? Does he think that a 20% cut is the same for Surrey and the west midlands? If so, he needs to say that and the public need to hear him, because they know that it is different. If he recognises that there is a disproportionate effect and that the reality on the ground will be different in the west midlands, we need to know what the Government will do about that. It is not unknown that when budgets are restructured, one should consider using mechanisms such as floors and ceilings in local government spending to ensure that the effects are dampened in certain areas. Will the Government do anything to recognise the specific problems in the west midlands, or will they just say, “It’s 20%, that’s it. It’s up to you to sort it out in your region”? We need to know the answer to those questions at the end of the debate and I hope that the Minister will give it.
My second point follows on from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). Actual crime gets to communities, but the fear of crime can sap their confidence and eat away at them. We all know the paradox that the higher one’s fear of being a victim of crime, the more chance one stands of being a victim of crime. As I said earlier, we need to give the chief constable space to recognise the difficult position he is in and to do what he has to do. He will do everything he can to ensure that communities are not scared or worried by what is going on. He is doing everything he can to keep service levels up, but the fear of crime will rise.
One reason for the rise in the fear of crime will be visibility. A great thing about police community support officers is that the police are seen to be on the high streets and in communities talking to people. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) spoke of the importance of intelligence-led policing, but where does the intelligence come from? The best intelligence often comes from informal, chance conversations, which tell the police that so-and-so lives in such a place and that they talk to someone else. That is an important reason to have visibility in service terms, but it also reassures local communities just to see the bobby or the PCSO on the beat.
The dilemma for the police, when faced with such cuts, is whether to maintain that visibility and reassurance or whether to ensure that they are available to respond to incidents that occur. That would probably be done by car because that is the quickest way to get to incidents. That might be the realistic response, but the result would be the loss of local contact on the street and the reassurance that that brings. That worries me. Again, I ask the Minister whether I am right. If I am wrong, he should tell me, but if I am right, what will he do about the situation through the funding for West Midlands police?
My final point is about community engagement, which hon. Members from all parts of the Chamber have said is important. It is important in my area of Northfield, where there is a local strategic partnership. Such partnerships exist across Birmingham with greater or lesser degrees of success. One of the strong elements of our constituency strategic partnership is that we decided at the start that it would be chaired not by a local councillor or politician, as many are, but by the local senior police officer. There have been a number of chairs over the years, and their role has been incredibly positive. They have sometimes brought a reality check to the debate and to discussions on inter-agency working. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) has spoken about local tasking meetings, which have been important in his area. Such local engagement is important.
Although I know the police will do all they can to continue with local engagement, I fear that it will suffer in the face of the coming pressures. When it starts to suffer, we should remember that the cuts in policing do not exist in isolation; they exist at the same time as other agencies that are part of the inter-agency working that Government Members have mentioned also face cuts. For example, Birmingham city council has rightly been criticised over the issue of child protection and safeguarding. Big changes are happening in Birmingham as a result—whether fast or effective enough is another matter. The pressures on the local authority to act are real.
Some of what is being done makes sense. Procedures are being built on procedures, to ensure that some of the real tragedies we have seen in Birmingham do not happen again. However, my worry about that—the relevance to policing will be seen in a minute—is that, in the process, something will be lost when we are only focusing on the crisis: when we are just stopping crisis after crisis. With so much emphasis on putting in place procedures to stop the crises, we will start to lose the low-level stuff, the real preventive stuff.
Steve McCabe
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the dangers for child protection work. Is it not also the case that Birmingham has a low-funded youth service, one of the poorest in the country? Exactly his argument about engagement and child protection and safety is our argument for engaging young people and diverting them from crime.
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Such issues interrelate. If we have the children’s services department chasing and trying to prevent the crises—rightly, in many ways—we lose the low-level stuff. If, simultaneously, we are cutting back on the youth service, we will be causing problems. If the local police are under pressure as well, the inter-agency work that all those agencies want to do will start to suffer.
Ultimately, what will suffer is not this or that committee or tasking meeting and whether or not it happens, but the reality of service to our constituents and the people we represent. If we are to do something about that, if we expect Birmingham city council, the police service and others to respond properly, they must be given the chance. I conclude where I started: if they are to be given the chance, we must recognise the specifics of the problems. It does not mean denying the fact that economies must be made, or arguing that somehow, the problems the country faces will just go away; but it does mean recognising that areas such as Birmingham, Coventry and other parts of the west midlands have specific and extreme problems. Those problems, such as getting the youth service properly staffed or the children’s and police services working properly, are interrelated. The idea that, in the middle of that, taking 20% out of the Home Office grant of £579 million will not have a grave impact is simply a cloud cuckoo land idea.
I accept that, when the Minister responds, he will doubtless make his riposte to the political points and say, “The Labour Government did this, and we are going to do that.” However, before he gets to the end of his speech, will he please answer this question: do the Government recognise that there will be a disproportionate effect on the west midlands, yes or no? If the answer is no, is he prepared to say that to the people we represent, as well as to those in the Chamber? If the answer is yes, what will he do about it?
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing the debate today and on setting out so clearly why it has been called. I also congratulate other right hon. and hon. Members from the area covered by the West Midlands force for clearly setting out their views and concerns. I also pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of all police officers and staff in all the police forces throughout the country, but in particular in the West Midlands police force.
I feel fortunate to be standing here, because my right hon. and hon. Friends have set out with great passion and determination the reasons why the proposed cuts, for the west midlands in particular, are unfair, wrong and need to be looked at again. My hon. Friend set out his long experience and knowledge of policing, and gave practical examples of what policing was like before 1997. He talked about the need for a proper witness protection scheme, which did not exist before 1997. He also set the scene of what has happened since the record investment in policing. We are all keen to hear the Minister’s responses to the long list of proposals and questions clearly set out by my hon. Friend.
I was struck by the comments of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the knock-on effect of the cuts for smaller police forces neighbouring the West Midlands force. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest in his response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) gave a clear example of what policing meant in his constituency, on the streets of Erdington and other areas, and of the anger felt about the proposed cuts. We look forward to the Minister’s response to his list of questions, too. Interestingly, my hon. Friend reminded us of the Liberal Democrats’ promise in their May manifesto of 3,000 additional police officers. I had a quick look through the coalition agreement this morning; sadly, there is no sign of any additional police officers. I am therefore not sure what the Liberal Democrats are bringing to the table on policing. I understand that they certainly do not support police commissioners.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) clearly set out the disproportionate effect for the West Midlands police force of the cuts in funding and the discrepancy between what happens in his area and other areas of the country. He also spoke about the effect of losing the most experienced officers—those with 30 years’ or more experience will go, which will present problems for the chief constable and senior officers. He also made an important point about back-office cuts and their direct effect on front-line policing in the west midlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) set out his long interest in policing. He made clear his belief that, behind the cuts to the police service, is an ideological approach to a smaller state. He talked with passion about the youth projects and the local innovations in his constituency of which the police have been part and parcel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) reminded us clearly, at the outset, of the professional role of the police officer and the need for the chief constable to behave in an obviously professional way. We need to be mindful of that. We expect the chief constable to work with the resources available, but it is clearly down to the politicians to make the case for why more resources need to be made available. My hon. Friend also set out the cases around funding and deprived communities in particular. He asked the Minister to respond to the particular problems faced by areas such as the west midlands and the disproportionate effect of the 20% cut. He also spoke about the problem of fear and the need to reassure the public, with the role of the police in community engagement and preventive work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) reminded us that the majority of the police budget—80%—is spent on staffing, so this debate is about jobs.
Mr Jim Cunningham
One of the things that we should not lose sight of when we talk about staffing levels—leaving aside the office staff about whom we have all expressed concern—is that we also have people such as cleaners. They are sometimes from one-parent families. Their jobs could be on the line, just as much as anyone else’s.
Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point.
Turning to some general comments on the cuts, chief constables and police authorities in the 43 police forces around the country will be facing tough choices from this winter, following the announcement in the comprehensive spending review last month. It is quite clear from the 20% cut over four years that the Home Secretary has totally failed to stand up for policing in the Home Office budget. When compared with other public services and the money that has been provided for them, it is clear that the police are losing out disproportionately.
I believe that the coalition Government are taking huge risks with that approach. The cuts are too hard, too fast and reckless. The Opposition have made it clear that we would protect front-line policing, but it is clear that, under the approach taken by the coalition Government, it will be impossible for front-line policing to be protected with cuts at such a level. Safety on the streets should be a top priority for any responsible Government, and police funding should reflect that, as it did under the Labour Government. Proper support for our police is vital, which is why Labour believes that we need to keep every police officer we can equipped to do the job.
As we heard, crime fell by 43% under Labour, even through the strains of the recession, because of our three-pronged approach. One part of that approach was having more police, and I take issue with the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), who implied that this is not about numbers, because it clearly is. It is wrong to say that having fewer police officers on the street will somehow not have an impact on the levels of crime. The other parts of that three-pronged approach were having more powers to detect crime and antisocial behaviour and sending more criminals to prison. That was our approach, but I worry that the coalition is putting all three elements into reverse with its cuts.
Jack Dromey
We have all waited patiently for the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), who is a former police officer, to answer the point that several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), have raised. Perhaps he has taken a monastic vow of silence. Why is it that his party committed to having 3,000 more police officers on the beat, but now supports removing 40 police officers from each of the 10 constituencies in Birmingham?
Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend raises an important question, and the Minister might be able to respond shortly.
Let me make one final point about policing in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned the politicisation of the police through the madcap scheme of establishing police and crime commissioners in each police force area. That will be done at an estimated cost of at least £50 million, at a time of savage cuts to front-line policing. I ask the Minister to think again, because the scheme seems to enjoy little support.
We heard that the number of police officers in the west midlands has increased from 7,113 to 8,536 since 1997.
Steve McCabe
Does my hon. Friend agree that if it is legitimate to have a referendum to determine whether people want directly elected mayors, it would be equally legitimate to ask them whether they would prefer scarce and precious resources to be spent on keeping police officers in their jobs or on electing a highly political animal to dominate the police and change the character of British policing? Would that not be a localism agenda?
Diana Johnson
As we know, the coalition Government are wedded to the idea of localism, so the Minister might feel able to respond to that suggestion, which would fit very much with asking local people what they would like.
As I said, we have heard about the increase in the number of police officers. We have also talked at length about the problems with the grant that the West Midlands police force receives, which constitutes 83% of its total funding and which is not raised from local council tax. I seek guidance from the Minister about his approach to the precept that local councils will be asked to agree for policing. Does he expect it to go much higher? That would not fit with the approach taken by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to restricting council tax increases. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what he expects from police authorities in terms of the precept.
We have heard a great deal about these issues not being confined just to the west midlands. I think that they will start appearing in the press almost every day. Today, we have heard that the Greater Manchester police force is looking at 3,000 job losses, including 1,500 police officers. Those job losses will be set out in a report from the chief constable to the police authority, and it looks as though at least a quarter of the force’s staff will go over the next four years.
It is worrying that there might, as we have discussed, be a push to remove officers with more than 30 years’ experience in the police force. The provisions that are being used were introduced not to bring about such a wholesale reduction in the number of experienced officers, but to be used in the interests of policing with particular officers. Will the Minister comment on that? There is particular concern about what will happen to the specialist skills of some experienced officers, particularly those in the specialist domestic violence units and rape units. The general public will have real concerns about the impact on their communities when we lose that specialist policing.
We know that efficiency savings can be made. A report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary entitled “Valuing the Police: Policing in an age of austerity”, which was published in July, said that there could be a redesign of the police system, with savings of about 12%, but cuts of 20% go well beyond that. West Midlands police has already taken action to streamline its operations and promote greater efficiency through the Paragon programme, which is set to save £50 million over four years. However, it does not look as if the coalition Government will work with police forces that are doing the right thing by looking for efficiency savings. Comments from KPMG and the Police Federation make it clear that 20% real-terms cuts across the country over four years—they will be front-loaded, so chief constables and police authorities will have to implement them right at the start of the four-year period, which will make it difficult to make plans—will mean that no efficiency measure that police authorities and chief constables can possibly introduce will be enough, and front-line policing will suffer.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to the long list of questions from my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that he will think again about the impact on the West Midlands police authority.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing the debate. I will certainly endeavour to answer as many as possible of the questions that hon. Members have put to the Government.
I understand the passion with which hon. Members have spoken and their concern to secure the best possible policing for members of the public in their constituencies. Members on both sides share that concern. We want to ensure that the public remain safe, and it is, of course, the Government’s duty to do everything we can to achieve that. Nevertheless, there are two strands to this debate, which were correctly identified by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). The first concerns the political points that hon. Members have made, and I will respond to those first. The second concerns the specific position of West Midlands police, and I will endeavour to respond on that as well.
I cannot let the moment go by without observing that the reason why this Government have to make cuts in police funding is to deal with the deficit bequeathed to us by the previous Government. I must make that point because political points have been made by Opposition Members, who accepted no responsibility for the position in which their party left the country. Indeed, they appear to be proceeding on the basis that we can simply ignore the contribution that policing can make to delivering savings and that what is being announced now is somehow all the fault of the new Government, who have been in office for barely a few months.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I think that my party, when in government, faced up to that. The Minister is not facing up to the fact that the bankers started the problem; we did not. Until that is faced up to, there will be all sorts of problems, because nothing has been done about it.
Nick Herbert
I did not understand a word, I am afraid, that the hon. Gentleman said, but we are indeed facing up to the problem of the deficit that was bequeathed to us by the previous Government. We simply do not regard it as sustainable that we should, in a few years, be spending about three times as much on debt interest alone as we do on the entire criminal justice system. In the Government’s view policing can make its contribution to reducing the deficit, by making savings.
Diana Johnson
It is clear that Labour had a policy of halving the deficit over four years. It is clear as well, as I said in my speech, that we looked to efficiency savings, which we thought could bring about a 12% saving. I do not quite understand why the Minister feels that the Opposition do not have a policy on the matter. Clearly, we do.
Nick Herbert
I am intrigued to hear that the Opposition now admit that they would have been cutting the policing budget, if that is what the hon. Lady is saying. One would not have known that from any of the rhetoric used by the Opposition Members, who talked as though it were not necessary at all to deal with spending by police forces. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have a word with her hon. Friends and explain to them exactly the scale of the cuts that she proposed.
Jack Dromey
Is not there a contrast between the Liberal Democrat pledge of 3,000 more police officers, the pledge made by my party to protect front-line policing, and what the Minister said to his constituents at the time of his election? Did he tell them that there would be cuts to front-line policing?
Nick Herbert
Let me try to explain to the hon. Gentleman that it is our ambition, too, to protect front-line policing. We want policing to be maintained in neighbourhoods, in the form of neighbourhood policing and response policing, so that when people dial 999 they can be certain that officers will arrive. Of course we want that, and so does the chief constable of the West Midlands police—as do all chief constables. We believe that it will be possible to protect that front-line policing in spite of the cuts to the police budget that we have announced. I shall explain why, but first I wanted to get out of the way the point that we had to deal with the deficit; it is our responsibility to do so in the national interest. We have now had an admission from the Opposition that they would have cut spending as well. Of course they will not say how they would have allocated £40 billion of spending cuts, but there is no doubt—because they have admitted it before and repeated it today—that some of those cuts would have fallen on police budgets. Let us have less high moral outrage from Labour Members. Let us accept that, whoever was elected, policing budgets would have to be dealt with because of the deficit bequeathed to the country by Labour’s fiscal mismanagement.
The second issue that hon. Members raised was police numbers. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said that “sadly,” there was “no sign” of additional police numbers in the coalition agreement. Do I take it from that criticism that she would have liked a commitment to an increase in police numbers, or that that is the Opposition’s new commitment? Apparently not. She was apparently saying that it was sad that there was no sign of additional police numbers—she is nodding at that. Can I have from her an assurance that she would like an increase in police numbers?
Diana Johnson
The Minister knows jolly well that I was referring to the promise in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in May of 3,000 additional police officers. I was looking at the coalition agreement—the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives coming together to set out their policy platform, so that we could all see their plan—to see whether the Liberal Democrats got that promise into the agreement. Clearly they did not.
Nick Herbert
The hon. Lady is indeed perceptive. There is no commitment to increased police numbers. Why? Because, in the words of the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the note that he left for us, there is no money. [Interruption.] No. Of course we cannot make a commitment to increase police numbers. I am making the point that the hon. Lady cannot make it either, and that in the run-up to the general election the then Home Secretary, now the shadow Chancellor, refused to give a guarantee that police numbers would remain as they were then.
Mr Ainsworth
Is it the Minister’s plan to talk until 11 o’clock without getting on to the central issue that has been raised in the debate—the fact that the West Midlands police force is being hit disproportionately, in comparison with many low-crime areas? Will the Minister spend some time between now and 11 o’clock attempting to justify the disproportionate hit that his proposal is making on the high-crime areas of the country, one of which is the west midlands?
Nick Herbert
I set out at the beginning of my speech the way in which I would respond, and my intention to discuss the situation of the west midlands. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends made the mistake of introducing a political tone to the debate, and they can hardly be surprised that I respond in kind. If they had chosen to approach the debate in a different way, they would have had more time for the specifics that they want covered. I suggest that they intervene less if they want me to get to the points that I certainly intend to deal with.
The question of numbers has been raised in debate among my hon. Friends and others. Certainly there are, or there were last year—police numbers were beginning to fall in some forces before the general election—a record number of police officers in the country. However, it is not possible to make the simple links between crime levels and police officer numbers that hon. Members have made. I have pointed out before the example of the New York police: the overall police work force contracted by 10% in the past decade—a significant fall—and crime fell by over a third in the same period. Of course they had to focus on making savings and working more efficiently.
I point out to hon. Members who want to make such a simplistic link that in the 12 months to June, most of which period fell within the reign of the previous Government, violence against the person without injury increased in the West Midlands police force area, and so did the number of domestic burglaries. If there is a simple link between the number of police officers and crime levels, why did that happen? The Opposition Members here today are experienced and they know perfectly well that there is not a simple link. The questions we should be dealing with are: how well are resources being deployed and, given that money will be tighter in the next few years, how can we ensure that efficiencies are driven towards getting what the public want—the maximum visibility and availability of policing on the streets?
That takes me to my third point. The independent inspectorate of constabulary recently reported on police officer deployment and made two crucial points. The first was that, on average, the proportion of police work forces that is visible and available to the public at any one time is 11%. There is a significant variation between forces, but that tells us that roughly nine tenths of police resources are not visible and available to the public at any one time, which raises concerns about deployment and should make us look at the efficiency with which resources are being deployed, and at such factors as bureaucracy. Opposition Members made very little mention of that.
Richard Burden
On that last point, where did the west midlands feature, and where did Surrey feature, and will the Minister answer the point we put to him, please?
Nick Herbert
Yes. I am, I hope, coming to all the points that hon. Members made. I want to address them, but I am making the crucial point that the test of police effectiveness is not just to do with the overall sums of money that are spent, or even the overall numbers of officers. It is what is done with the officers.
The inspectorate made a second crucial point, which is that police forces between them could save more than £1 billion a year by improving the way they work. As the hon. Lady said, that would represent about 12% of their budget, once the ability of forces to raise precept was taken into account. As a result, the cut that we announced would be reduced to an average of 14% in real terms over four years. However, I accept that that is an average figure and that some forces have a greater ability to raise money from precept than others—a point made by the right hon. Member for Coventry North East. I shall come shortly to how we can deal with that.
The figures I have just given leave a funding gap of two percentage points. The matters that the inspectorate report did not cover will also need to be addressed. For example, forces could procure collectively rather than separately, which would save hundreds of millions of pounds; and savings will accrue from the announced two-year pay freeze across the public sector that, subject to the police review board’s agreement, will apply also to police officers. We believe that significant savings can be made by police forces, including by the West Midlands force—that is on top of the Paragon programme, which is already delivering savings—while protecting front-line services and, crucially, the visibility and availability that concern the public.
We heard nothing—literally nothing—from the Opposition about procurement or other areas where savings could be made. They made the simplistic assumption that a reduction in budget was bound to lead to a reduction in the number of officers on the streets or available to the public, but that is an assumption that they should not make.
Steve McCabe
If we take what the Minister says at face value—I am prepared to accept that he must be right—will he tell us how many officers we in the west midlands can safely afford to lose before he would be concerned? Will he also answer the point about the disproportionate grant, which all of us have raised?
Nick Herbert
I have told Opposition Members of the structure that I wish to apply, and I have said that I am seeking to answer that point.
The deployment of resources is a matter for the chief constable and the police authority. It is not for the Government to decide; it will be the chief constable’s decision. The task now falls on him to drive the savings that are necessary, particularly the savings in the back and middle offices, to ensure that the front line can be protected. I repeat that we believe that it can be.
The crucial point is that we have not yet announced the grants for specific forces. The cut that we announced was therefore an average. Within a few weeks, in early December, I shall announce a provisional grant settlement for each force. In considering the level of grant that should be made available to each force, we will go through the proper processes and take account of things such as damping and the needs of forces. That process is under way, so the sensible points by Opposition Members were well made. However—this is something that Opposition Front Benchers will have to address—if some forces are to be given a degree of protection because they raise less money from council tax than others, two questions arise.
First, why should forces in areas where people are already contributing more through the council tax suffer a bigger cut in Government grant? Why should they be punished by a bigger cut? Secondly, if forces such as the West Midlands police were to be given a smaller than average cut, which is what I think the Opposition are asking for, which forces do they say should be made to suffer a greater than average cut? Will the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North confirm that it is Opposition policy for forces that receive more through the council tax to suffer a bigger than average cut? Will the hon. Lady confirm that now?
The House will have noted the resounding silence, and seen that the hon. Lady’s head is down.
Mr Ainsworth
Ordinary people listening to our debate will have noted that the Minister is playing silly political games rather than acknowledging that the Government grant is provided to areas that have higher levels of crime. That is the reason for them. Saying that that should not be taken into account when allocating the size of the cut does not address the central problem. People need policing proportionate to the scale of the problems that they face. Does the Minister not accept that?
Nick Herbert
Of course these things are taken into account. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he does not want to play silly political games, he and his hon. Friends should not have started in that vein. Now that he is making a serious point, however, I remind him that we are going through the formal process of allocating grant. Need, of course, is a crucial factor, but that is already reflected in the way in which grant is allocated, particularly for urban areas.
The particular point that I am making to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and to the right hon. Gentleman is this. If it is argued that a disproportionate share of the savings should fall to the West Midlands police—in other words, that its share of the savings should be lower because the local precept contributes less—the question to be answered, not by the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Back Benchers, because it is outside their remit, but by Opposition Front Benchers and others is: which forces will therefore have to pay more? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a perfectly fair point.
Jack Dromey
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm that the consequence of the disproportionate impact on the West Midlands police service will be that 2,500 jobs are to go over the next four years, including 1,200 police officers? Will he confirm that that is a fact?
Nick Herbert
No, I cannot confirm that that is a fact. The hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand the position. First, the grant settlement has not been announced. Secondly, these decisions are not announced by the Government. It is not for me to say; I therefore cannot confirm that what he describes as a fact is indeed a fact. These are decisions for the chief constable and the police authority.
It is clearly unrealistic to suggest that the Government can guarantee the number of police officers, and nor can the Opposition. The question is what the Government can do to ensure that police forces are in the best possible position to make savings and to protect the front line. We believe that it is possible, including in the west midlands, to make significant back and middle office savings so as to ensure that resources go where the public want them.
Richard Burden
The Minister said that he will be looking at the matter in the run-up to the announcement. Will he specify today what criteria he will use to consider the needs of different areas? He has not told us what his criteria are.
Nick Herbert
I have attempted to reply to that question. We will be considering all the proper criteria, including the needs of each area, questions on the damping that has been applied and all the other factors that Opposition Members have raised. I have always been willing to discuss sensibly with right hon. and hon. Members the particular needs of their local forces, and I have discussed them with the chief constable.
Another important aspect to this debate is that reducing bureaucracy will help to ensure that police officers are released for front-line duties. We will save hundreds of thousands of officer hours through measures such as reducing the national requirement on stop-and-search and scrapping entirely the stop-and-account form. The Government are determined to do everything that we can not only to make savings but to protect front-line policing and the number of officers in the neighbourhood. We believe that if police forces work constructively, they can help to achieve those savings and protect front-line policing.
Cyprus
(14 years 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
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Although I am extremely grateful to have secured this debate, it is unfortunate that, 36 years on, the Cyprus problem remains unresolved. There have been many staging posts along the way, where hopes have been raised and dashed. The tolerance and discipline of the Cypriot people must be recognised and not seen in any way as a weakness, because they have a determination to win back their island.
Despite UN Security Council resolutions calling on Turkey to withdraw its forces from Northern Cyprus, Turkey has stubbornly refused to do so. In fact, Turkey has declared on more than one occasion that if it has to make a choice between Cyprus and its accession to the EU, it will choose Cyprus.
Indeed, these very days remind us of Turkey’s continuing intransigence over the years. Rather than working to implement the high-level agreements of Makarios-Denktash in 1977 and Kyprianou-Denktash in 1979, on 15 November 1983 Turkey instigated and supported separatist acts by the Turkish Cypriot leadership with an illegal unilateral declaration of independence of the northern part of Cyprus. That action prompted UN Security Council resolutions 541 of 1983 and 550 of 1984, which condemned the UDI, declared it illegal and called for its immediate withdrawal. As a result, no country in the world has recognised the illegal regime, except Turkey, which funds it and exercises virtual control over it.
The newly elected leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr Dervis Eroglu, continues to advocate the same separatist policies on Cyprus. On the anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus earlier this year, he said:
“After 20 July 1974 there has been a new geography and two separate states, two separate peoples, two separate republics and two separate sides”.
It is against that backdrop of intransigence that President Christofias of Cyprus continues to negotiate in good faith for a lasting solution to the Cyprus issue.
To counter the intransigence of the Turkish Cypriots on the property issue, the President of Cyprus recently made several proposals: to conduct an independent census of population and property ownership in Cyprus; to link the issue of property with that of settlers, as they are interdependent; that the ghost town of Varosha should be returned to its inhabitants; and that the port of Famagusta should be opened, under the supervision of the EU, for the purposes of trade between the Turkish Cypriots and the EU.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are tremendous fears about whether the Turkish Cypriots will take those issues at all seriously in the negotiations and discussions that are to be held on 18 November?
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we must do all we can: I hope that this debate will reinforce this Government’s insistence that Turkey take those negotiations or discussions seriously. I thank him for that important intervention.
The meeting on 18 November at the UN between the UN Secretary General, President Christofias and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community will provide a good opportunity for the Turkish side to show its respect for UN resolutions and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and to respond positively to the various proposals put forward by the President of Cyprus. We must remain optimistic and sincerely hope that the meeting will prove to be successful, and that Turkey will take seriously not only the concerns of the Cypriot people, but those of the international community.
Sadly, to date the Turkish verbal support for the ongoing negotiations has not been met by their deeds—not a single step has been taken to that effect. Within the context of negotiations, Turkey has rejected all the proposals put forward by the President of the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey still maintains illegally a 40,000-strong occupation army in Cyprus, it has not implemented the Ankara protocol vis-à-vis the Republic of Cyprus, and it has repeatedly used the so-called “isolation” of the Turkish Cypriots as a pretext for the political upgrading of the non-recognised entity—the Turkish Northern Republic of Cyprus, or TNRC—in Cyprus.
Mr Brady, I want to take this opportunity to welcome the high commissioner from Cyprus, who has joined us today for this very important debate.
Having visited Cyprus, I saw at first hand, as others have done, that Turkish Cypriots are far from isolated. More than 60,000 Turkish Cypriots have passports and identity cards of the Republic of Cyprus and therefore of the European Union, allowing them to travel freely across Europe and to benefit from Cypriot health care and social security. In addition, more than 10,000 Turkish Cypriots cross the green line every day to work in the Republic of Cyprus. Moreover, Turkish Cypriots are able to trade their goods freely in the Republic of Cyprus and export them overseas, through the recognised ports and airports of the Republic of Cyprus. However, they are prevented from doing so by the Turkish Cypriot authorities.
It is equally unfortunate that Turkey’s intransigence has been rewarded with a seat on the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member and that both Europe and the US are prepared to turn a blind eye to Turkey’s activities.
May I also say, in a non-partisan way, that the recent visit by our own Prime Minister to Turkey did nothing to help the Cyprus problem? While he was publicly supportive of Turkey, unfortunately he did not make public mention of the Cyprus problem. However, I am led to believe that he made a private call to President Christofias. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that was indeed the case.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I think that the Prime Minister actually mentioned in his speech that Turkey had to resolve the Cyprus issue, so it is not quite correct to say that he did not mention it. That may need to be checked. I read his speech and he specifically said in his speech that the Turkish authorities had to resolve the Cyprus issue.
Jim Sheridan
I have not had the good fortune of reading the speech; I am led only by press and media reports. However, let me say at the outset that I do not wish this issue to become a partisan one. I also put on record that my own party, when it was in government, did very little—if anything—to solve the Cyprus problem. So it is not a question of apportioning blame. When my party was in government, it was just as poor at addressing the Cyprus problem.
Some of the other areas that I want to cover are the issues surrounding the missing persons of the 1974 invasion, the destruction of the cultural heritage of Cyprus, the restoration of property rights and Turkey’s accession to the EU.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Can my hon. Friend add to that list of issues his response to the orchestrated campaign in the media in relation to suggestions that, if the talks at the UN in New York are not successful, it may lead to a two-state solution for Cyprus?
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a school of thought—certainly among the Cypriot people—that regards the press and media as biased toward Turkey. I sincerely hope that the discussions next week will take a balanced approach.
Many colleagues here today have visited Cyprus, seen it for themselves and heard stories about the young men and women who went missing during the invasion, never to be seen again. Their loved ones’ heart-breaking stories cannot fail to leave a lasting emotional imprint on all of us. Those families have the fundamental human right to find out what happened to their loved ones, and we as a Government should be asking Turkey to facilitate that request. To this day, the whereabouts of more than 1,400 individuals are still unknown. It is a human tragedy that should not be allowed to continue.
Ian Lavery
Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1,400 young men and women who went missing during and after the invasion should be a main item on the agenda at this week’s meeting? It is now 2010, and there are 1,400 families with missing people. Should that not be a main theme on the agenda at the meeting on Thursday 18 November?
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One cannot overestimate the distress caused to the loved ones of the missing Cypriot people. All that they ask of the Turkish people and the Turkish Government is to understand the severity of their feelings. It should be a crucial part of the discussions to bring some conclusion to that problem.
The destruction of Cyprus’s cultural heritage is equally unacceptable. In 1965, Turkey ratified the Hague convention of 1954 on the protection of cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict. Nevertheless, since Turkey’s intervention and subsequent occupation of Cyprus in 1974, it has been responsible for the devastation, vandalism and looting of the island’s cultural heritage on a scale unworthy of any civilised nation, let alone a prospective EU member. According to the Church of Cyprus, more than 500 churches and monasteries in the northern part of Cyprus have been destroyed, and some 15,000 small relics have been looted. Some colleagues and I recently visited the annual Morphou rally and saw for ourselves the graveyards and cemeteries that have been devastated. I am more than happy to pass the photographs to the Minister if he should require to see them.
Colleagues will also be aware of the indefensible isolation of Famagusta, or Varosha as it is known in Cyprus. The city has been left to rot while the rest of the world has moved on. Many Cypriots can only look on with horror and dismay while their properties are occupied by strangers. Turkey’s invasion of 1974 left 200,000 refugees homeless, many of whom fled their homes with few or no belongings. There is no doubt that if Turkey wished and had the political will to find a satisfactory conclusion to the problem, we could find a way to restore the properties to their rightful owners.
Turkey has effectively created a so-called state in northern Cyprus, to the detriment not only of the Greek Cypriots whose property was confiscated by the self-styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus but of the Turkish Cypriots who have suffered under Turkish rule by becoming a minority in the northern part of Cyprus. According to the Turkish Cypriot press, Turkey has transferred 180,000 settlers into northern Cyprus, with the consequence that Turkey has imposed its ideology there. More mosques than schools have been built in northern Cyprus—181 mosques to 162 schools—and the crime rate has soared due to uncontrolled immigration from Turkey. Education and health services are becoming overburdened. The Turkish Cypriot media also report that in order to enshrine the ideological shift further, Turkey is now demanding that settlers account for more than 50% of new appointments in the civil service, police, education and health services.
That is the backdrop to the relentless efforts by Turkey and those who blindly champion its membership of the European Union to push for outcomes that legitimise all the grave consequences of Turkey’s illegal invasion and 36-year military occupation of the northern part of the island.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important and timely debate as we look to the UN meeting on Thursday. Does he acknowledge that Cyprus itself supports Turkey’s accession to Europe? Obviously, that cannot happen unless the Cyprus problem is resolved, but he mentioned blindly supporting accession. The Cyprus Government are willing to go down that path as long as the Cyprus issue is settled.
Jim Sheridan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That will be a crucial part of the discussions, and the Turkish authorities must take it seriously. I certainly hope that they will.
I wish the UN negotiations every success. There is no doubt that they are complex, but they must be solved in order to draw a line under the Cyprus problem. However, the key to a solution is in the hands of the Turkish Government and authorities in occupied northern Cyprus. A solution that reunites the island for the benefit of all Cypriots and leads to the withdrawal of the Turkish occupation army from the island will boost Turkey’s chances of joining the EU more than any other single factor, but that will require Turkey to change its bullying behaviour and give the Cypriot people a chance to live in peace in their own free and united country.
I remind my colleagues of Cyprus’s long-standing and mutually beneficial relationship with the United Kingdom. The Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities constitute a strong and vibrant part of British society, predominantly in London, the midlands and Manchester. Equally, Cyprus welcomes more than 1.7 million British tourists to its shores every year. In addition to that mutually beneficial relationship, we have a special responsibility as a guarantor power of Cyprus’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. Therefore, we must be an honest friend of Cyprus and help the two communities reach a solution for Cypriots and by Cypriots that safeguards the whole island’s territorial integrity and unity. After all, any proposed solution must be put to a referendum. The last effort to solve the Cyprus problem, in 2004, demonstrated what can happen when an imbalanced solution proposed by third parties lacks the support of the people.
Some people argue that the Cyprus problem has had its day, that its shelf life is over and that only elderly people in Cyprus pay attention to it. I have a letter from Alexis Stavrou, president of NEPOMAK, the world organisation for young overseas Cypriots in the UK. It is an extensive, emotional and fact-finding letter, and I am more than happy to share it with any colleagues who wish to see it. I wish for a satisfactory solution to the Cyprus problem in the near future.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
This is an important and timely debate, and I welcome the opportunity to speak as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus. I see colleagues here who are officers and members of that group, and recognise that the spirit of the debate is an all-party one. We want to make a consensus point to the Minister that it is important that we take extremely seriously this country’s responsibilities as a guarantor power and do not simply sit on the sidelines. We need to make it clear that the Cyprus problem must be solved and the island reunited.
There was a debate on the subject last year and the Library prepared a standard note dated 4 November 2009, which states:
“many commentators have suggested that the current window of opportunity may well be closed if the presidential elections in the north in April 2010 bring in a nationalist president. The current prospects for a settlement have been put at about two in five.”
I am not sure what people would say the prospects are now. In the north, a nationalist politician has been elected. Nevertheless—as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) said—despite the campaign during that election for a two-state solution, talks have continued. We must recognise that engagement has continued on the basis of the United Nations framework, which clearly refers to a federal bi-zonal, bi-communal solution. That is the framework everyone will be discussing as they approach the United Nations meeting.
The debate is timely given that, as was mentioned in an intervention, reference has been made to the subject in the media by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who raised the spectre of partition. I want to refer to that article—indeed, I have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman that I wish to do so. We have had such debates before; indeed, many colleagues here have also been involved in those discussions. At least 70 talks have taken place, and there may be fatigue in relation to the issue. When we discuss concerns about overseas disasters, colleagues will deplore—as I do—references to compassion fatigue. That becomes imbued when people do not react as they should do to what is happening, and simply accept and tolerate a situation because it goes on and on. My constituency has perhaps the most Cypriots of any—both Greek and Turkish Cypriots—and during my time as a Member of Parliament, I have seen a degree of “Cyprus fatigue” occurring, if one may put it that way. The question is whether Parliament itself has been guilty of that as the years have gone by—or, indeed, whether the British Government have been guilty of it.
My constituents will not allow that to happen. They remind me—if not daily, then weekly—of how, at these times, such a situation is not acceptable. Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots in my constituency want a settlement and a reunited Cyprus. Many of them are refugees and, as has been said, they miss their loved ones. They do not know the truth of what happened, and they cannot even begin the process of reconciliation without that information. I defy anyone attending the rallies held in July by those who are still missing loved ones to go out on to College Green and be fatigued from hearing the protest and seeing the pictures of those loved ones. I encourage everyone to attend such rallies, when we get to that point in July. When we are reminded of the fact that fundamental human rights have been breached, property has been lost and the right to return to villages has been lost—as colleagues have said—we cannot in any way be fatigued.
In my constituency during the election campaign, Cyprus was inevitably an issue. I was given a book about Cyprus and, on the inside cover, the author has written:
“Why do you as the mother of parliamentary democracy allow Turkish troops to continue to occupy our island?”
That is a very simple but profound question that continues to be asked, and that we cannot simply ignore and become fatigued about through the passage of time. Parliament must stand up for Cyprus, which is why it is so welcome that hon. Members from all parties are doing that today. Through the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus, we want to encourage more parliamentary colleagues to become involved in the issue and join the group.
Also, we as Parliament must take more seriously our guarantor powers and responsibilities—indeed, the Government must also do so. We cannot sit on the sidelines as a spectator. It is fundamentally enshrined that we, as a guarantor power, must ensure the independence of Cyprus and the sovereignty of the whole island. That must be fully respected. If, in any way beyond that, one were to be fatigued about the Cyprus problem, one would only have to read the article written by the right hon. Member for Blackburn in The Times on 8 November to be energised.
The right hon. Gentleman’s influence is now confined to the Back Benches and the media, and I am confident he has no influence on the Government in this regard. I do not know whether his article was deliberately provocative, but it has certainly served the useful purpose of galvanising support for reunification—not for partition. It is worth analysing the argument that has been made in the media—I do not want to pay too much attention to the article because I do not think it should be given more credibility than it is worth—to allow the Minister to respond and to contrast such opinions with the Government’s approach. Doing so would benefit the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and the community at large.
When one considers the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, it is—to coin a phrase—based on straw. He says that if talks fail, the Government should formally consider partition. First, that is not legal. The United Kingdom’s obligations in the 1960s treaties relate to a commitment not to support
“any moves towards the partition of the island or the recognition or upgrading of any separate political entity.”
I would welcome the Minister’s making it clear that partition is not an option for Britain. It is not an option for the United Nations and, fundamentally, it is not an option for the European Union, which cannot accept a divided member state. Secondly, it is not ethical. The right hon. Gentleman’s article referred to the numerical advantage of Turkey over Cyprus in terms of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. However, one cannot say—certainly we in the House cannot say—that law and justice do not matter if someone is big and strong. I do not want to make this a partisan issue—that certainly has not been the nature of the debate—but the previous Government talked about having an ethical foreign policy. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of that Government, and I wonder how his opinions sit with that argument.
Thirdly, such an argument is wrong on the basis of fact. Reference was made to the Annan plan. From being involved in this subject, we all know that, regarding the argument, we can often go back into history and be left there. However, we need to be accurate about history. The Annan plan did not fail as a result of the late President Papadopoulos ratting—as the right hon. Gentleman said—on the deal. The Annan plan failed because it was imposed—this is a lesson to be learned by the United Nations—by the Secretary-General and others, who sought to impose a deal through their own time limits on the Greek Cypriots. The plan came very late in the day; indeed, it was seen at only five minutes to midnight by some people before they had to start making a decision on it. As the Prime Minister states in a letter to me that has been published, we need to recognise that
“The ethos of the current process, by Cypriots and for Cypriots, and without the imposition of deadlines distinguishes it clearly from previous processes, such as the Annan Plan.”
Reference has also been made to the accession process, to suggestions that Cyprus alone is standing in the way and that the matter of Cyprus is a convenient excuse for other countries to object to Turkey’s accession. I support Turkey’s accession and realise that it has great advantages. I welcome the Government’s commitment to Turkey’s accession and do not see it as being at odds with what we want to do; indeed, I consider it to be an important part of ensuring that we receive justice for Cyprus. Let us not forget that Germany, Austria and France have deep objections to Turkey’s accession, but they do not simply rely on the matter of Cyprus as a convenient excuse.
Mr Love
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. On Turkey’s accession to the EU, does he agree that it will be important for there to be continuing support from both Cyprus and Greece? The questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) will go a long way to undermining that continuing support, on which Turkey’s membership will crucially be dependent.
Mr Burrowes
That is quite right. The argument has been taken into terrain that is neither practical nor lawful. We must properly recognise the parties whose support is needed to move towards accession.
We must also recognise the facts. The reality is that the European Commission’s report published on Tuesday 9 November admonished Turkey for not moving faster to settle border disputes and normalise relations with Cyprus. That involves the Ankara protocol, which deals with proper access to ports for Cypriot shipping. Cyprus has been a member of the European Union since 2004, which is important. The Prime Minister made that point clearly in his letter:
“part of Turkey’s accession criteria also requires full, non-discriminatory implementation of the Additional Ankara Protocol, including allowing access to its ports for Cypriot shipping. We continue to press Turkey to do this.”
Mike Freer
I ask my hon. Friend to be slightly firmer on those requirements, and perhaps the Minister might also like to comment on them. Turkey must do more than just allow access to the ports through the general Ankara requirements. We must accept that it cannot become a member of the EU while it has armed forces occupying part of Cyprus. It is not just about access to ports; all Turkish troops must be withdrawn from the island before we can proceed.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. It is not simply the case that Cyprus is standing in the way of EU membership; it is up to Turkey to recognise that it must remove the army and that the island needs to be reunified. Turkey must take those steps before it can move towards EU accession. The European Commission’s report also noted the Commission’s assessment that freedom of expression needs to be strengthened in Turkey, both in law and in practice. It highlighted the fact that shortcomings remain in the free exercise of religion, and reference was made to disputes with neighbours, including Armenia. Those are other factors that go beyond Cyprus. It is important to get the facts right when making the argument about the accession process.
I believe that talk about partition is loose talk. Where would the property rights of my constituents and others stand in a partitioned land? Where would the villagers whom I met on Saturday evening stand? They are desperate to return and to have free movement, so that they can take up their proper rights to their villages. Where would villagers from Eptakomi, which I have visited, stand if they want to return, or those from Famagusta, which has been mentioned, and from other places? What about the enclaved people in Rizokarpaso, whom I visited some years ago? They are few in number, but there are huge human rights concerns. Where would they stand in a partitioned land?
There is talk of two peoples and two states, but that does not fit with the reality, the ethics, the law or the practice. One example is the Maronite community, whom I have mentioned in previous debates, who have not had free access to three of their four villages. On 17 July, the army allowed Maronite inhabitants to attend a church service in one of those villages, Ayia Marina, for the first time as a one-off. That is progress, but it was just a one-off. The Maronite community would like to know why they cannot have continued freedom of access and the basic freedom to worship. They have that freedom in Kormakitis, but why not in Asomatos and Karpasha?
There has been some progress. Crossings have been opened in the north-west of the island, progress has been made in relation to missing persons, with the remains of 690 Cypriots being exhumed, and some better access has been granted, but I encourage the Minister to press Turkey for better access to restricted areas for investigations.
In conclusion, it is important that we build a consensus. Indeed, the Prime Minister made that point in his letter:
“The UK’s politicians also have an important role to play in supporting the efforts to build consensus”.
That is what we want to achieve. It is a consensus on the reunification of the island of Cyprus as one country. It is a single international personality, with a single Cypriot citizenship, on a single united island.
Mr Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)
This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you, Mr Brady, on your exalted position—I trust that it is the result of a lack of available positions on the Front Bench given the poor coalition that is now in government. Hopefully, you will one day tread the boards in that direction.
Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. I did not seek such a position, and I am very happy to be here chairing the debate.
Mr Meale
I am pleased to hear it, Mr Brady, and I trust that you will continue to exercise your great degree of independence on political matters from such a prime position.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) for securing this excellent opportunity to discuss what is a very serious subject. I should at the outset declare an interest: I have a small Cypriot community in my constituency, which my hon. Friend failed to mention in his list. As a result, I was invited to visit Cyprus in September for a day and a half—travelling by second-class air fare—to speak at the Morphou rally in the south of the republic.
It is important that we are having the debate at the start of a week in which, as we all know, serious talks will take place in New York. I must say to Members present, and to others who will read the pages of Hansard, that the whole question of Cyprus is expressed as a problem for Cyprus, but—as I keep saying again and again—it is also a problem for Europe and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said, for Turkey itself.
Let us look at why Cyprus was allowed to join the European Union, a move that was led by Britain. A British Government argued that Cyprus should be in Europe because it would have been ridiculous and folly to keep it out of Europe. We all know what Cyprus was at the time of its entry. It was being treated as an offshore island by many, with 7,500 companies on its shores. It had its own stock exchange and an independent link into the European banking system. It was probably best placed for trade with the old eastern bloc, which most of Europe was not. It had a fine relationship with areas of the middle east and an outstanding trading relationship with China and Africa, which many EU countries did not have. As I understand from scientific texts, Cyprus is one of only four places on the planet that have windows into space, and, communications being so important for the future, it was important that that was kept in the European sphere, rather than being independent outside it. If anyone has any doubt about that, they will recall that it is for that reason that Britain’s listening and searching stations are still situated on the island.
Last, but not least, there is the importance of oil and gas, not only for Europe, but for the rest of the world. People will have to consider the importance of the European oil and gas pipeline, which is now being driven down to the shores of Greece, where further pipelines will be fixed that go across to Limassol in the republic. Similarly, pipelines will be coming down to join the central European pipeline from the Caspian sea, and they will link in to guarantee oil and gas for Europe. Cyprus will shortly become the gas station of Europe, and possibly the world, which is another reason why it was important that it came into the EU.
The talks that will take place this week in New York are very important. Although I praise greatly my colleague, the chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, those who argue in favour of the Annan plan should be asked which Annan plan they favour. Annan 1 had some important aspects that people might have used for the basis of negotiation, but after time there came Annan 2, Annan 3, Annan 4 and Annan 5, and each one was worse than the one before.
In this week before the talks commence, we have had a deliberate provocation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)—a colleague from this side of the House, in this place—which was an attempt not only to influence the talks in New York, but to set in motion a political dialogue in Europe that would call for partition. No one with whom I have discussed the issue of Cyprus has argued such a case. I trust those of my colleagues who say that the announcement by that individual two weeks earlier that he would take the opportunity to speak freely around the world, and possibly be paid for doing so, was not one of the reasons that he tip-toed in such a sordid manner into that area of political discussion—I hope not. I met him last night in this place and left him in no shadow of a doubt about what I thought of his position. I fervently countered each of his arguments, and we accepted that we would continue to disagree.
Let us look at why there needs to be a conclusion to the sordid affair of Turkey’s involvement in the independent country of Cyprus. Turkey has no right whatever to be there. Anyone who has any doubt about that should look back only 100 years in history. They will find that the Turkish state sold the island to Britain for 110 pieces of gold—that is the reality. Turkey sold it many years ago and gave up its interest in it.
Since that time, successive British Governments have participated in the life of Cyprus in a positive way. They built good institutions and mechanisms that are still alive on the island today—there was good purpose in those people. As I said earlier, that is one of the main reasons why we have supported the case for Cyprus to enter the European Union.
However, Cyprus is still left in the abyss of division, and we cannot agree that that should continue. I say to this British Government, as I said to the previous Government, who were of my political persuasion, that they cannot and should not stand idly by while individuals take advantage of the situation in Cyprus. British citizens take advantage of it—wrongly, in my opinion—but no action is taken against them. I refer, of course, to British citizens who foolishly invest vast sums of money to get properties and land on the cheap and then seek to put them on the market to make money. That has to be stopped. Rather than actions to try to stop freedom in Cyprus, perhaps some action should be undertaken by the British Government against British citizens who act in that way.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my interests in respect of Cyprus. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when an agreement is reached, those people who decided to invest in or purchase property in northern Cyprus should not be recompensed by either the Greek Cypriot people or the British Government?
Mr Meale
All I can say is, “Well said.” I agree with every sinew of that argument and would take it even further. The hon. Gentleman may recall that the European Court of Justice recently made a decision in the Loizidou case, in which a property had been taken over in the north and used for 27 or 28 years. The ECJ said that a large sum of money should be given in compensation just for use of the property and then, whenever the stage is reached at which property is handed back, no price should be paid for that property portfolio. The same thing should apply to others, and I say that in the knowledge that a handful of my constituents have been foolhardy enough to invest in Cyprus. They were told clearly and repeatedly, time and again, by the British Government—and I said this in local papers when the issue came up—that they would be foolish to invest in such a way, but greed and avarice took over and they foolishly did so. They had one sole objective, which was to make money for themselves.
To conclude—I know that several other people wish to speak—there can be no veto on full EU membership for the Republic of Cyprus, or on its recognition by the United Nations as an individual nation. I doubt that there would be any support in this or any future British Government for partition of the island. We have fought for years to try to get a solution to the problem. We fought in Germany to get what we thought was the last remaining wall in Europe pulled down, and I do not believe that we would go for partition in Cyprus.
In the course of achieving freedom for Cyprus, there are projects that are trying to identify the remains of people who were killed, but we must insist that work is done on other areas of concern. Many people are still missing, and we must work with the Turkish Government and insist that they provide the knowledge that they have of the whereabouts of missing persons. They should perhaps also suggest that leading religious figures and bodies—Greek and Turk, Muslim and Christian—appeal to their leadership to reveal any information they have.
As any of us who have lost loved ones in the past know, if there is any shade of doubt about what occurred, we think about it all the time. If individuals are missing, we live with that on a daily basis. It is no different for the hundreds of thousands of people—not just mothers and fathers but brothers, sisters, cousins and nieces—who have missing relatives in Cyprus.
The free world must also make certain demands about the kind of solution that is achieved. It cannot be right that 180,000 settlers have been moved from the mainland of Turkey into Cyprus and told that the property on which they live is now their own, when they have no right to it whatever. Those people have to return.
Last but not least—most important of all—the tens of thousands of troops who illegally occupy the north of the island have to be taken back to the mainland. There can be no peaceful solution in Europe while troops from a country that is not a member of the European family reside on European shores. That is the reality. They have to go back, and I ask this Government to plead with Turkey to start that process.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Brady. This is the first debate I have attended for which you have been in that position. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, just in case I have one in respect of this issue.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), who represents a part of the country that is dear to my heart. I congratulate him mainly on the timing of this debate, which comes just in advance of the forthcoming United Nations-sponsored meetings in New York.
I start today from the premise that the coalition Government, the previous Government and I have all been committed to Turkey’s entry to the European Union. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, Greece and Cyprus have also been committed to its entry. We take that position to reject the crude anti-Muslim feeling that one sees across Europe—it has no place in a decision in respect of Turkey—but also because Turkey’s membership would be good for the EU and for Turkey. The question is how we achieve its membership.
The first thing—I say this with some passion—is that we do not issue threats about a two-state solution in Cyprus. I was rather surprised by the mention that was made of the role of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). People who pay attention to these matters will of course know that there has been an article on them by Martin Kettle in The Guardian, and a leader in the Financial Times, which show the somewhat dubious consistency over the years. I read the articles with some care, and was reminded of the negotiations on the referendum and the Annan 5 proposals. The one lesson that we should learn from that experience is that to issue unveiled threats and to try to maximise the pressure on one side rather than the other is almost certain to be counter-productive, and to fail.
The first thing that I would say to the Minister, therefore, is that, when the parties assemble at the United Nations, I hope that Britain in its role as a guarantor power will try to exercise some leverage on other guarantor powers, and also on the two communities taking part in the direct negotiations. It is important to be impartial in that regard. Everyone says that we need to get into a proper negotiation and, to do that, equal pressure on all parties to the negotiation is required. We have to have, as the United Nations states, the courage to “break the stalemate”, but the stalemate is not broken by trying to break one of the parties to the negotiating process.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was placed under the spotlight last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and I was reassured by his response:
“I do not want to say anything at this moment that might make those talks more difficult.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 139.]
Those are surely wise words at this time, and I only wish that others had taken that lesson to heart.
What if we ended the isolation of the northern part of Cyprus? I am often told that its having access to a market of the European Union would make a tremendous difference, and that the very low living standard of the people there would suddenly be transformed. The collective evidence is that the most likely way to transform the economy of the north of Cyprus is to find a solution to the division of the island. That will achieve more than any other step. We have to accept that if the area is not reunified, and does not get the support of the Cypriots on the rest of the island, it will be a very long time before the northern part of the island can look towards European-style standards of living.
It has also to be said that the north of the island remains very dependent on subsidies from Turkey, and that will not change in the short or medium term. Although the isolation might be ended, there are factors that increase the isolation from Cyprus itself. Mention has been made of the changing demographics in Cyprus: Turkish Cypriots are leaving the island and people from the mainland are still coming in. That will do nothing to reverse the isolation; it will, I would argue, increase it.
The isolation is, of course, also strengthened by certain politicians—we have all heard the comments. Mr Denktas cast a very long shadow during his 22 years as leader of the Turkish Cypriot community. In the statements that are made—and we have heard some recently—it is said that there are two peoples, two languages and two cultures and there must, therefore, be two states. We reject that idea, but if they do not, it is hard to see how they will prevent the Turkish Cypriot community from continuing to leave the island. The Turkish Cypriot community recognises its long-standing bonds with the rest of the Cypriot community on the island, and would continue to experience the isolation.
What are the consequences of a two-state solution? I turn to the Financial Times leader writer:
“A two-state solution is not an ideal outcome.”—
a bit of an understatement by a leader writer—
“It would impose grave costs on the Greek Cypriots in terms of maintaining high levels of military expenditure to counter the perceived Turkish threat. In the short term, it would deal yet another blow to Turkey’s prospects of joining the European Union.”
So, let us look at the matter in slightly more detail. Yes, the solution would be a major blow to Turkey’s membership, and I wish that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn had thought about that. Would it inflame relations? Undoubtedly, and not just those between the Governments of Cyprus and Turkey, but relations that have been unfrozen in recent years and have enabled many people from the north of the island to cross the border to work in the south.
A two-state solution would inflame relations between Greece and Turkey, which have, of course, been a major problem in recent years, but it would also increase instability in the eastern Mediterranean. What would the consequence of that be? It would not be just Cyprus that was building up its military arms; we would see, I suspect, just a little bit of an arms race in the eastern Mediterranean. What would the impact on NATO be? Such impact is one of the major reasons why the Americans are so keen to find a solution, as is, of course, the impact on the island itself, with the continuing exodus of Turkish Cypriots. Such a solution would have a negative impact on Turkey’s membership of the EU and would give heart to those European Union member states that are not really concerned about the situation in Cyprus. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), there are other reasons why France, Austria and other European Union states continue to object to Turkey’s application. We need to unify those states in support of EU membership for Turkey, and we do not achieve that by ostracising Cyprus, or by ostracising Greece, at this particular time.
I finish by asking two things. First, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) please to give us a defined statement that the Opposition parties continue to support the negotiating process and take on board the Foreign Secretary’s wise words. Secondly, I ask that the Government not just wholeheartedly support the negotiating process—I know that they do—but that they do so while recognising that Britain, because of its unique position and its guarantor power status, and because it is a member of the Security Council and a critically important member of the EU, should do more. We need to kick-start that negotiating process when it happens next week, but let us be in absolutely no doubt that it is only that session that can lead to a viable, long-term, stable solution in the eastern Mediterranean. Frankly, talk of any other issue is wild and unnecessary; we all need to get behind the Government, the two parties, the other guarantor powers and the United Nations to ensure that this succeeds where it has failed in the past.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I welcome this debate, secured by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). I, like him and some of my colleagues, have been involved in the Cyprus debate for many years and I often feel, with some despondency, that we do not make further progress, even after the annual Trafalgar square rally and our visit to the Morphou rally in Cyprus. I was therefore pleased that the coalition Government outlined, in its document for governing, that Cyprus will be taken seriously.
[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]
Cyprus has faced many invasions in its long and continuous history. The difference in the experience since 1974 is that 40% of the island is divided from the other part, based on people’s origin, religion and nationality, effectively expelling the Greek Cypriots from their own homes in the occupied areas and moving Turkish Cypriots into the occupied part of the island. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) misses the point. More than a quarter of the population of Cyprus and many people who live in this country are still experiencing the effects of the invasion. They are not allowed to live in their legally owned home, not able to cultivate their land or to worship in their churches and not even allowed to tend the graves of their loved ones, which is most distressing for a lot of people.
Jim Sheridan
Much mention has been made of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unfortunate that my right hon. Friend did not take the opportunity to attend this debate and share his pearls of wisdom with us?
Mr Offord
It certainly is a great shame that the right hon. Gentleman did not attend today. [Interruption.] I am informed that he was, in fact, invited to come along. Perhaps he had something else to do in the House, I do not know, but it would have been useful if he had come along and clarified his comments, particularly as a former Minister.
For the first time in history, the people of Cyprus have been left, de facto, separated into homogenous racial, religious and geographical areas. That continues to happen, despite the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations and other organisations adopting resolutions that condemn the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and support the independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus.
The division planned by Ankara was strengthened in 1983 by the unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriot leadership, with Turkey’s encouragement and support, and the establishment of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is worth stating that the international community directly and categorically condemned this secessionist action. The Security Council stated that the act was “legally invalid” and demanded the revocation of the “unilateral declaration of independence”. As a result, the illegal occupying regime has not been recognised by any state other than Turkey, the occupying power.
In addition to the human tragedy, I have seen for myself the cultural and religious destruction that is taking place. Hon. Members have spoken about recent political issues and the talks, which I welcome, but I shall focus on the continuing destruction of the history and culture of the island. The occupying force in the north appears to be working to erase any reference to anything Greek or to Christianity in the north part of the island. The Turkish occupying force has replaced all Greek names of towns, villages and roads with Turkish names. At the same time, I am concerned that Neolithic settlements are being destroyed, such as the one at Apostolos Andreas-Kastros, which, for those who cannot understand my poor Greek, is on the eastern tip of the island. Prehistoric and historical towns, such as the famous site of Enkomi and the ancient city states of Salamina and Soloi, are being left to the ravages of time.
Clear and undeniable desecration is occurring in churches. This year, when I took the opportunity to cross the line, I visited the occupied town of Morphou and saw for myself churches being used for so-called alternative activities—for example, we saw one church being used as a dance studio and another being used as a warehouse. Some churches are derelict and left dilapidated. What shocked me most was desecration of the churchyards: I saw one being used by the fire service, which parked fire trucks on graveyards; the second was not only left in a desecrated state, but was being used as an army base. I cannot understand how an occupying force could allow its army to do that.
Cyprus is often referred to as the crossroads of civilisation. What I witnessed there were not the actions of a civilised nation, but shocking and disrespectful behaviour by an invading force.
Mr Meale
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s accurate descriptions. Other descriptions have been given by Members of Parliament who have crossed over, including of former churches being used for animal husbandry. Does the hon. Gentleman know that the Leventis Foundation, which conducted an examination of stolen artefacts—my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned that more than 1,500 have been stolen and shipped abroad—found that many were found in huge numbers, including in the walls of churches, with references dating back as far as St Paul? All had been stolen. Whole walls were stolen and exported to the United States and other places for sale.
Mr Offord
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting, useful point. I am aware of some of the artefacts that have been removed from the island. In a judgment of the United States Court of Appeal in 1990, the judge ordered the return of the Kanakaria mosaics to Cyprus. The president of the Court Appeal, Chief Judge Bauer, mentioned a characteristic quotation from Lord Byron, which I think the hon. Gentleman will find interesting, describing the Turkish invasion of Corinth in 1715. Of the many churches and monuments that lie today in ruins on Cyprus, Bauer says:
“As Byron laments, war can reduce our grandest and most sacred temples to mere ‘fragments of stone’. Only the lowest of scoundrels attempt to reap personal gain from this collective loss. Those who plunder the churches and monuments of war-torn Cyprus hoarded their relics away, and are now smuggling and selling them for large sums, are just blackguards.”
That description could apply to people who are continuing in that fashion today.
I say to the British coalition Government that in the talks about the accession of Turkey to the EU, there are red lines on which hon. Members here today will insist. First, land and property must be returned to its rightful owners without compensation being paid to those people who decided, through greed and avarice to invest their moneys in the northern part of Cyprus. Secondly, the people who are missing need to be identified and returned to their loved ones, so that they can start the grieving process. Thirdly and finally, I urge the British Government to secure an agreement that is acceptable to all the islanders—not just the Greek Cypriots, but the Turkish Cypriots as well. We want to be even-handed and open with all islanders and to remove the only divided island left in Europe, so that we can have the peace and security in Europe that we want.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
We have had an important debate this morning. I commend the tone in which it has been conducted: serious, practical and honest. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate and on his opening speech, in which he showed his knowledge of and passion for the subject. He emphasised that we need a balanced approach to Cyprus and touched on the complexity of the issues confronting us, particularly missing persons and property ownership. Indeed, he is a true and honourable friend of Cyprus.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) made a good speech, in which he warned us to be wary of what is sometimes termed “Cyprus fatigue”. We must all ensure that we are fully engaged with the issues and that we take the matter forward collectively. The hon. Gentleman, and others, referred particularly to remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). I should like to make it clear that in both his article in The Times and the interview on the “Today” programme, my right hon. Friend was expressing his entirely personal view. It is not Opposition policy. Labour’s policy, I believe, is unchanged. We are focused foursquare on ensuring that maximum support is given to the talks at the United Nations in New York this week. We encourage both parties to work together harmoniously to come to a just, fair solution.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr Meale), who talked about the abyss of partition—a highly graphic way to put it, and I am sure that we are all mindful of what he said. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), whose wise words stressed the need for us to be impartial in ensuring that both communities together reach a mutually agreeable solution. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) powerfully expressed his concern about the destruction of artefacts in the north of Cyprus and the need to protect places of worship.
We are at an important stage in what will, we hope, be moves towards peace and reconciliation in Cyprus. I emphasise that Labour believes in a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement for the whole island. Our view is that only a settlement that is negotiated by Cypriots for Cypriots, and acceptable to both sides, will ensure the future of Cyprus. We support a unified Cyprus and a Cypriot-led process under the auspices of the United Nations. We do not support a solution that is imposed or enforced by others. The United Kingdom must offer its full support to the negotiations that all Cypriots want to succeed.
When Labour was in government, we proposed that 50% of the land currently in UK sovereign bases in Cyprus be made available to a united island once a resolution was found. We hope that that proposal will be taken forward by the current Government when the two sides resume their talks.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate. He has a long track record in this House of interest in and support for Cyprus. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) said, the contributions to the debate have been thoughtful and forthright in equal measure. I thank the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr Meale) and for Edmonton (Mr Love), and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Hendon (Mr Offord) for their contributions. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) for their interventions.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss Cyprus and I have listened carefully to the points raised during the debate. The Government support a just and lasting settlement on the island. As has been said, that was an important manifesto commitment and a priority recognised in the coalition’s programme for Government.
I am sure that the House will agree that the status quo is neither satisfactory nor adequate for any community in Cyprus. Reference has been made to the plight of Greek Cypriots, particularly those in displaced families, and, in fairness, to the isolation and economic underdevelopment of the Turkish Cypriot community. Only a united island within the European Union will provide the long-term peace and security that all Cypriots deserve, as well as bring economic development and prosperity to the region. The hon. Member for Mansfield was right to draw our attention to the tremendous economic opportunities in the eastern Mediterranean, which could be capitalised on to the mutual benefit of all Cypriot communities, of Turkey and of Greece, if a just and lasting settlement can be achieved.
A settlement would enable a generation of people to find a way to close a traumatic chapter in their lives, particularly by addressing the difficult issue of property and the isolation of Turkish Cypriots. I believe that reunification would also provide the space for civil society to flourish in the north and south of the island, and for the leaders of the communities to spend more time helping to find solutions to global issues, and ensure that the Cypriot people as a whole come out of the current global economic downturn well placed to enjoy a prosperous and sustainable future. In my view, those benefits far outweigh the admitted difficulties of the compromises that would be necessary to reach a settlement.
Let there be no doubt that the United Kingdom Government are committed to supporting the ongoing settlement negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations, and particularly of Alexander Downer, which are aimed at achieving a settlement based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality. That political equality must be accorded not only—although most obviously—to the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, but to the smaller minorities on the island. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, chairman of the British-Cyprus all-party group, reminded us of the Maronite community. The position of the Maronite community and its members’ entitlement to cultural and religious freedom of expression will be fully resolved only by a comprehensive settlement that reunites the island. The Government support the resolution passed by the Council of Europe in July 2008 that called for additional measures to
“support the revitalisation and promotion of the cultural, religious and linguistic heritage of the Maronites,”.
Ian Lavery
Does the Minister agree that not only do we have a moral obligation to support a solution in Cyprus on a one-state basis, but we have a legal obligation based on the treaty of guarantee and the memorandums that we have signed with Cyprus? Does that differ from what he has just said?
Mr Lidington
No, it does not. The hon. Gentleman draws me on to comments that I was about to make.
Far be it from me to criticise a distinguished elder statesman such as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), but I am happy to make it clear that the Government’s position is to support a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality for a united Cyprus. We do not support partition. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck has said, as one of the guarantor powers, we are bound by treaty not only to resist but to prohibit any step that would lead either to the partition of Cyprus or to its unification with any other country. The new British Government remain in support of that position on the present and future status of Cyprus.
Mr Meale
Does the Minister agree that there would be a great danger if Britain’s policy moved away from the one that he has expressed? If we break the treaty signed in the ‘60s that gave independence to Cyprus, it would break all other parts of the treaty. That could affect the British bases on the island.
Mr Lidington
As a general principle, if one signs and ratifies a treaty, one should stick by its obligations. That is what we intend to do.
Important British interests are at stake in the search for a settlement in Cyprus. The amount of human misery in Cyprus, whichever community we are talking about, would in itself justify making the search for a settlement a political priority; but there are also hard-headed British national interests at stake. Although a peaceful and lasting settlement in Cyprus would not, as others have said, remove all obstacles to Turkish accession to the European Union, it would remove one of the most significant blocks to that process. I believe and the Government believe that Turkish membership of the European Union is in the interests not just of the UK, but of Europe as a whole. A settlement would also make possible the effective co-operation between NATO and the European Union that has been impossible for so many years, because of the stand-off between Turkey and Cyprus over the events of 1974 and what has happened since.
I hope that both sides in the negotiations and especially at the forthcoming meeting in New York can continue to show both flexibility and leadership. The leaders have the full support of the international community and they need to grasp the opportunity to find a solution before that window closes.
Mr Love
One of the concerns expressed widely within Cyprus is that Cyprus is not considered important enough internationally for a solution to be found. In reflection of that, would it not be sensible for the British Government to make greater use of the European Union to try to bring parties together and to pressure all the parties to negotiate, and would it not be much more sensible if the three guarantor powers, of which we are one, met to try to co-ordinate the putting of pressure on the two parties at the negotiations in New York?
Mr Lidington
I would not rule out a meeting of the guarantor powers at some stage, if that would be helpful. The hon. Gentleman reminds me that in his speech he called for vigorous diplomacy on the part of the British Government. I do not dissent from what he said, except that I would add two words of caution. First, by virtue of our history and status as a guarantor power and our possession of the sovereign base areas, we of course have a particular interest in Cyprus and the search for a settlement there; but sometimes, precisely because of our history, we are not necessarily the most welcome source of advice, particularly public advice. Sometimes it is better if others—in this case, the United Nations envoy, Mr Downer—take the lead. It is very important that the negotiations are seen to be, in the end, in the ownership of the Cypriots themselves, because unless there is buy-in from both communities in Cyprus, a settlement will not endure.
Secondly, although the search for a settlement in Cyprus is seen by the Government as an important political priority, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in the conduct of foreign affairs, just as in the conduct of domestic politics sometimes, it is best to talk candidly to friends, allies and partners behind closed doors, rather than through a megaphone. We have to suit the technique to the occasion.
Mr Burrowes
May I press the Minister further on the details of the relationship with Turkey? The hand of friendship has gone out from the Prime Minister to Turkey. Will the Minister be able to draw attention to the role that we play in terms of pressing the case for Cyprus?
Mr Lidington
I will come to that very point in a moment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of it. Before I do so, I want to deal with a point that the hon. Member for Caerphilly raised by saying that the coalition Government have maintained the offer made by the previous Labour Government to cede nearly half the sovereign base area territories in the event of an agreed, negotiated solution in Cyprus.
I shall now respond to what my hon. Friend just said. We welcome the support that Turkey has given the settlement process. Prime Minister Erdogan has publicly stated his full support for the Cyprus settlement process on a number of occasions, including in March this year, when he confirmed—this is an important point—Turkey’s acceptance of the UN principles under which the process takes place. We regularly discuss all aspects of the Cyprus issue with Turkey. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green said in an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did so publicly as well as privately when he visited Turkey earlier this year. Most recently, we raised the subject of Cyprus during President Gül’s visit to London last week, and I did so with Turkish Ministers when I attended the Bosphorus conference in Istanbul in October.
Turkey has an important role to play in encouraging the Turkish Cypriots to grasp the opportunity of a settlement and to ensure that the negotiations succeed. A settlement will deliver economic benefits to Turkish Cypriots and end their sense of isolation once and for all, which is a key Turkish objective. A settlement in Cyprus will, we believe, be of great benefit to Turkey as a whole and her ambition eventually to join the European Union.
A number of hon. Members talked about particular aspects of the tragedy that has afflicted Cyprus for more than 30 years. Some referred to the damage done to cultural sites and places of worship. There is no doubt that that damage took place, particularly during 1974 and in the immediate aftermath. I have made note of the points that were made particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North about the alleged desecration of cemeteries and church graveyards. I will take advice on how we might raise that issue.
Jim Sheridan
For the record, I point out that I have passed on the photographs that were taken recently at the Morphou rally, which demonstrate the clear indignation caused by the vandalism that has taken place.
Mr Lidington
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is important, as a means of helping to build community reconciliation, that we support confidence-building measures at local level and take account of the reality of the grief still experienced by many individuals and families. Action in respect of the proper treatment of cultural and religious sites and co-operation in the search for missing persons are matters that the British Government take very seriously indeed. We have given particular support to the work of the European Union’s Committee on Missing Persons and we donate to its annual budget. As hon. Members know, the CMP has so far found just under 700 sets of human remains, both Greek and Turkish Cypriot.[Official Report, 23 November 2010, Vol. 519, c. 2MC.]
Mr Lidington
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because I am getting very near the end of my time.
I welcome the commitment of the Cypriot leaders from both communities to the current negotiations. Their meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon this Thursday is a positive step, but there is a great deal of further work to do to maintain the momentum and to ensure that the important opportunity to achieve a strong and lasting peace is not lost. These are different from previous negotiations. It is now in the hands of the leaders themselves to reach agreement. I agree that there can be no arbitration or tight deadlines, but a purely open-ended process will not benefit the Cypriots themselves. I urge all parties to engage positively and flexibly in negotiations and to grasp the opportunity to secure the benefits that all communities in Cyprus so richly deserve.
Yorkshire Water
(14 years 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 Denis MacShane
(Rotherham) (Lab): I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on Yorkshire Water and the problem of leakages in the region and in my constituency in particular.
Sometimes, an individual case illuminates the landscape of powerful organisations that, although they may genuinely believe themselves to be working in a responsible, correct and legal manner, do not realise that by a sequence of events and decisions, they end up treating an ordinary—I do not much like that word—citizen of our nation unfairly. This is the story of a little man confronting a giant, powerful conglomerate that is trampling over his rights.
Mr George Georgiou is a British citizen of Cypriot origin who lives in Foljambe road, a modest road in my constituency. He came to Rotherham in 2007 to buy a little fish and chip shop at the bottom of that road, which produces as good a cod and chips as one can get in Rotherham, a town that is widely acknowledged to have the best fish and chip shops in Yorkshire.
There was flooding in other parts of the constituency in 2007. Early in 2008, Yorkshire Water carried out some mains work at the top of Mr. Georgiou’s road. Ever since, he has experienced flooding in his basement. He lives at the foot of the road, which is about 200 or 300 yards long. When the water goes downhill from any mains, it ends up in his basement.
To set the scene, Yorkshire Water is the monopoly utility supplier of water in the region. It wields its monopoly power from a product that falls for free from the sky. It makes handsome profits; last year it made £116 million. It operates in a closed market with no competition, and it pays its top executives well. Its chairman, Kevin Whiteman, to whom I shall return, was paid a little short of £500,000 last year. Despite the profits and the pay of its bosses, Yorkshire Water has the worst performance on leakage of any water company in Britain. Ofwat last week condemned the firm for losing 295 million litres a day through leakages last year. Some of that 295 million litres has flooded the basement of my constituent’s home.
For nearly three years, Mr Georgiou has, with my help, asked Yorkshire Water to accept its responsibilities. That giant monopoly has treated a man who is struggling to keep his head above water—almost literally—and his business alive with nothing short of contempt. Following the classic behaviour of the bully, the more that Mr Georgiou has protested, the more the bullying has increased.
Mr Georgiou has had to install a pump in the basement of his house and shop, as if it were a ship of Nelson’s time that needed continuous pumping to keep it dry. He hardly dares to leave his home for the fear that the water may rise and cause an electrical short. It is surreal to go into a modest home at the foot of a road in Rotherham and find, beneath a ground-floor fish and chip shop, the steady ingress of water, with a pump working away and buckets present day and night.
Like all water companies, Yorkshire Water has a statutory duty to repair and prevent leaks. Instead of so doing, it has come up with excuse after excuse to explain why the water in Mr Georgiou’s home is nothing to do with it. I have here a huge file of letters, which make up a kind of comedy. Yorkshire Water explains that the land around Mr Georgiou’s house is damp. Well, it is damp in the winter when it rains and dry in the summer when it does not rain. The correspondence then states that it is drains water and that other homes have been affected. That shows a tenuous connection with truth, given that neighbours and previous inhabitants of 69 Foljambe road confirm that it is as dry as any other home, save for when the rain becomes so torrential that all Rotherham is damp for days afterwards.
I will not burden the Chamber by reading out the whole correspondence, but I will quote from Yorkshire Water’s own assessment:
“Some of the cellar water examples are in the range expected of mains water”.
It then quotes from the Yorkshire Water excuse book, as written by its Czech consultant, one Mr Kafka:
“because it is possible to propose other explanations of certain sample results does not mean that these other explanations are true.”
I have tried to work my head around that statement, of which the former US Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Rumsfeld, might have been proud. In plain English, Yorkshire Water was saying that anything that it says is true and anything that one of its clients says, even on the basis of independent advice, can be ignored.
Mr Georgiou is a determined and reasonable man. From his e-mails, it is clear that he is not the cross constituent whom all hon. Members know only too well. He has sought advice from and sent samples to outside experts and assessors. They have all come back and said that they think it is mains water from Yorkshire Water. At his own expense, Mr Georgiou has had his basement and the land around it dug up in search of the water leak. Yorkshire Water insists that he is responsible for the leak because it has nothing to do with water at the foot of Foljambe road.
In a letter dated 6 October 2008, Mr Trevor Craddy of Yorkshire Water complains about Mr Georgiou having hired a private plumber, at his own expense, to dig up the land to find where the water was coming from:
“One would have expected that the private plumber having been unable to find a leak would have stopped digging at that point.”
To stop digging is advice that Yorkshire Water might well have taken. For a small amount of money in relation to the firm’s profits and salary levels, it could have tanked the cellar and helped Mr Georgiou to focus on his fish and chips, rather than making him into a Rotherham David taking on the Goliath of this unaccountable, rich monopoly.
The environmental health department of Rotherham metropolitan borough council has investigated the leak and has shown that the water does not come from its pipes. All I have sought to do is to help my constituent, in a classic example of what an MP does at the constituency level. I have no axe to grind against Yorkshire Water; it is a good company in many ways, save for the wretched problem of endless leaks. I have secured this debate to ask the Minister to examine why it is that there is no effective mechanism to hold to account such powerful, rich monopolies. They have a licence to make money and pay pharaonic executive salaries, beyond public control or accountability. Ofwat appears to be powerless —we have written to it. Rotherham council is powerless. The Consumer Council for Water is helpless.
On 17 November 2008, Mr David Freeman of the Consumer Council for Water in Yorkshire wrote:
“We do not feel able to tell Mr Georgiou that we are satisfied that the problem is not mains water”.
That double negative flatly contradicts the constant line from Yorkshire Water that the water that is constantly going into Mr Georgiou’s home, that is making his life a misery and that is stopping him from developing his small business, has nothing to do with it. The Consumer Council for Water, like Ofwat, has no power to compel Yorkshire Water to behave responsibly.
I have tried to work with the company. I have had several conversations with Kevin Whiteman, who was Yorkshire Water’s chief executive officer and is now its chairman. In summer 2009, he agreed to make a joint visit to Mr Georgiou’s home, but that never happened. In what I thought was a reasonable way forward, he agreed to arbitration. I recommended that warmly to Mr Georgiou. Naturally, Mr Georgiou wanted his team of experts to discuss the matter with Yorkshire Water’s experts. One does not go into an arbitration by oneself to face a giant company that has a battery of scientists, technicians, lawyers and public relations people. Mr Georgiou and I said to Mr Whiteman that we would go to arbitration. We laid out the issues that we thought needed to be discussed, presented our papers and notified him of our team of expert witnesses.
Suddenly, however, Yorkshire Water and Mr Whiteman withdrew their offer of arbitration. I cannot, in my 16 years as an MP, remember such an example of bad faith and breach of trust by the CEO of a powerful monopoly. He offered arbitration, but the moment it was clear that arbitration would not deliver the result he wanted, he withdrew it. To withdraw that offer of arbitration, made to me and which I persuaded Mr Georgiou to accept, shows an indifference to fair play and to a basic level of respect for a British citizen who has nowhere else to go if he wants his water delivered—Yorkshire Water is, of course, a monopoly supplier.
That is why I have sought this Adjournment debate. I want to send a message to Yorkshire Water, on behalf of all the residents of Yorkshire, that the loss of 295 million litres a day from its pipes is not acceptable. The company and industry were privatised more than two decades ago. At the time, we were told that the companies had to take over from municipal water works engineers, who were just paid ordinary salaries, and that a shareholding structure with a board of directors and non-executive directors, and paying the chief executive and the chairman loads of money, would improve things. Yet here we are, 20 years later, and the leakage rate is as bad as ever, which is a huge waste of a precious resource when we are worrying about water shortages across the world and, frankly, not the best of tributes to the notion that privatisation of a monopoly public utility is the magic solution to making companies really efficient.
I sought an Adjournment debate with reluctance. I had obtained one some months ago, but withdrew it, because I still wanted Yorkshire Water and Mr Georgiou to come together and find a deal. I could not believe that the thousands of pounds of investigations, documents, technicians, lawyers and staff hours spent saying no to this man could possibly be justified. For probably a 10th of the collective money spent by Yorkshire Water in denying him his rights, it could have tanked the cellar and made good the problem.
All right hon. and hon. Members deal daily with difficult cases and we make our representations as best we can. However, I have never come across such a shocking example of the mistreatment of an individual without any resources or private wealth. The entire bureaucracy of Yorkshire Water has been deployed against Mr Georgiou. All he wants is for the firm to accept its clear responsibility and duty so he can carry on his business without manning the pumps in his cellar all the time.
I do not have time to read out all the letters and reports cranked out by Yorkshire Water as it spent thousands of pounds and hour upon hour of its employees’ time in order to crush Mr Georgiou. Instead of producing his fish and chips, he has had to engage in this lonely battle for justice. The latest twist to the tale is a county court civil case—again, Yorkshire Water would rather spend a fortune on lawyers than simply accept its responsibility.
I finish, frankly, in despair. The Minister is a decent man and, as a constituency MP, he can probably tell other dire stories of how powerful, unaccountable monopolies trample over the rights of citizens. He has no executive powers, as a Minister, to compel Yorkshire Water to do anything. I do not know if the new Government’s ideas of localism or the big society can alter the balance of power between the citizen and the monopoly or quasi-monopoly companies, which have so much power without responsibility in our land.
I regret having to bring the matter to the attention of the House—I do not want a war of words with Yorkshire Water—but my duty to my constituent is clear. I hope that Mr Georgiou can feel at least that his Parliament and MP can be voices against what I believe is a great wrong done to him. I am grateful to have had the privilege of securing this Adjournment debate today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) on securing the debate. Without commenting on his specific case, I also congratulate him on fulfilling the House’s fine tradition of right hon. and hon. Members standing up for their constituents when they feel they have been wronged. It might have been a tad easier to give the right hon. Gentleman a fuller response had I known he would raise that specific case, but I will do my best to talk about it. In my early remarks, I will set that case in context.
The control of leakage from water company distribution networks is a vital component in maintaining an adequate supply-demand balance in the supply of water. The failure of some water companies consistently to meet leakage targets undermines efforts to convince customers to adopt water-efficient behaviours. It is clear from the views expressed in the current water White Paper online survey that leakage is an issue held in high importance by the public, not just in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency but across the country.
The failure of some companies to meet annual leakage targets reflects badly on the generally good performance on leakage—that is why I would take slight issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He said that we are where we were 20 years ago, but there has been considerable improvement. It is not my job to defend or to be the voice of any water companies. If anything, my job is to ensure that a fair deal is being achieved by the consumer. However, we want to be accurate in dealing with leakage—it is not where we would like it to be, but we are moving in the right direction, and a number of different factors are involved. I will talk about some of those factors in a moment.
The latest figures show that leakage has reduced by more than a third since its peak in 1994-95—a reduction of 1,837 megalitres per day, equivalent to the daily needs of more than 12 million domestic customers. Between now and 2015, the target leakage in England and Wales is due to fall by a further 97 megalitres per day.
At this stage, it is useful to remember that fixing leaks can be costly—that is no excuse for it not happening, but it can be costly. Customers have told Ofwat, the independent regulator, that they do not want to see large rises in bills to reduce leakage, and, clearly, the serious disruption caused by digging up streets must be considered.
Companies are now reaching a level of leakage at which the extra costs associated with repairing leaks—in terms of manpower, materials, fuel, carbon emissions and so on—are equal to the costs of producing the water that is leaking. That is not to say that we should not redouble our efforts—of course we should—but we should see them in the full balance of what we are seeking for a modernised water company through the current review process.
The water companies report their leakage performance annually to Ofwat. When Ofwat assesses a company’s performance against leakage targets, any decisive external events are taken into account. The prolonged cold winter we experienced last winter presented a challenge to the water companies in managing an increase in burst mains and in minimising interruptions to consumers. The coldest winter for more than 30 years had different impacts on networks across England and Wales. All companies reported high numbers of burst pipes over that period because of ground movement caused by freezes and thaws—I am not saying that that is in any way related to the particular case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. In addition, snow cover for longer than normal made it more difficult for the companies to find and repair their leaking pipes.
Ofwat’s primary consideration when deciding what action to take against a company that fails its leakage targets is whether the target failure affects customers’ security of supply. Does the increased leakage mean a higher risk of restrictions on customers’ use of water? A leakage target failure would be considered much more serious were it to jeopardise water supplies to customers. Ofwat’s policy for assessing leakage failures takes account of a company’s performance over a three-year period, and it does not automatically take regulatory action after a single year’s failure.
A range of options is available to Ofwat. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was powerless—I will come on to talk about his specific case—but Ofwat can act against a water company that is failing on leakages. For example, in 2006 Ofwat used its powers to secure an undertaking from Thames Water in response to a failure to meet leakage targets. Since then, Thames Water has reduced leakage by more than 190 megalitres a day. It achieved that by spending approximately £150 million of shareholders’ money, not by putting the cost on its bills. That is one tool that can be used to bear down on the problem.
During last winter’s cold weather, Yorkshire Water experienced an increased number of burst mains, and the same happened across the country. This is the first time the company has failed a leakage target since targets became mandatory in 1998-99. Since 1995, when the company received significant negative media coverage after the drought of that year, it has renewed more than 2,800 km of water mains. The right hon. Gentleman made some grudging, but nevertheless generous comments about the company’s performance on some issues, grinding his teeth as he did about pay issues, and I completely understand. As I say, however, I am here not to be the voice of the water companies or the regulator, but to make sure that the consumer gets the best deal.
On the circumstances of the case the right hon. Gentleman described, I must be extremely careful, because I understand—he may differ—that it is now the subject of legal proceedings. I will therefore have to be extremely guarded in the words that I use, and he will be able to correct me if the information I have is wrong.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, his constituent, Mr Georgiou, has experienced long-term, chronic ingress of water into his cellar—that is not disputed. He made a complaint to Yorkshire Water, which was not resolved to his satisfaction. The Consumer Council for Water became involved and supported Mr Georgiou in the processing of his complaint.
I will not reiterate the details of the case because the right hon. Gentleman has laid them before us, but I will answer some of his specific points. He said that the consumer council was unable to force Yorkshire Water to act, and he is absolutely right that it does not have the power to force a water company to take action. Nor is it in a position to determine liability in such cases. However, it does have powers to obtain any information required to ensure that customers’ complaints have been handled appropriately. My understanding is that it supported Mr Georgiou in getting the information that he required. A review of how the consumer council handled the case is being carried out by the regional chair, who will look carefully at these issues.
The right hon. Gentleman has a further opportunity to raise this matter through the parliamentary ombudsman on behalf of his constituent. He says that Ofwat has no specific powers to resolve this complaint, and he is right that it does not have the power to resolve complaints about liability in such cases. It appears the case has reached the point where it is the subject of legal proceedings. I would very much like to be able to say more, but I am informed that that could prejudice those proceedings.
Mr MacShane
The Minister is being extraordinarily fair and decent about this case. Nothing would give Mr Georgiou and me greater pleasure than not to have to proceed to a county court case, but to settle this matter modestly, cleanly and quickly now. As a result of this debate, I hope that Yorkshire Water might take that on board.
Richard Benyon
That is a very reasonable comment.
I started by saying that the House offers hon. Members the ability to stand up for people who feel, rightly or wrongly—this may be their perception or the reality—that they have been done down by a large company, bureaucracy or organisation, and it is entirely right that hon. Members have that ability.
On the exact rights and wrongs of this case, I have the right hon. Gentleman’s word, which I entirely endorse as correct. However, when such matters are dealt with in legal proceedings, other factors are sometimes brought in, and it would be entirely wrong for me to pass comment at this stage. None the less, the right hon. Gentleman’s comments are on the record. His persistence on behalf of his constituent is not only on the record of the House, but visible to those of us in the Chamber in the form of the file sitting on the desk in front of him. I assure him that if I can assist further without prejudicing legal proceedings in any way, I will, of course, be happy to talk to him.
Nuclear Power (Dungeness)
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
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I want to pay tribute at the start of this debate to Councillor Willie Richardson, who represented Romney Marsh and Dungeness at Kent county council and Shepway district council. He was a great advocate of Dungeness and a supporter of nuclear power there. Sadly, Willie died last week, and his funeral will be held tomorrow in Lydd. He would have taken a great interest in today’s debate.
Dungeness nuclear power station has been an important part of the economy of my constituency for a number of years. The A station was given the go-ahead by the Minister for Power in 1959. In the deliberations before that decision, careful consideration was given to not only the need for new sources of energy to supply the national grid, but the unique environment of Dungeness.
Dungeness is a peninsula made largely of flint shingle that has built up over the centuries. It is one of the largest peninsulas of its kind in the world and the largest in Europe. It is right that it receives protection and special designation, as it has for many years, but it is also a working community, and people rely on the jobs that come from that community and, increasingly, from the nuclear power station.
The story of the success of Dungeness as a community involves the management and effective support of a brittle habitat and environment, with nature and man working successfully in partnership. Many would say that the arrival of nuclear power at Dungeness in the 1960s and 1970s has done a lot to underpin the important environmental work that has been done there. Indeed, some of the habitats, plants and wildlife that now exist at Dungeness would probably not be there were it not for the human intervention required to support and sustain the nuclear industry at Dungeness.
During the Government’s consultation on new nuclear sites, as part of the national policy statement on energy, there were considerable representations from my constituents, Shepway council and Kent county council about the economic importance of nuclear power at Dungeness. Approximately one in 10 jobs in Romney Marsh is linked, directly or indirectly, to the power station. It is estimated that Dungeness B station, the one that is currently in operation producing energy, puts about £20 million a year into the local economy. Without that continued investment and the continued presence of nuclear power it is hard to see how we could make up the shortfall. It is primarily for that reason that there has continued to be considerable support from the community for nuclear power at Dungeness, and for a C station—a new generation of nuclear power to replace Dungeness B when it stops production in the late 20-teens or in the 2020s. It is an important part of the local economy and we do not think we could live without it.
I believe that Dungeness could also play an important part in meeting the country’s energy needs. The Minister and his colleagues have spoken before about the need to keep the lights on and said that to do that we need new sources of energy production. The national policy statement on energy and the search for new nuclear sites is at the heart of that decision-making process. If we are not to be reliant on imported energy, whether gas from Russia or—particularly pertinent in my constituency—nuclear power from just across the sea in France, we need new sources of energy production. We believe that Dungeness is potentially an important new site for nuclear power and new energy.
These opening remarks set the context of the issue and its importance for my constituency. The matter has so far been considered by the Government through their consultations on the national policy statement. I do not want to go over old ground, but shall focus instead on some of the results in the recent report and update on the consultation, which the Government published last month. I was very disappointed, as were my constituents, that Dungeness was not included in the list of preferred sites in the national policy statement. It was on the previous Government’s original longlist of 11 sites, but last year that was reduced to 10, with Dungeness being removed. The list has now been reduced to eight approved sites, with three sites not approved within the national policy statement for the building of new nuclear sites to be completed by 2025.
I acknowledge that the Government’s report says many positive things about Dungeness. In particular it highlights the fact that Dungeness remains in many ways a credible site for deployment by 2025, and my constituents take considerable heart from that. However, the issue with the power station has been the objections, primarily from Natural England, that allowing a new power station to be built at Dungeness would be in contravention of the designations of the site, particularly those that were brought in through the EU habitats directive. There is legal protection for the site. I want to examine some of the issues relating to that protection, in response to the Government’s consultation.
First, the Government said in their consultation—I am quoting the site report for Dungeness:
“Given the nature of the issues at Dungeness, it may be easier to ascertain that there will not be adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC at the detailed project level of an application for development consent.”
The Government talk at some length in the site report for Dungeness about the fact that, even if the site is not included in the national policy statement, a developer and energy company could come forward with proposals that could go to the planning commission and ultimately to the Secretary of State for approval. Unfortunately there is a barrier to that process even being started, or to reaching the Government’s recommendation that perhaps, at that more detailed planning stage, it is possible to ascertain whether there can be mitigation of the loss of habitats and sites at Dungeness that will come from building a new power station. However, unless the site is included in the national policy statement, no energy company will be prepared to take such a risk, given the uncertainty about the detailed cost and the great expense involved in taking a nuclear power station proposal into the planning system, if it is not even clear in the Government’s national policy statement that they consider it to be a site that could be delivered.
Following the Government’s guidance in their own site report for Dungeness, could some consideration be given to including Dungeness in the national policy statement, while continuing to cite the Government’s reservations about loss of habitats, and stating that those would need to be considered and resolved at the planning stage, before the Secretary of State could give approval? If the Government were prepared to make that concession, an energy company might consider the site seriously and think about how a proposal could be taken forward, and the objections overcome.
Many people in my constituency would like Natural England’s objections to be examined more thoroughly. They relate primarily to designations protecting the rare vegetation on the shingle at Dungeness. It is a particularly important site and areas of the land would be lost. However, a new nuclear power station would directly affect only about 1% of the land of the entire special protection area and special area of conservation at Dungeness, so some of us would question whether it is true that a new power station would damage the integrity of the whole site. In relation to the European regulation, that is what should be considered—not necessarily the direct loss of one piece of land, but whether the integrity of the whole site there would be compromised.
Anyone who visits Dungeness A and B stations and looks carefully at the site can see the area of land that was laid out and prepared in advance, in the belief that a C station would come at some future point. It is very clear where the station would go. That land was, largely, disturbed when Dungeness B station was built. It has been protected and fenced in for 30 years or so since that time, and in that time the shingle has reverted to the appearance and the kind of habitat that was there before the station was built. It is believed that some of the plant life and vegetation has returned to the shingle, and that some of the insect life that existed at Dungeness before the B station was built has also returned.
I think that the return of the habitat should be carefully studied, to see whether the vegetated shingle at Dungeness is somewhat more robust than has been believed. Residents of Dungeness and Willie Richardson, when I saw him two weeks ago, have made the point that those who have lived in the community all their lives know that new vegetation springs up. Perhaps it is not such a delicate flower, but a slightly more robust species, albeit that the environment is one where many would find it hard to imagine plant life could grow. It grows and it returns, and that should be considered. The vegetated shingle at Dungeness may seem like a small point, but the jobs of thousands of people in my constituency and in East Sussex hang in the balance because of the interpretation of the regulations affecting the site. That creates a restriction on our ability to build a new station there.
The Government can also set aside consideration of the European regulations on habitats if they believe that there is an overriding national interest that allows them to do so. Indeed, for a number of the eight sites with which the Government are proceeding, they have made exactly that case and said that the national interest is such that development should be allowed. We would like that to happen at Dungeness as well.
The argument has been made that eight other sites can be developed first and that therefore Dungeness should wait. That seems incredible to us. If there is a good case for building the station, why should we wait for other sites to be built before we carry on and build it? Why not say that to proceed with nine sites would be entirely consistent with our view of our energy need? The Dungeness site could be developed before some of the other eight that the Government are considering. If they are prepared to say that there are national interest grounds for allowing the other sites to be developed, why not do the same with Dungeness?
Other countries have been in the same position and allowed national interest to take precedence over the environmental provisions, because they have thought it was the right thing for them. One example in a report submitted to the Government was Baden-Baden airport, where the German Government said that the site needed to be developed. The Government, in considering that, have said that there were not necessarily alternative sites, and that was only one airport site in one location; but no one would pretend that Baden-Baden airport is the lynchpin of the German aviation system or its primary hub airport. The German Government made a discretionary decision to allow that airport to go ahead, and we are asking the British Government to consider a similar case for Dungeness power station.
I have also investigated whether there is a good case for the national grid to have a feed-in point from a new nuclear power station at Dungeness. It is unique among all the nuclear sites that the Government have been considering in being south-east of London and in an area of high energy demand. The new power station would easily supply enough electricity to power the entirety of Kent, and more. There is an imbalance in the energy system. We need more energy coming in from the south. I contacted National Grid to ask its opinion and was told that the charges for connections to the grid are substantially lower in the south-east and on the south coast than in other energy-generating areas such as Scotland—particularly the north of Scotland. In a letter to me, the company said:
“It is more favourable for prospective new generation connecting to our network to locate in the lower cost charging zones, including the South and South East, thereby minimising transmission investment requirements.”
Do the Government not consider it part of the national interest that, in these difficult times, a good economic case can be made for locating a new power station closer to the area of greatest energy demand, particularly one that can be delivered relatively quickly?
The debate on whether Dungeness power station goes forward is based not on whether the local people are for it or against it. They are overwhelmingly in favour. Indeed, in general remarks made earlier in the year about where new stations should go, the Secretary of State said that consideration should be given to whether they can be built alongside existing nuclear sites and whether there is strong local support. Dungeness meets both criteria. It is not that Dungeness should not go forward simply because the Government believe that it is not a credible site or that it could not be delivered before 2025. It is and could be, and that was clearly stated in the Government’s site report. It is not that Dungeness should not go forward because the country does not need new energy capacity. We do, and the Government noted in the site report that the question is whether environmental decisions mean that Dungeness could not be delivered now, not that it could never be delivered.
We return to the environmental and habitat regulations. For many of my constituents, that brings up important questions of how our laws work and the way in which those laws control how we are governed. The regulations were brought into British law as an EU directive. When they were introduced, there was no debate and no local consultation on what they might mean. No one realised that it would effectively result in a block veto on a new power station at Dungeness. It is now years since we went through the process, however, and that is where we are.
I cannot believe that the Government truly knew of the extent of the regulations. Why would Dungeness have been included in the consultation longlist of the original 11 sites if the Government believed that it could never be deployed? That poses considerable questions about the way in which we are governed. The regulations, interpreted by the Government’s advisers, can ignore the views of local people, local councils, Members of Parliament, and perhaps even the private views of Ministers and others in the House. Instead, the regulations take precedence even when no one wants them.
We are left having to fight for something that I believe should be relatively straightforward. However, it is a fight that I am determined to pursue on behalf of my constituents, as many of their livelihoods depend on a new nuclear power station at Dungeness.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this debate. He is a great champion of Dungeness and, indeed, of the whole Romney Marsh area, which is in his constituency. I know that this debate is only the latest of his efforts to fight for his constituents, and I have no doubt that he will continue. My constituency of Bexhill and Battle is adjacent to Romney Marsh, so I know a little of the area. Indeed, I have ridden over it a number of times. It is a spectacular and wonderful part of the country. It is very special.
The debate is important, and my hon. Friend has raised some serious questions. I shall endeavour to respond to them. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who usually deals with nuclear energy matters, is unable to be here, so I speak for him today.
Damian Collins
Speaking of our hon. Friend, I should make it clear that he has offered to meet me separately. I shall be happy to take him up on that offer.
Gregory Barker
There are a number of points of detail that could probably be best advanced in a meeting rather than in debate, and I know that my colleague will be keen to pursue them.
I start by setting out the context for the coalition’s energy policy. The United Kingdom needs a robust mix of all types of clean energy assets—including, as my hon. Friend made clear, new nuclear power stations. We need such a policy in order to achieve the twin goals of energy security and dramatically reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, we wish to decarbonise the whole energy sector by the mid-2030s. As a result, we will need nuclear power.
Nuclear power is a proven low-carbon technology, and it is anticipated that it will play an increasingly important role as we diversify and decarbonise our sources of electricity. Failure to decarbonise and diversify could result in the UK becoming locked into a system of high-carbon generation, which would make it difficult and expensive to meet our 2050 emissions targets.
The nuclear power station at Dungeness has been generating low-carbon electricity for decades, for which we are extremely grateful. We have seen decades of service from the communities at Dungeness, Romney Marsh and the wider area, sometimes from the same families. I understand their concern about the loss of active generating capacity there and their strong interest in seeing a new build. That is perfectly understandable.
My hon. Friend suggests that we should think of the impact on the local economy. As he knows, we assessed sites against criteria that were consulted upon publicly. However, the criteria themselves do not directly cover the economic impact. That does not mean that economic factors are not important, and the accompanying appraisal of sustainability considered the impact of new nuclear power stations on surrounding areas. It noted that employment in the Shepway district council area is lower than the national average, and that a new nuclear power station at Dungeness would bring economic benefits to the area. Unfortunately, Dungeness failed one of the discretionary criteria, and we believe that there are better alternative sites.
The key is obviously planning. In the coming decades, we will need a substantial amount of new, local carbon-energy infrastructure, but it must be built in the right places. To help in this, the Government want a planning system for major infrastructure that is rapid and predictable, but still accountable. We announced our intention to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and to move its expertise into a new major infrastructure planning unit, which will be part of the Planning Inspectorate. Consents for major infrastructure projects will be decided by Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, and based on recommendations from MIPU. That will ensure that decisions are made by those who are democratically elected.
Planning decisions should be taken within a clear policy framework to make them as transparent as possible. The energy national policy statements, ratified by Parliament, will be a blueprint for decision making on applications for development consent for the relevant types of infrastructure. National policy statements will set out Government policy, so that the matter does not need to be reopened for each application, which is what led to delays in the past. National policy statements should also help applicants by giving greater clarity about matters that will be taken into account in making a decision. Our energy national policy statements are currently being consulted on, with the consultation ending on 24 January 2011. The national policy statements will also be scrutinised by Parliament: as set out in the coalition agreement, they will be put before Parliament for ratification.
The nuclear national policy statement identifies sites that the Government consider potentially suitable for the deployment of a new nuclear power station by the end of 2025. That will reduce speculation about where new nuclear power stations may go, and it will allow public engagement and national debate at an early stage in the process. Eight sites are listed. They have been assessed using a process and criteria that were consulted upon in 2008. The assessment was informed through an appraisal of sustainability and a habitats regulations assessment. It was also informed through the input of specialists, such as the regulators and the public and energy companies. After careful consideration, the nominated site at Dungeness, along with sites at Braystones and Kirksanton in Cumbria, were found not to be suitable.
I really do understand the concerns that have been raised by my hon. Friend about our not listing Dungeness. Responses to the consultation on the draft nuclear NPS illustrated the strength of feeling about the importance of Dungeness to local people and, in particular, to the local economy. However, after careful consideration of all the responses, including those from the local authority and EDF Energy, the conclusion has not changed.
None the less, I will preface my explanation with a reminder that we are currently consulting on a revised draft of the nuclear NPS and we will, of course, consider any new evidence that we receive. If my hon. Friend is able to bring forward new compelling evidence and can marshal that evidence, we would be receptive to it and he should certainly discuss that point when he meets my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden. However, the bottom line is that, to date, we have not seen any evidence that is sufficient to take us in a different direction.
Let me say why we have decided, on balance, that Dungeness should be excluded. Dungeness actually passed all but one of the assessment criteria, so I understand that the local community will have a heightened sense of disappointment, given that Dungeness came quite close to being listed. However, Dungeness did not pass the criterion on internationally designated sites of ecological importance. I also have to say that we have concerns about whether the site could be protected from flooding and coastal erosion.
Damian Collins
The Minister makes an important point about flood risk. However, it is true to say that the nuclear site at Dungeness will have to be protected to support the decommissioning of the A and B stations, and the life and decommissioning of the C station will probably take place within that period.
Gregory Barker
That is a perfectly valid point. Nevertheless, there are concerns about the potential defence of the site, particularly given the advent of climate change and the sea-level rises that are due along that whole stretch of coastline.
However, the criterion on which the site failed really centred on the effects on ecological sites that are designated at the highest European level for their ecological importance. As my hon. Friend said, the assessment was carried out in line with the requirements of the habitats directive, which protects such sites.
Dungeness failed because we do not believe that a new nuclear power station could be built there without causing adverse impacts on the integrity of the Dungeness special area of conservation or that adverse impacts could be avoided or even substantially mitigated. Dungeness is the only nominated site that overlaps with a European designated site to such an extent that the avoidance of adverse effects is not possible. Furthermore, it is not considered that mitigation of the effects of direct land take is possible.
My hon. Friend raised the entirely legitimate point that there would actually be a very small amount of encroachment by any new site at Dungeness, and he asked if a smaller site would be acceptable. However, the fact of the matter is that changes on a small amount of land take do not necessarily have an equally small environmental impact. There are other important factors to consider, such as the sensitivity of the receiving environment. The assessment of Dungeness identifies the SAC as a most sensitive area. Natural England’s advice is that even a small area of land take may be deemed to have an adverse effect and that there are no minimum extents defined for whether an adverse effect would occur.
Our conclusion is that, even if a small “footprint” were taken, an adverse effect could not be ruled out, mitigation of any such effect would not be possible, and it would be very difficult to compensate for any such effect, due to the lack of a proven or accepted methodology for providing compensation, a lack of areas that are suitable or sufficient in size for habitat creation, the active role that coastal processes play in maintaining the shingle habitats and the time that it takes shingle vegetation communities to establish themselves successfully.
Damian Collins
In the site report that the Government produced for Dungeness, there is a helpful page of summary of the concerns regarding the D6 criteria. The report notes that some concerns exist:
“due to lack of alternative shingle habitat in the area”.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will probably know, because he knows this particular part of the country, there is an awful lot of shingle there and I think that that is an argument that people have difficulty with.
Gregory Barker
My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly.
The Dungeness SAC is considered to be the most important shingle site in Europe and in fact it is one of the largest shingle expanses in the world. England has a significant proportion of the European total of vegetated shingle and the largest example of a shingle beach in England is at Dungeness, which is approximately 1,600 hectares in size and made up of ice age flint deposits. The pattern of shingle ridges at this site has built up over 5,000 years.
The buried and exposed shingle ridges at Dungeness are exceptional for the succession of unique shingle habitats that they support, as they demonstrate the evolution of such habitats. There are small depression features in the shingle structure at Dungeness, known as open pits, which are thought to be unique in the UK. The shingle also supports fen and open water communities and a large and viable population of great crested newts, which form part of the SAC designation. The site is considered to be one of the best areas in the UK and one of the most diverse and extensive examples of stable vegetated shingle in Europe.
Under the regulations that protect such sites, plans for development that are likely to have significant effects, such as the nuclear NPS, can be adopted only where the relevant authority, which in this case is the Secretary of State, is satisfied that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the protected site. As I have said, following consideration of responses received during the consultation, to date we remain of the view that a new nuclear power station cannot be built at Dungeness without having an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dungeness SAC.
Where such adverse effects cannot be ruled out, a site can be included in the NPS only if there are no alternative solutions; if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, which is a test that must be made under the habitats directive, and if effective compensation can be made. Our assessment has found that at the eight sites on the revised draft nuclear NPS there is potential for adverse effects on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites to be avoided or mitigated. Therefore, those eight sites are alternatives to Dungeness that meet the requirements of the habitats directive, as they better respect the integrity of Natura 2000 sites. I therefore have to say that, given the particular adverse effects in relation to Dungeness and the availability of the other eight sites to contribute towards meeting the need for nuclear-generating stations, the Government do not consider that listing Dungeness is justified. The assessment has also found that it would be difficult to compensate for adverse effects, such as direct habitat loss.
I know that that will come as a disappointment to my hon. Friend, but I also know that he will continue with his campaign. I assure him that, although I have given him our clear and stated view today, we remain open to new evidence.
Sustainable Communities Act 2007
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
Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Turner.
Back in 2007, I was one of the sponsors of the Sustainable Communities Bill, which was so ably steered through its various stages by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who is now a Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office. I know that he would agree that the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 is rightfully the legitimate offspring of more than 120 national organisations, which came together under the umbrella of Local Works.
Pressure for the Act came out of the experience of people up and down this country who had watched their communities decline over the years and who recognised what that meant for their quality of life. At the heart of the problem was the loss of key local services. There was the closure of a fifth of the post office network in just a decade, and the loss of a quarter of our local grocery stores; also, a fifth of local bank branches went over that same time frame. More than 30,000 community retailers were painted out of the picture.
However, that process was not just about the high street or the village store, but about the quality of our public spaces and the run-down of community halls, community centres and children’s playgrounds. In addition, it was about recognising that losing community resources is not only bad for the local environment but impacts on the bigger picture, as it forces people to travel further and further from home to gain access to what used to be on their doorsteps. At the same time, Local Works and its contingent parts observed our country’s increasing disengagement with politics, while also picking up the message that people are prepared to re-engage and get involved if they believe they can make a difference by doing so.
The philosophy behind the drive for what became the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 is simple. First, community decline is a national and ongoing problem, and it will clearly worsen if nothing is done. Secondly, in most instances, the best efforts of local citizens and communities will not be enough to reverse the trend, so Government must help. However, communities are the experts on local problems and the solutions to them, so Government actions must be directed by communities and not central diktat. What was needed was a mechanism by which local people could drive Government action to reverse community decline and promote local sustainability. The Act was and is the vehicle for doing so.
I have said that the Act is the baby of the Local Works coalition. So it is, and I congratulate the coalition, but we should remember that the gestation period was very long and that a succession of hon. Members volunteered to act as midwife along the way. Essentially the same legislation was promoted by Julia Goldsworthy, by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), now Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and by the much-missed David Drew, then MP for Stroud. That demonstrates the cross-party nature of support for the legislation, just as early-day motion signatures and attendance at the Second Reading debate in 2007 demonstrated the strength and depth of that support in all parties.
One thing that united MPs with the organisations and communities so actively campaigning on the issue was the determination that the Act should not be just another consultation exercise. Of course consultation has a valuable place in our political development, but to reverse community decline, we needed something that delivered rather more. The Act sets in law for the first time a bottom-up process in which central Government have a duty to co-operate and reach agreement with the designated selector, the Local Government Association, on which proposals for Government action made by communities and councils will be implemented.
What has happened since the passing of the Act? In October 2008, the previous Government launched the first invitation of proposals. Local Works responded by holding more public meetings across the country, and organisations, communities and individuals lobbied their councils to resolve to use the Act. Some 100 local authorities responded, and in partnership with their communities they drew up 300 proposals for Government action and submitted them to the Local Government Association by the end of July 2009.
The scope and breadth of the proposals is eye-opening. They included measures to protect local post offices, shops, pubs and other suppliers; to increase the sale and production of local food; to protect local public services; to promote local renewable energy, microgeneration, energy efficiency and recycling; and to increase democratic participation. The wide-ranging nature of the proposals showed how enthusiastic communities had become about various aspects of the sustainability agenda.
The Local Government Association shortlisted 199 of the proposals and submitted them to the Government in January this year. Of those 199, Local Works identified 30 that it described as a vision for local sustainability, arguing that it is vital that the Government agree those proposals to protect and create truly sustainable communities. Many of the proposals involve no extra financial burden to the Treasury, as they simply devolve power, give councils new powers or change existing rules. So far, so good.
In preparing for this debate, I read the Hansard report of the Third Reading debate on the Sustainable Communities Bill. It is noteworthy that Members from all parties regarded the Bill as important legislation, especially for a private Member’s Bill. It is also noteworthy how many of them—including Ministers in the current coalition Government—looked forward to seeing the Act’s impact. There was a sense of urgency in the Chamber on that day.
The situation in which we find ourselves is therefore astonishing and extremely disappointing. To date, no negotiations have been reported between Government and the Local Government Association, as required by the Act, to reach agreement on the shortlisted proposals. Delaying doing good is always a cause for concern, but I believe that in this case there is an additional danger. Many people have spent time and energy getting involved in identifying how the Act can deliver for communities throughout the country. The feedback I have seen shows that some of those people are becoming extremely disillusioned, and disillusionment is often followed by disengagement.
To demonstrate that point, I shall quote from a few councillors and organisations worried by what they see as unnecessary delay. Councillor Anne Ward of South Hams district council said:
“It’s a disgrace that there’s been no movement on this for over a year—makes you wonder why we all bothered!”
Councillor Richard Robinson of Broxtowe borough council said:
“It has now been over a year and three months since proposals were submitted and yet they have still not been dealt with by the Government. There is now widespread grave concern that the huge numbers of people who put their time and energy into getting involved in the Act are becoming disillusioned and disengaged.”
Councillor Clare Hopkinson of Warwickshire county council said:
“It is unacceptable that government moves so slowly.”
Councillor Elaine Hall of Moor Monkton parish council said:
“It has now been a year and three months since these proposals were put before government and we need to see some action.”
Councillor Robert Dyson of Shadwell parish council wrote to the Minister, saying:
“I gather that 300 ideas were finally put forward to the last government some 15 months ago, since which time there has been neither feedback nor action.”
Tellingly, he went on:
“You are now part of a new Government, which is promoting the idea of the ‘Big Society’. If the idea is to be something more than a mere slogan, can you please give me some assurance that some active consideration will be given to the ideas put forward to promote local sustainability?”
Ruth Bond, chair of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, said:
“We now are encouraging the government to ensure the Act is properly implemented by dealing with the proposals. It is important that this is done soon as it is over a year since the proposals were submitted…When our members and others start to see results at a local level their involvement will have meant something and more people will be inspired to engage in this new democratic process. However if things drag on there is a serious risk that disillusion will creep in and further damage public involvement in democracy.”
Mike Benner, chief executive of the Campaign for Real Ale, said:
“Since early last year, many communities and councils, as well as our members and branches, have been involved in the Act. Hundreds of exciting ideas for government action to promote thriving communities, many of those relating to protecting and enhancing local pubs and local beer, were submitted as proposals. However, we are concerned that the process is dragging. It is over a year since the first set of proposals was submitted. Our members and others who got involved are starting to ask what is going on. Because of this we believe it is vital that the government deals with the proposals made under the Act urgently.”
I have similar comments from the chief executive of the Rural Shops Alliance, the director of Unlock Democracy, the chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores, the chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the executive director of Friends of the Earth.
A while ago, to try to stimulate action, I tabled early-day motion 178, which calls on the Government to deal expeditiously with the proposals under the Act. That motion is now supported by 236 Members from across the parties in the House—by far the highest number of signatures for any early-day motion this Session. I understand that the Government have said that it might be next year before all the proposals are dealt with. If so, the disillusionment I have demonstrated will deepen.
It also raises another question about process. Before the end of this year, the Government must announce the timetable for the second invitation of proposals required by the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Act 2010.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on such an important issue. On process, does he agree that local authorities should have the option to submit proposals when they want, so that the 2007 Act creates a continuous, streamlined process?
Martin Caton
It will be a continuous process, but I support the timetabling in the original Act, because it ensures that projects are considered and should have ensured that the Government were engaged by now with the Local Government Association.
I mentioned the consequences of the 2010 Act. That Act will mean that a new tranche of proposals will be invited very soon. As I say, if the Government do not pull their finger out, they will have to announce the second invitation before having dealt with the proposals from the first. That will send out all the wrong signals about the Government’s commitment to sustainable communities. Let us get things moving right now.
I recall that the Minister was at the Bill’s Second Reading debate. He intervened on the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on the issue of garden grabbing—a subject I know is close to his heart. In responding, the Bill’s promoter described the Minister as
“a well-known champion of localism”—[Official Report, 19 January 2010; Vol. 455, c. 1041.]
Today, I am asking him to prove that that description is accurate.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Turner, and it is a privilege to respond to the debate, which has been initiated by the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton). Throughout my time as an MP, and before then, he has been a passionate advocate for all things local and sustainable. Indeed, he was described to me just this morning—I know he will take this as the compliment that it was intended to be—as being the new David Drew, to whom he referred earlier.
The hon. Gentleman has the admiration of the House not only for helping to secure the passage of the Sustainable Communities Bill, which he did with the now Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), but for rightly keeping up the pressure on the Government to take the required action. I join him in paying tribute to the Local Works coalition, which has been absolutely indefatigable from beginning to end. It was a tortuous process to get the Bill passed, and it is quite right that he is taking a continuing interest in ensuring that the provisions are enacted.
In responding to the hon. Gentleman’s passionate speech, I would like to do three things. First, I reiterate my personal view of the importance of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007—indeed, the Government share that view. Secondly, I am pleased to say that I can give him substantial reassurances on the points he raised. I hope that that will also reassure people listening to the debate. Thirdly, I shall discuss how, in the next round, we can respond to some of the bureaucratic problems that have beset the process to ensure that we can address the issues more speedily in future.
I supported the Bill during its passage through Parliament. I regard the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 as one of the most important pieces of legislation to be enacted in the past decade. The principles established by the Act mean that local people have the right to know what is being spent and done on their behalf in their communities. Armed with that information, local people should have the right to suggest alternative ways of proceeding. Local people’s right to have their suggestions seriously considered, rather than rebuffed, is the essence of a new approach to government that is fundamental and will change how government is done. I am determined to ensure not only that we follow those principles in the decisions we make about the Act, but that such principles underpin the localism Bill that will shortly be introduced to the House. It should no longer be possible for people in authority to say to community groups and local community institutions, “You can’t do what you want to do just because we say so.” Such an approach is not terribly good parenting and it is certainly not good government. We need to move away from it once and for all.
On the hon. Gentleman’s particular concerns about the timetable, he is right that the first invitation was issued in October 2008. Some 301 submissions were received by the LGA in July 2009 and a short list of 199 was supplied just before Christmas, on 23 December 2009. I share his frustration. When we came into government, I was pleased to be appointed to the portfolio with responsibility for the Act. Frankly, I hoped to be able to pick up a substantial body of work that had been done from December to May and to find that things had been properly scrutinised and were ready to be enacted. My inheritance was that no decisions had been taken and no decisions were ready to take.
Although incoming Ministers do not have access to previous Ministers’ papers—and rightly so—my understanding was that only about a dozen of the proposals were minded to be introduced with any particular speed. I will be candid with hon. Members: that was a disappointment to me when I came into office. However, I was determined that we should not simply progress a select, hand-picked few proposals that might catch the eye of Ministers, but that we should take a comprehensive approach and adopt the demeanour of wanting to say yes, rather than trying to find reasons to say no. Far from there having been no negotiations with the LGA selector, I have, in fact, been through all the proposals with it. We have already agreed with the LGA selector on half the proposals.
Martin Caton
I have no doubt about the Minister’s commitment to localism, but I am a little worried that he says that there have been negotiations with the LGA. Openness and transparency are at the heart of the Bill, and the process by which the selector—the LGA—chose which measures it wanted to send on to the Minister was done openly in open meetings. He now informs me that there have been negotiations, but they have not been reported to anybody. They have certainly not been reported to those bodies and organisations that are the driving force behind making the Act work.
Greg Clark
In fact, the term “negotiations” is a misnomer because we found it easy to agree. There is positive volition on the part of the Government to say yes to as many of these proposals as we can. Within the next few weeks, I hope to be able to agree—I am meeting the chairman of the selector again next week—with the selector on all the proposals made under the Act. What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely correct: if we are to move on to the next round—as, indeed, we will be doing—we ought to have dealt with the current proposals. I have been very careful and have personally gone through every proposal made—there are a lot of them and they consume much paper—and I hope to be able to give a positive response to about two thirds of the proposals selected by the selector. That relates to two thirds of all short-listed proposals. I hope that our response, which again I hope will be made soon, will be very positive.
My Department’s business plan commits us to making these decisions by the end of January 2011. That is our published commitment. As I say, it is a source of frustration that more preparatory work was not done by the previous Government. I do not want to make a party political point; it is more of an administrative point. It would have been nice not to have had to start from scratch on the matter but, in the time we have had, we have made pretty good progress. I would like to be in a position to make that announcement well before the published requirement of the end of January 2011. I would much prefer to be able to do it before the end of the year—before Christmas—and I will be pushing for that.
Martin Caton
What the Minister is saying is very welcome indeed. I would just like to challenge him on two things. He is being a little unfair on Ministers in the previous Government. Obviously he has not seen the papers, but I think considerable progress was made—although admittedly that was initially on, as he says, about a dozen projects. More importantly, is he saying that we will have the announcement on the projects before the end of this year?
Greg Clark
That is my intention. I should reiterate that our public commitment is to making the decisions by 31 January 2011, but I am doing everything I can to bring that forward. If we can make the decision before the end of the year—before Christmas even—that is what I would like to do. I am personally working with my officials and with the LGA selector to try to do that. In any event, the published self-imposed deadline of 31 January is a backstop, but I would like to use best endeavours to bring that forward.
In response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on the subsequent invitation for the next round, I would like to make a simultaneous announcement on the arrangements for the next round of submissions from community groups across the country. It is not a one-off exercise, but the beginning of a different way of approaching government, and I am absolutely determined to build on it and go further. We want to do that as soon as possible, and certainly before we are obliged to do so.
Rehman Chishti
What proposals are there to ensure that more proposals come forward from community groups and citizens, rather than simply from councils?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend touches on an important point. I pay tribute to the selector panel and, in particular, to Councillor Keith Mitchell, who has put a great deal of effort and personal commitment into scrutinising the measures and putting them forward. Here we get on to the wider agenda, because the principle embodied in the 2007 Act is that communities of all descriptions, including, but not exclusively, local government, should have access to the machinery of government so that they can unblock the barriers that prevent them doing what they could do. I want to look at how we can extend that.
One of my earliest impressions when I became a Minister was that I had access to a wide range of talented people in the Department who are there to help turn ideas into reality and policy ideas into law. However, my view, which I suspect those hon. Members present share, is that the best ideas are not the exclusive preserve of Ministers, or even of senior officials, in Whitehall, but actually come from people in communities. It seems to me, therefore, that the support and advice that Ministers have access to ought also to be available to people in communities. That is a commitment that I have made and am working on so that we can, almost literally, turn government upside down in the Department, to make help and support available to people in communities, rather than being exclusively for Ministers to help them get things done. After all, if Ministers need help in overcoming some of the barriers, goodness knows that people in communities will, too.
I have established a team that we refer to as “barrier busters”. During the last Communities and Local Government questions, I extended an invitation to Members who have examples of burdens, rules, regulations and barriers that are standing in the way of local action, and which only central Government are able to remove, to contact the Department so that we can give them access to people who can help them to look at the regulations and the law or to bang heads together in Whitehall if that is necessary. We will not always succeed, but we will certainly do the best we can to achieve that.
The opportunity in the next round is to make access to our “bureaucracy busters” more widely available across the country and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham suggested, to see whether we can ensure that we do not need to wait for a long time before acting on good requests. If something is a good idea, we should get on with it.
By coincidence, I happened to have a meeting with Local Works and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner this morning to discuss how we can really build on the ambitions and the early success of the Act to go ever further and better in future. I hope that we can make some improvements to the system that will make the Act even more effective in the months ahead.
Martin Caton
I welcome the invitation to visit the bureaucracy busters. On the theme of consulting Members of Parliament, if it proves that the Minister cannot deliver the accelerated timetable that he clearly hopes to deliver, would he be prepared to meet a cross-party delegation of Members to discuss how we move forward?
Greg Clark
I do not need to make it contingent on that eventuality: I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman at any time and with any colleagues who have a contribution to make. MPs are leaders in their communities and have experience and knowledge, as he has in spades, about some of the obstacles we need to overcome, so I would be happy to meet him and other colleagues in the weeks ahead. Our formal commitment, which I ought to respect, is to make a decision by the end of January, but I will do everything in my power to make that earlier.
The approach embodied in the 2007 Act that local and specific approaches to problems can provide lessons on how things can be done better by other communities, not only in that area, but across the country—possibly around the world—is a powerful way of thinking about government. It is about helping with the specifics, learning the lessons and then taking practical action. I am determined that our response will respect the spirit of the Act and indeed will imbue our whole approach to government. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter today and hope that all Members, and everyone who has given their time, effort and commitment to the process, will shortly see that there is an even greater prospect of success in the future than we have heard today.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
“Skills for Sustainable Growth”
(14 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
Today I am publishing “Skills for Sustainable Growth”—the Government’s new strategy for skills. The strategy takes full account of responses to the skills consultation which I announced on July 22.
Our ambition is to transform the nation’s performance so that we have a world-class skills base that provides a consistent source of competitive advantage. As skills can also transform life chances, we must make sure that everyone can access skills opportunities to extend their wider benefits throughout society. Drawing on the responses to our consultation exercise, our goal is to build a skills system where learners are in the driving seat. We understand that in a modern economy, businesses and individuals are better than Government at deciding what skills they need.
The strategy is based on the coalition principles of fairness, shared responsibility and increasing freedom. Funding for skills will focus strongly on those with the greatest need. For others, there will be a shared responsibility between employers, citizens and Government for ensuring skill needs are met, and an expectation of co-funding with contributions that reflect the benefit each receives. To underpin the informed choices individuals and employers invest in, we will improve access to information about skills through a new all-age careers service. A reformed skills system, freed from unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, will be better able to respond to their demands.
Apprenticeships will be at the heart of the system we will build, supported by a system of valued qualifications. There will be a new role for employers in shaping the skills system and particular support for small and medium-sized enterprises. We need employers to get involved, to shape the system and utilise the skills of their work force, so that they get the most from their investment. We will support them in implementing proposals they make for raising their game on skills.
As a principle of fairness, Government retain a responsibility to ensure that everyone has the basic skills they need to access employment and participate in society. In supporting learners we will offer every adult a lifelong learning account which provides access to the new FE student loans. To inform empowered learners by providing independent advice and guidance we will create the all-age new careers service because we know that good careers guidance is the basis for increasing social mobility. We will also develop a new model for adult and community learning—the budget for which will be protected—that will support the development of the big society and create progression routes to formal learning.
The strategy sets out a vision for a radical reform of the skills system, transforming and simplifying the skills landscape, and introducing new freedoms and flexibilities for providers. Above all we must abandon the culture of bureaucratic central planning and allow the energy, commitment and the resourcefulness of individuals and employers full rein.
Copies of “Skills for Sustainable Growth” will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
ECOFIN (17 November 2010)
(14 years 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 will be held in Brussels on 17 November 2010. The following items are on the agenda:
Directive and Regulation on VAT treatment of insurance and financial services
ECOFIN will hold an initial discussion on proposals to modernise the VAT exemption for financial services, reflecting market developments over the last 30 years. In addition to a proposal to amend the VAT directive, the European Commission has proposed a detailed regulation that would ensure the law is applied consistently across the EU.
The Government are keen to promote economic growth and competitiveness through modernisation of the legislation, increasing certainty and reducing compliance costs for business, and ensuring fairness of treatment, while at the same time protecting UK revenues and limiting opportunities for avoidance.
The Government will continue to seek harmonised VAT exemption for financial derivatives and for investment management aimed at retail investors, as well as equal treatment for outsourcing across the whole sector. The Government will also reject any proposals to remove Government choice in respect of the option to tax.
Implementation of the 2009 budget
The Court of Auditors will present its annual report. The UK continues to press the case for value for money and greater accountability in the EU budget.
Follow-up to October European Council
ECOFIN will take note of the deliberations of the European Council, especially as regards the taskforce report on economic governance and levies and taxes on financial institutions.
The European Council endorsed the taskforce report which explicitly excludes the UK from any sanctions flowing from economic governance reforms. With regards to levies and taxes on financial institutions, the Government strongly support national levies on banks and other tax measures where appropriate to complement wider reforms aimed at reducing the probability and impact of banking failures.
Follow-up to the G20 Seoul Summit on 11-12 November
Ministers will hold an exchange of views on the main outcomes of the G20 summit, which is scheduled to discuss the following issues of interest to ECOFIN: the global economy and imbalances, the framework for growth, reform of the International Monetary Fund, financial regulation, and trade.
Financing of measures against climate change
ECOFIN will adopt conclusions on financing of measures against climate change. The Government support the conclusions, which will build credible action on the ground and strengthen the EU position at the UNFCCC climate negotiations in Cancun in December.
Pensions
The Council will adopt conclusions on a report on pensions. The Government welcome this report: it emphasises the importance of fiscal sustainability and extending working lives; and that the focus of EU activity in this area should be on exchanging country experiences and collecting comparable data and information.
EU statistics
The Council will adopt conclusions on the annual report on EU statistics, which reviews the progress made on statistical governance. It welcomes the support given by Eurostat to provide assistance to Greece in the area of statistics; the efforts of the Greek authorities to correct deficiencies in this area; the recommendations of the Van Rompuy taskforce to strengthen EU statistics; and progress made in the revision of the European system of accounts. The Government are content with the conclusions as drafted.
Baltic Sea area
The European Investment Bank will give a presentation on its contribution to the European strategy for the Baltic sea area, followed by an exchange of views by Council. The Government welcome the work of the EIB in the Baltic sea region, which aims to make the region environmentally sustainable, prosperous, accessible, attractive, safe and secure.
Representation of the Council at the G20 ministerial meetings
Ministers will discuss the presidency proposal that the EU should be represented by the Commission in the G20 finance ministerial meetings. The Government do not see a need to change the existing arrangements, whereby the EU presidency represents the EU and the Commission is an observer.
Meeting of the EU and EFTA Ministers of Finance and Economy
Ministers will meet their European free trade area counterparts and discuss topical issues of mutual interest, including financial regulation and intelligent fiscal consolidation.
Parliamentary Oral Question (Correction)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
My hon. Friend, the spokeswoman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the House of Lords, Baroness Rawlings, has made the following written ministerial statement:
The answers I provided to supplementary questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch on Ofcom on 11 November 2010, Official Report, column 277 were incorrect.
I would like to clarify that Ofcom remains in schedule 7 of the Public Bodies Bill and there are no plans to remove it. There are certain functions that the Government intend should remain outside the scope of future reviews and the powers in the Bill. These include the economic and network regulatory functions of bodies such as Ofcom, where the Government wish to ensure that regulatory stability is maintained.
The Government have identified several of Ofcom’s duties which should be amended or removed. The purpose of these changes is to return the policy setting role to the Secretary of State, to reduce unnecessary expense and to avoid duplication. These proposals do not include changes to Ofcom’s economic and network regulatory functions. To facilitate these proposals Ofcom is named in schedules 4 and 5 of the Public Bodies Bill.
Children's Workforce Development Council
(14 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
The Department for Education is to cease funding work force development activity through the Children’s Workforce Development Council, and will bring CWDC’s ongoing core activities into the Department.
We have taken this decision as part of the arm’s length body review; it reflects our commitment to channel as much resource as possible directly to the front line, and to ensure that central Government Departments are directly accountable. The Secretary of State has written to the chair to confirm this decision, to explain that the CWDC will cease to be a non-departmental public body and to say that he has asked departmental officials to work closely with CWDC on a transition plan for the transfer of functions and responsibilities, in the expectation that all such transfers will be completed by 2012. It will be important during the transition period to continue to engage employers in work force development.
In the Secretary of State’s letter, he has taken the opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of CWDC’s staff and the organisation’s significant contribution in leading work force reform and improving life chances for children and young people since it was established in 2005.
Waste Water National Policy Statement
(14 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The Planning Act 2008 provides for national policy statements (NPSs) that set out Government policy for particular types of development. It requires the draft NPSs to be publicised, consulted on, and laid in Parliament with the intention of enabling public and parliamentary debate to take place.
Public consultation on the waste water NPS for England started today, 16 November 2010, lasting for 14 weeks. At the same time I have laid it before Parliament for a period of scrutiny (the “relevant period”) ending 17 May 2011.
The waste water NPS sets out our need for waste water infrastructure to protect public health and ensure the health of our water environment with the consequent benefits for our water supply and biodiversity. Although we intend to slow the growth in demand for new waste water infrastructure in England, through the use of sustainable drainage systems for example, we will need to continue investment in new waste water infrastructure. This will modernise outdated infrastructure, meet future demands from a growing population and the effects of climate change, and fulfil our EU obligations.
Two projects of potential national significance have been identified through this process: the new sewage treatment works at Deephams in north-east London and a sewerage collection and a transfer scheme along the Thames in London (the Thames tunnel). In line with the Planning Act 2008, the waste water national policy statement has been drafted on the basis that once the particular projects are designated, development consent will be determined by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). The Government announced in June 2010 their intention to amend the Planning Act 2008 and abolish the IPC and replace it with a major infrastructure planning unit (MIPU) within the Planning Inspectorate. Until such time as the Planning Act 2008 is amended, the IPC will continue as set out in that Act
Publication of the draft waste water NPS follows my statement of 7 September 2010 in which I indicated that development consent for the Thames tunnel should be dealt with under the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects. I intend to bring the tunnel within the direct scope of the Planning Act 2008 by amending the thresholds in section 14(3), Part 3 of the Act 2008. I plan to consult on the draft order in early 2011. Thames Water also commenced in September a separate consultation on the site specific issues raised by the proposed development of the Thames tunnel in September 2010.
The waste water national planning statement (NPS) is available on the DEFRA website at the following link:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste-water/index.htm
Adult Social Care
(14 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
We are today publishing the Government’s plans for adult social care services—“A Vision for Adult Social Care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens”. Alongside the social care vision, the Department has launched a consultation on “Transparency in outcomes: a framework for adult social care”—a new strategic approach to quality and outcomes in adult social care.
The vision sets the context for the future development of social care services. It is the first step, followed by the Law Commission’s work on reforming the legal framework next spring and the Commission on Funding of Care and Support next summer, towards the White Paper on care and support at the end of 2011. This will set out plans to establish a modern and financially sustainable framework for care and support, and the requirements for new legislation.
The vision sets out a new direction for adult social care, putting people, personalised services and outcomes centre stage and returning social care to its foundations of reciprocity and constructive action by individuals on behalf of the whole community. It sets a challenge for councils to provide a personal budget, preferably as a direct payment, for everyone who is eligible by April 2013. As councils devolve commissioning responsibility to individuals via personal budgets, we expect them to work with providers to broaden the market of care services, particularly small social enterprises, so that individuals can exercise real choice over care services. A consequence of personalisation is that people will increasingly take their own decisions about how to balance their new freedoms with a sensible approach to risk. The vision also calls for an increase in preventive activity in local communities, to keep people independent for longer and contribute to building the big society.
The vision includes examples of how councils, working in partnership with local organisations and people, can develop innovative, efficient services. It encourages people to look to themselves and their communities, not just the state, for solutions and in doing so to grow the big society. It alerts councils to their new leadership role in health improvement and health and well-being boards and the opportunities this offers.
Councils should use the solid basis for social care funding delivered by the recent spending review as a springboard to reform services. In recognition of the pressures on the social care system in a challenging local government settlement, the coalition Government have allocated an additional £2 billion by 2014-15 to support the delivery of social care. This means, with an ambitious programme of efficiency, that there is enough funding available both to protect people’s access to services and deliver new approaches to improve quality and outcomes.
Plans for service reform were outlined in the social care consortium’s partnership agreement, “Think Local, Act Personal” launched at the national children’s and adult services conference on 4 November 2010. Led by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the local government group on behalf of 21 social care organisations, it describes the next steps for councils to personalise services and provide more comprehensive information for people who need advice on care and support services. In addition to this, the consortium has also produced a number of best practice guides.
The key principles for adult social care described in the vision are:
prevention: empowered people and strong communities will work together to maintain independence. Where the state is needed, it helps people to retain and regain their independence;
personalisation: individuals not institutions take control of their care. Personal budgets, preferably as direct payments, are provided to all eligible people. Information about care and support is available for all local people, regardless of whether or not they fund their own care;
partnership: care and support delivered in a partnership between individuals, communities, the voluntary sector, the NHS and councils, including wider support services, such as housing;
plurality: the variety of people’s needs is matched by diverse service provision, with a broad market of high-quality service providers;
protection: there are sensible safeguards against the risk of abuse or neglect. Risk is no longer an excuse to limit people’s freedom;
productivity: greater local accountability will drive improvements and innovation to deliver higher productivity and high-quality care and support services. A focus on publishing information about agreed quality outcomes will support transparency and accountability; and
people: we can draw on a work force who can provide care and support with skill, compassion and imagination, and who are given the freedom and support to do so. We need the whole work force, including care workers, nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and social workers, alongside carers and the people who use services, to lead the changes set out in the vision.
Copies of the vision and the consultation document have been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.
Right to Request Social Enterprise Scheme
(14 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I am announcing a third, and final, wave of 32 national health service organisations that will join the Department of Health’s “Right to Request” social enterprise scheme.
The “Right to Request” gives all primary and community care staff employed by primary care trusts (PCTs) the right to put a request to their PCT board to set up a social enterprise to deliver health and social care services. Each of these organisations has received the approval of their PCT and strategic health authority (SHA) to pursue plans to set up a social enterprise. With appropriate support, these projects should go on to become successful and financially viable social enterprises that strengthen the delivery of tailored health and social care services in the NHS.
This scheme empowers staff to harness their entrepreneurial skills and exercise leadership to improve services for local communities through social enterprise.
The projects include a wide range of primary and community care for children, families and vulnerable people, such as dental, physiotherapy, bereavement and podiatry services. The proposals range from single service lines to whole provider arms.
These latest projects join the existing group of 29 “Right to Request” projects, bringing the total number participating in the scheme to 61. This represents a major milestone in the delivery of the White Paper commitment to create a vibrant social enterprise sector, and a substantial move towards the transformation of community services.
The growth of social enterprise is a priority for the Government. Social enterprises play a vital role in delivering innovative services and creating capable and confident communities. I am committed to enabling these organisations to have a significant role in the running of health and social care services across the country.
A list of the third wave of projects has been placed in the Library.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Annual Report)
(14 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before Parliament the 2009-10 annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the search power introduced to support the measures in the Act to seize and forfeit criminal cash.
The report gives the appointed person’s opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. I am pleased that the appointed person, Andrew Clarke, has expressed satisfaction with the operation of the search power and has found that there is nothing to suggest that the procedures are not being followed in accordance with the Act.
From 1 April 2009 to the end of March 2010 over £63 million in cash was seized by law enforcement agencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland under powers in the Act. The seizures are subject to further investigation, and the cash is subject to further judicially approved detention, before forfeiture in the magistrates court. These powers are a valuable tool in the fight against crime and the report shows that the way they are used has been, and will continue to be, closely monitored.
Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office.