House of Commons
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.
Daylight Saving Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
13:41 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 123 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
13:55 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 92 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Rebecca Harris
(Castle Point) (Con): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As someone with a few years’ experience in the Chamber, you, Mr Speaker, are probably more familiar with the measure than I am, as this is far from being the first time the House has debated this subject. The question of how we best use our daylight hours has been debated for well over 100 years. Daylight saving proposals in one form or another have been brought to the House or to the other place on many occasions and by many more experienced and more distinguished parliamentarians than me.
Winston Churchill introduced single/double summer time during the war to save fuel and let people get home more safely during the blackout. In more recent memory, the measure was proposed by Nigel Beard and David Kidney as Labour Back-Benchers. Sir John Butterfill came closest to success in 1996, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) introduced a similar Bill on two occasions. Finally, I will not leave out my good friend Lord Tanlaw, who describes himself as a Scottish crofter and sits on the Cross Benches, and who, since introducing the measure, has become known as the Time Lord.
The fact that daylight saving has been championed by people all over the country and across the political spectrum suggests that it is not a party political issue. Hon. Members will note the remarkable range of more than 300 organisations backing the Bill as part of the Lighter Later coalition—such unusual bedfellows as the Kennel Club, Greenpeace, the British Beer and Pub Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the AA, the Football Association and Parentline Plus.
The campaign has garnered enormous public support, so much so that yesterday the superb Lighter Later campaigners delivered 9,000 individually written letters to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I support the Bill. In the early days, organisations such as ROSPA did much to support measures on safety grounds, but does the hon. Lady agree that, with the challenge of climate change and the importance of reducing our carbon emissions, it is more important than ever that the bizarre practices that apply to private Members’ business on Fridays do not prevent the Bill from getting a full and proper hearing and reaching the statute book?
Rebecca Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. I agree. The arguments in favour of the measure now are more salient than they ever have been. I will go on to outline some of those issues, including the climate change impact that she is concerned about.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills yesterday received letters from people throughout the country—small children who like playing outside after school, elderly people who want to feel safer walking in the afternoon, local football teams who cannot afford to light their pitches, seasonal affective disorder sufferers who long for happier winters, and many doctors keen to reduce road traffic accidents and generally improve public health.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am very sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s Bill. Has she had representations, as I have, from amateur astronomers and from the strictly orthodox Jewish community?
Rebecca Harris
I can confirm that I have had two representations from amateur astronomers, saying that in the height of summer the measure could delay their ability to gaze at the stars for an extra hour, and I have had representations from the orthodox Jewish community that in the deep midwinter there could be problems in getting to work on time after morning prayers, which are daylight-sensitive.
I recognise and appreciate those concerns, and they are all the more reason why I call for a review. Those might not be insurmountable problems, and employers could be understanding in the darker weeks of winter. All those communities could, of course, get all the other benefits that the Bill would bring for their families and their children, so there might be some common ground.
Letters have been sent by parents who simply want their children to be safer on the roads and by environmentalists who are keen to cut carbon emissions. All those people, despite the different benefits they hope to obtain, believe that a small adjustment to our clocks could not only save scores of lives on the roads but make us happier, healthier and wealthier as a nation. Sadly, previous attempts to make progress on the issue have foundered, in peacetime at least.
Previous Bills have been talked out, kicked into the grass or had their Government support removed at the last moment. All too often, we have cast the facts aside, and emotion and, even, suspicion seem to have driven the House. Some hon. Members have seemed keener to explore the minutiae of marginal procedural issues or focused purely on the measure’s effects in deep winter and high summer, as though there were no benefits on those days or during the nine other months of the year—anything, rather than embrace the substance of the proposal.
Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill, of which I am an unqualified and enthusiastic supporter. Does she agree that, in addition to bringing benefits to millions of people throughout the United Kingdom, it is likely to increase Government revenues by hugely boosting the tourist trade?
Rebecca Harris
Absolutely, and, as my hon. Friend will know, I have received an enormous number of representations from the tourist trade, which has some quite interesting claims about the measure’s benefits. The Bill might also benefit the retail sector and the leisure sector, including sporting organisations, so its revenue potential is enormous.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
My hon. Friend seems rather dismissive of the concerns of those in a constituency such as mine—where opinion seems evenly divided for and against the change—who are genuinely worried, for example, about children having to wait for school buses at the end of country lanes on many more dark mornings than they do now. Those concerns cannot simply be ignored or regarded as procedural.
Rebecca Harris
Perhaps I should not have taken that intervention at this stage, as I shall cover that issue in great detail later, but all the evidence shows that there are three times as many accidents among children in the evening rush hour as there are in the morning, which is why all the road safety organisations very much support the measure.
Previous debates have often generated more heat than daylight. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but it had to be done, I am afraid. Indeed, I have experienced some quite passionate debate myself. Little did I imagine, when I innocently put my name into the ballot for private Members’ Bills, that I would later be attacked for being a barbecue-obsessed Essex girl or, worse, a national traitor trying to take us on to Berlin time.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
On the German question, as a Welshman who comes from a constituency equidistant from northern Scotland and the Isle of Wight, I know that opinion is divided but that the vast majority are in favour. Does the hon. Lady, like me, dismiss the argument that we are any less British during the summer, when we move on to European summer time? I am sure that the European fans in her party will benefit from the measure, because many of them go to Europe anyway during the colder months.
Rebecca Harris
I certainly agree. There has been some debate about whether I am casting aside tradition by suggesting that we should no longer be on Greenwich mean time for five winter months. I am a great traditionalist and very proud of the fact that we gave Greenwich mean time to the world, but within only 50 years of our establishing GMT we realised that it was not quite appropriate to the way in which we lived our lives and moved the clocks forward in the summer months.
The issue is not about Berlin or getting rid of tradition; it is entirely about what is right for the residents of these islands and nothing else. It involves a simple question about how we should best use our daylight hours. Time is the most precious resource, and I am grateful to the large number of hon. Members who have given up their precious time today, despite the weather, to be in the Chamber. I refer in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr Brine), who has broken off his paternity leave to join us, and I am sure the House will join me in congratulating him on the arrival of baby William.
We cannot grow time, make more of it than we have or create additional daylight, but it is up to us to utilise both as best we can. We in this House determine what time regime the country uses to regulate everyone’s lives, and all I ask is that we ensure we set our clocks to everyone’s best advantage. Given the wealth of arguments in favour of change, the Government should surely ensure that they have it right. My Bill asks, therefore, for a review of whether we would be better off moving our clocks ahead one hour in winter, in summer or both.
Essentially, we would move an hour of daylight from the morning, when people use it least, to the afternoon or evening, when we could make better use of it, and, as most of us wake up well after sunrise for nine months a year and go to bed long after sunset, we could make better use of our daylight hours. As I have said, the reasons for change are stronger today than ever, which might explain why so many colleagues, particularly newly elected colleagues, are present to support the Bill.
Much of the evidence for change, gathered by a range of organisations and respected experts, seems to be strong and clear—some of it, unequivocal—but there are gaps, and too many people remain sceptical about the benefits that proponents of the measure claim. Without a clearer picture of the advantages and disadvantages, that might always remain the case: the status quo would be maintained, and we might miss out once again.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for her Bill, but does she recognise the concerns of constituents such as mine, who experience greater antisocial behaviour in the summer months, when it is lighter later, already, and are deeply concerned that such behaviour will extend well beyond 11 o’clock? She might cover such concerns later in her speech.
Rebecca Harris
Antisocial behaviour is a great scourge, and I understand and appreciate those concerns. People are out more and make more noise in the warmth of summer, but the difficulty that we and the police have is that quite a lot of youngsters escape under the cover of darkness. There is a big spike in antisocial behaviour not just in the summer months, but around Halloween and bonfire night, so there is no clear relationship between such behaviour and daylight hours.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
In gathering evidence on the issue, will my hon. Friend ensure that the evidence of those who play and watch sport is taken into account? Sport continuing later can help to deal with antisocial behaviour, so today, with our cricketers in Australia, will she ensure that the evidence recognises how frustrating it is to millions of cricket fans throughout the country when bad light stops play?
Rebecca Harris
There is strong evidence that increased youth participation in sport, in particular, can reduce antisocial behaviour and low-level crime by about 18%. That is a very strong point.
The central problem with our previous attempts to introduce daylight saving has been an absence of all the evidence, so I have sought to draft my Bill differently. My Bill, unlike previous measures, does not enforce an immediate change or seek to enforce my views or those of my colleagues on anyone; it simply asks the Government to conduct a cross-Government study of the benefits of the move.
I should like to investigate the current asymmetry of the clock change, which curiously moves us on to winter time two months ahead of the shortest day and continues for three months after. The clause might be seen as a special gift to the hon. Member for—I shall say “the western isles”, because I do not wish to irk Scottish Members any more than is absolutely necessary—Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). That is a particular interest of his, so I hope that he will support at least that measure in my Bill.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
May I say how pleased I am that the hon. Lady has introduced the Bill? I shall be here to support it later. On the Scottish question, if I can put it like that, given that the hon. Gentleman whom she has just cited is, in particular, anxious for increased independence from the UK, should we not have an option that enables Scotland to have its own time zone if it disagrees with the rest of us?
Rebecca Harris
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, because I do not think that it would benefit Scotland, or any other part of the British isles, to have a separate time zone. From the evidence that has been gathered to date, it appears that this move would benefit Scotland over and above England and Wales. The short length of Scotland’s daylight hours in winter makes it all the more critical that they are deployed better. Road traffic accident statistics suggest strongly that to do so would save the lives of Scottish children.
The benefits for tourism could be greater for Scotland, because it is dependent on tourism for 11% of its economy, whereas the figure for England is 3%. There are numerous other benefits, such as saving energy. It would be a mistake for us to see the move as a disbenefit to Scotland and to suggest that it requires a separate time zone.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the Library research paper, which refers to the simulation of the previous experiment by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. It indicates that the number of people killed and seriously injured in the north of Scotland went up during the experiment.
Rebecca Harris
I think that my hon. Friend will find that the figures for Scotland show that there was a higher reduction in road deaths as a proportion of the population of the whole of Scotland. The vast majority of Scots live in the central belt of Scotland. The research found that it was beneficial for Scotland overall and that there was a net gain.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The issue of Scotland is critical to the debate. Had the experiment of 1968 to 1971 continued until today, more than 3,500 people who have been killed in Scotland would be alive today.
Rebecca Harris
I shall return to my speech, having taken many interventions.
I ask only that the Government take an objective, informed decision based on the best available evidence so that all the questions can be looked at properly before a decision is taken. If the opponents are correct and the evidence in favour of change is not as clear-cut as many organisations and experts suggest, or if the move would unfairly disadvantage any country of the United Kingdom, my Bill would not require anything further to happen. Surely, therefore, no one need fear the study proposed in the Bill. Even the most vehement opponent of change cannot reasonably object to this modest request. However, if I and the supporters of this measure are right that there are clear benefits to the whole—I stress, the whole—of the United Kingdom, it would be wrong not to go ahead with a proper trial.
Although I am certain that hon. Members have had ample opportunity to consider the arguments in favour of the measure, I will rehearse them briefly. First, every single road safety organisation tells me that the measure would save 80 lives on our roads every year, mainly among children under 15 and other vulnerable road users. If a transport disaster of that magnitude occurred in our country and the Government knew that it would happen every year—year in, year out—but proposed to do nothing about it, there would be a public outcry.
However, there remains a kind of race memory that the winter-only trial of GMT plus one between 1968 and 1970 led to increased road deaths, particularly among children going to school on dark winter mornings, as has been mentioned. That persistent myth has hampered the debate ever since, and it is simply not true. Extensive research by the Transport Research Laboratory found that, far from causing accidents—the view that, sadly, led to the experiment being abandoned in panic—the change resulted in an astonishing 1,120 fewer people being killed or seriously injured during the affected hours.
The principal reason behind those figures is that more accidents occur in the busy afternoon rush hour. There are currently three times as many accidents, particularly involving children, between 3 and 6 pm than between 7 and 10 am. In the mornings, we tend to travel directly, we leave just as much time as we need to get to our destination and the roads are less busy. In the afternoons, we make much more complicated journeys and people are much less attentive—children, in particular, feel liberated after leaving school. That is why moving an extra hour of daylight into the dangerous, busy peak time for travel would be beneficial for road safety. As I have said, that applies to an even greater extent in Scotland and, despite the conventional wisdom, I believe that Scotland stands to benefit the most from this measure.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another myth that has grown up around the daylight saving issue is that the country clearly rejected the experiment when it ended in the ’70s? In fact, the Home Secretary of the time presented polling to the House to show that the public were in favour of the switch.
Rebecca Harris
Yes, Reginald Maudling presented evidence to the House to show that a majority of people in the country were in favour of the change. As often happens, the people who are against something, nervous about it or frightened of it speak more loudly than those who are in favour. We have all experienced that. Unusually, the campaigners for this change have been the louder voices.
Albert Owen
Poll findings are important. I am uncertain what the polling said in 1970 when the experiment was abandoned, but today, even in Scotland, the majority is in favour of the measure, because, among other things, transport infrastructure has changed radically. As a Member who represents a rural constituency, I point out that the National Farmers Union in Scotland is neutral on or in favour of the measure.
Rebecca Harris
It is clear from the last three polls conducted in Scotland that there is a majority in favour. If one explains to people from Scotland the road safety evidence of an 11% drop in accidents in England and Wales and a 17% drop in Scotland, the number of people in favour goes up.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I have tried, as best I can, to assess the opinions in my constituency. This is in no sense scientific polling, but the majority of opinion seems to be in favour of giving the proposal the green light. Having said that, the views are most mixed among those who remember the last experiment. That is why we need a proper assessment of the evidence.
As I understand it, under the Bill, the commission would make the final decision on whether to introduce the new time arrangements and the House would not have an opportunity to have the final say. That concerns me, and I would be interested to hear the hon. Lady’s comments. Perhaps the issue could be addressed by amendments at a later stage.
Rebecca Harris
The matter would have to come before Parliament again, but such matters could be ironed out in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the experiment in the late ’60s. It should be remembered that that was a winter-only trial. No one experienced the benefits of the change in the seven summer months. The enormous benefits to everyone of longer evenings are much more noticeable in the spring, autumn and summer. That should be borne in mind when we consider that experiment and the reactions to it at the time.
Mark Lazarowicz
I confirm that I had misread the provision regarding the matter coming back to the House. However, it is important that there is as full and objective an assessment as possible, because what is relevant for my constituents in south-east Scotland might be very different from what is relevant for the constituents of hon. Members from further to the north and west. Those points must be considered properly.
Rebecca Harris
It is a specific provision of the Bill that the benefits should be considered in relation to all parts of the British isles.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I understand the hon. Lady’s arguments as they relate to summer—most of the arguments are much stronger for the summer months than for the winter months. Is she really convinced that the people of London will be happy when they realise that in midwinter, they will enjoy sunrise 18 minutes later than Aberdeen currently enjoys it in mid-winter?
Rebecca Harris
As I said at the outset, one of the strange aspects of every discussion of this measure is the tendency always to look at the extremes rather than the benefits across the country. Of course, a darker morning means a lighter afternoon—somehow, we always seem to forget that in debates.
The road safety figures for deaths and accidents have been examined, re-examined and updated over and again by the experts. The Department for Transport does not dispute that this measure would save lives and prevent injuries. That is why the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has been campaigning for the change for more than 60 years. It is backed up by every other road safety body, and I am afraid I am going to list them: the road victims charity Brake, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, the road traffic committee of the Magistrates’ Association, GEM Motoring Assist, the AA, Road Safety GB, the Royal Automobile Club and the Institute of Advanced Motoring. I apologise if I have left anyone off that list. Those organisations are unanimous in backing the Bill, and hon. Members will already have received correspondence from many of them encouraging them to support it.
The opportunity to save the lives of 80 people a year, mainly children, is enough reason on its own for the Bill to pass. However, there are other, economic benefits. Our tourism and leisure industry is a major employer, accounting for 3% of gross domestic product in England and Wales, 4% in Northern Ireland and 11% in Scotland. Tourism bodies such as the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions, Visit England and the Tourism Alliance have been pleading for the change for more than a decade. Just this week the Caravan Club has also given backing to my Bill, and I think we can all agree that it and its more than 1 million members probably know a little bit about holidaying in the UK.
An extra hour of daylight at the end of the day would not only be an extra hour all year round for many attractions to stay open and trading; it would also extend the summer tourist season. In effect, the long hours of the average June would become the hours of May and July, giving our tourism businesses the longer summers that their continental competitors take for granted. The industry confidently estimates that an advance in the clocks would result in increased revenue of between £3 billion and £3.5 billion and the creation of up to 70,000 to 80,000 new jobs. That would amount to a significant fiscal injection, with no input from the taxpayer.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
The hon. Lady rightly raises the important issue of tourism, which would receive one of the many benefits of moving in the direction that she proposes. Will she remind the House that the figures that she has just referred to are for the United Kingdom overall, and that in Scotland alone, the evidence shows that the change would bring something in the region of 7,000 additional jobs?
Rebecca Harris
That is correct. That is the analysis we have, so we can see already the advantages in Scotland. Attractions and venues could stay open, there would be more walking, and golf clubs in Scotland, which I know some hon. Members visit, could stay open.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
When I was examining the tourism issue, I was interested to learn of the importance to Scotland of the walking industry. People who say that walking is part of their holiday in Scotland contribute close to £100 million a year. On top of that, the change would make it easier for rescue agencies, who say that one problem is the fast-closing nights at certain times of year. It would be safer and better for tourism in Scotland.
Rebecca Harris
That is a very good point, and I certainly argue that the tourism benefit holds true right across the country.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree there would be particularly disproportionate benefits to seaside towns, which have struggled to regenerate down the years? Many workers in inland towns come to the seaside for their holidays during their two precious summer weeks off, particularly those from heavy industry. There would be a particular benefit for seaside towns and the workers who holiday in them.
Rebecca Harris
I can certainly see the enormous benefits that the change would bring to towns such as Blackpool and to all other parts of our domestic tourism economy.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Brighton is a very long way from Scotland, but 14,000 jobs there depend on tourism, and nearly 9 million visitors spend a staggering three quarters of a billion pounds there each and every year. There is a lot of benefit to the whole country in the proposals.
Rebecca Harris
Cases are being made from around the country, and the tourism case holds true everywhere. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has supported the change since 1996, and National Galleries of Scotland is backing it today.
It is also worth noting that whereas the farming industry objected to increased daylight saving 40 years ago, it has now adopted a much more positive stance. That is not just because farming practices have changed considerably over the years but because farmers have now diversified into tourism and leisure, with farm stays and a range of outdoor activities. The National Farmers Union in England and Wales has been officially neutral on the matter for years, and now NFU Scotland has come out in favour of my Bill. I should like to read what its spokesman has said:
“We have been described as being vigorously opposed to this but it is not quite as simple as that. To move the discussion forward”—
that is what I am hoping to do through my Bill—
“we do support the private member’s bill…which would propose in-depth analysis of the impact of any change—a key concern for Scotland—before any permanent change to the clocks is proposed.”
I have never doubted the common sense of farmers in any part of the country. Visit Scotland has taken a similar stance, in view of its interest in visits to Scotland.
The tourism and leisure industry is not the only potential beneficiary, however. Extra daylight could be of enormous benefit to the entire retail sector, and according to a recent Greater London authority report promoting a clock change, even our very popular and well-loved financial and banking sector stands to benefit from being an extra hour closer to the markets in Asia.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for taking so many interventions. I am a great supporter of the Lighter Later campaign, but does she agree that this discussion is not just about the arguments for and against the change, which are being debated excellently this morning, but also about what the Chamber is for? We must represent the country outside these four walls. This issue has arisen again and again and is of concern to people outside, whereas some issues that we debate may not be of so much concern. Does my hon. Friend agree that allowing the Bill to go forward for further scrutiny will be testament to the fact that the House represents the people outside these four walls?
Rebecca Harris
I agree entirely, and as I said earlier, Bills such as this have come around again and again. They are usually talked out and run out of time, and nothing further happens. They are not taken forward, so various Departments do not get their heads together to investigate the benefits or enter into discussions with the various parts of the United Kingdom. The proposal dies again until some brave or naive soul such as myself picks it up in a private Member’s Bill. There is then a vigorous and exciting campaign for six months, and then if it does not get through to Committee, the Government do not decide to examine properly the benefits across all Departments. Nothing happens, the debate does not move forward, entrenched views stay the same for ever and we never get over the hurdles.
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for her earlier congratulations. She knows that I support the Bill, and I am sure that baby William does as well, although I have no idea why, because daylight hours seem to mean little to him. I am still standing, however.
We have debated the importance of the Bill’s not dying and disappearing again for another few years. However, Ministers are in Cancun at the moment, and surely the Bill’s energy-saving implications mean that there is real urgency behind the idea that that must not happen this time. Such factors were not discussed, debated and evaluated in the 1970s when the matter last came around.
Rebecca Harris
That is a very good point. Had the experiment coincided with the energy crisis, a very different view might have been taken in the House. I suggest that we now have an energy crisis of our own.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The hon. Lady has just made a point about the history of Governments’ attitudes to the proposals. Should not the unique attraction of the Bill to any Government be not just that it commands overwhelming support in the country and the House, and that the evidence in favour of it is overwhelming, but that no other piece of legislation has the potential to spread so much happiness across the United Kingdom?
Rebecca Harris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. The urgent need to create new jobs and growth at the moment is another salient point. We are in a challenging economic situation, and I do not believe that any hon. Member can really think that we should ignore a potential boost to the economy of 80,000 new jobs at no cost to the taxpayer.
If colleagues are not yet convinced by the need to save lives or boost the economy, I wonder whether the potential health benefits will sway them. We all know what happens when it gets dark—people go back inside and often find themselves slumped in front of the Parliament channel, and opportunities for far more productive activity are lost.
Hundreds of sports clubs and sporting bodies support the Bill, although I am happy to say that neither FIFA nor Sepp Blatter are among them. The Central Council of Physical Recreation, which changed its name this week—I cannot remember the new name—is an umbrella organisation for more than 300 sporting organisations, including the Football Association, the Lawn Tennis Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board. In a letter to hon. Members, it said:
“We are convinced beyond doubt of the benefits that this move would bring to both the grassroots of sport and the nation’s health as a whole”.
It goes on to point out that increased participation in sport is known to increase social and civic participation, reduce youth crime and reduce chronic illness, not least obesity. I have been flooded—absolutely inundated—with letters from amateur sports groups, youth leaders and schoolteachers, who all describe how much they could do and achieve in their communities if their activities were not curtailed so early in the evening by dusk, particularly in autumn and spring. I even received a very supportive petition from a ladies’ carpet bowls club in Yorkshire. Other likely health benefits have been highlighted by the medical profession. They include relief for sufferers of seasonal affective disorder and reduction in vitamin D deficiency.
The potential for the Bill to reduce crime deserves a Government investigation. A very high proportion of crime takes place under the cover of evening darkness. Back in 1995, a Home Office report stated that an extra hour of daylight in the evening would lead to a 3% reduction in crime. I do not expect that crime patterns have changed all that dramatically since that survey, and a lot of opportunistic crime occurs when darkness falls before people get home from school or work.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
My hon. Friend perhaps does herself a disservice, because there has been a change. The peak in crime used to be when the pubs closed, but it is now when the schools chuck out. Extending daylight hours to when schoolchildren are going home could have a real benefit in terms of crime and antisocial behaviour.
Rebecca Harris
Of course, that is what the Bill seeks to do, and what my hon. Friend says coincides with the accident reduction figures.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Is it not self-evident that with increased daylight hours, the fear of crime and of going out among older people will be reduced?
Rebecca Harris
My hon. Friend anticipates my next comment. Age UK and Saga have told me how much safer older people will feel, and how their fear of crime will be drastically reduced, with longer daylight hours. A lot of older people suffer a self-imposed curfew when it gets dark. Many will not even answer their door after 4 o’clock in the evening in winter. I am not promoting the Bill because it will help politicians in their canvassing in the evenings, but we all know from our experience of people who are very uncomfortable even coming to the front door.
I have received a large volume of letters from older people. I was quite upset to find that many older people feel lonely and that they cannot get out and enjoy social activities. Some people will not drive simply because of the glare on their glasses. One particularly upsetting letter said:
“Please will you make a point of being present to vote for the Lighter Later bill. Many old people living alone don’t see anybody for up to 18 hours once it gets dark &…lonely. I know as I am one of them! (Peter died last year).”
That is quite heartbreaking.
Finally, there is the clear potential to save energy—I am sure that other hon. Members will speak at great length on that because it is a pressing concern. The Bill has a clear potential to help us cut our fuel use. Because the majority of us get up after dawn for more than nine months of the year but few households go to sleep before dusk, we use artificial light every night of the year. An extra hour of free daylight each day would cut our electricity bills, and that would be offset only by extra electricity bills in the short winter months.
In the shoulder months either side of mid-winter, the peak demand for electricity occurs when dusk falls. We come home from school or work at half-past 5 and put on the lights, the kettle, the TV and computer games, because it is dark. If we move daylight ahead and allow people to do all those wonderful social activities and go to sports clubs and all the rest, we will flatten that peak demand, which will mean that our national grid will not need so much power on standby. We will save not only on what we use, but on the power we must keep on standby to meet peak demands. The Bill has the clear potential to reduce our electricity consumption at no cost whatever.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
That issue is very close to my heart. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill would lead to savings of nearly £180 million a year on household electricity bills? That would make a significant difference to fuel poverty, which affects so many of our constituents.
Rebecca Harris
Fuel poverty is another problem that we did not have at the time of the winter-only experiment of ’68 to ’71. That is another incredibly important reason why we need the Government to look again at the benefits and details of extending daylight hours. We could achieve the savings to which the hon. Lady refers at no cost.
Extensive research by the Cambridge university department for engineering and National Grid does not dispute that we could cut our electricity consumption by at least 0.5%, which is equivalent to a wind farm of 200 very expensively produced wind turbines. I accept that that is a fraction of the CO2 reduction to which we are committed, but it is none the less significant, and it can be done without the purchase of a single smart meter or a single square foot of insulation.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I believe that a study by the university of Cambridge says that the change would lead to a saving of 500,000 tonnes of CO2 each year, which would obviously help the environment.
Rebecca Harris
The modelling from Dr Garnsey’s team at Cambridge suggests that we could cut our carbon emissions by the equivalent of taking nearly 200,000 cars off our roads each year. That is why serious environmental pressure groups such as 10:10 are so heavily behind the Bill.
I believe that the proposal could do a great deal of good for our whole country, which is what I came to this Chamber to do. I appreciate that many simply have an aversion to darker winter mornings—I confess that I am not wild about them—and that may well turn out to be the crux of the issue. However, I might have a different perspective on darker winter mornings if I were assured that a darker start to the beginning of the working day in winter allowed, for example, millions of older people to have a better quality of life. If the benefits were found by a Government review to be as stated by the Bill’s backers—the change could mean that my son and other people’s children were safer on the roads and enjoyed more outdoor play; that people were healthier and there would be more in employment; that more revenue came into the Exchequer; that CO2 emissions would be cut with no extra subsidy from the taxpayer; and that I would have an extra hour of daylight later on to enjoy as I see fit, although obviously only during recess—I might even feel quite positive about dark winter mornings.
My Bill asks not for anything impractical or costly, but merely for the Government to look at the evidence and make a decision that is based on the facts rather than what is politically expedient. I accept that I may be a naive new Member of Parliament—in fact, after taking on this private Member’s Bill, I am convinced of that—but I believe we should always strive to make decisions based on evidence not suspicion, fact not prejudice, and data not conjecture.
This is a decades-old debate, but the arguments are now so compelling that it would be foolish to dismiss the case for change without first conducting a review of the evidence. I do not deny that there is a place for emotion in politics and some may find that emotion is important in the context of the Bill, but Parliament has a responsibility, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, to dictate the time by which our modern lives are regulated. We have a duty to every single one of the 60 million residents of the United Kingdom to ensure that when we set the time for them, we make the right choice. We must ask ourselves whether the proposal is the best, or least worst, option for people living their lives in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. My Bill simply asks that the question be put to the Government, so that we can get a clear answer on which to base our future decisions. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), and I congratulate her on promoting the Bill in this debate. I know that she has been inundated with hundreds and thousands of e-mails. I had a private Member’s Bill in the previous Session, and I became very popular very quickly. When a Member dismisses most of those representations, they become unpopular, before undertaking the onerous task of taking their Bill through Parliament. The hon. Lady presented her case with a great sense of humour and a sense of purpose. The Bill is important, and I have supported such measures for a long time.
The hon. Lady listed supporters of the Bill in the excellent Library briefing. She was brave enough to mention the English Football Association the day after the Zurich decision, and she also mentioned the England and Wales Cricket Board. I know that the Ashes are on now, although I do not know the score. If it is positive, I am happy to call it the England and Wales Cricket Board, but if they lose the Ashes, I am happy to refer to them as the England team.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I believe that Australia were all out for 275.
Albert Owen
I am grateful for that information, and I hope it continues. I am also disappointed about yesterday’s decision.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
They were actually all out for 245, and England survived the one remaining over, scoring one run.
Albert Owen
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for shining light on the situation.
I support the Bill. I will develop an argument on the energy saving to which the hon. Lady referred, but I make no apologies for emphasising and rehearsing some of the arguments she made on tourism, sports and leisure. In many ways, the Bill is a moderate measure, in that it simply asks the Government to conduct a comprehensive cross-departmental review of the cost benefits of the savings that could be made to the country—she mentioned some headlines to do with that.
I think that we should advance the time by one hour for part or all of the year. I support the latter, and I think that it is important to conduct a three-year study to establish the summer and winter comparisons. It is also important to report back to the House. Perhaps the hon. Lady could intervene on me—although she is having a private discussion at the moment—to clarify something: the Bill does not make it clear whether the commission would have to report to the House after the six months, so that we can have a debate and come to a decision. I am sure that she will have an opportunity, as the Bill develops, to inform the House on that point. It is important for the House to make a decision based on the judgment of an independent commission.
I am proud that the Bill contains special measures for different parts of the United Kingdom. It is important that we consider not just the Scottish question, but the Northern Ireland one as well. It is one of the most north-westerly parts of the UK. It is important that we consider those different parts of the UK when balancing the evidence. I am old enough to remember the 1960s and ’70s, when this experiment was first done, in great detail. At the time, I was—at least I thought I was—working and helping out on a farm, although the farmer probably thought I was getting in the way at times. I remember that period as a child going to school and working in the summer months on farms at early hours of the morning, so I have some experience of that period. It is important to consider the different parts of the United Kingdom, as well as the different parts of Government, in order to get a full picture before making decisions.
As the hon. Lady said, the benefits outweigh any problems that might occur. There would be less crime, fewer road accidents and fatalities, and increased recreational activities and tourism, which would provide a boost for all parts of the UK, particularly those north-western regions. As the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, the coastal areas and resorts of the UK will benefit hugely from visitors, not just from overseas, but from different parts of the UK. As somebody who represents a coastal area, I know the benefits that could be achieved.
There could also be improvements in health and well-being. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said, the Prime Minister is big on a happiness index. Although happiness is difficult to quantify, I honestly believe that the benefits of the Bill will improve the well-being of the people of the UK. I get depressed in October when the clocks go back. Many Members will have anecdotal evidence of the same thing. The benefits of the Bill in the summer, from recreation, sport and health activities, would also be very important.
I want to refer predominantly to the energy savings. The Energy and Climate Change Committee, of which I am a member, conducted a mini inquiry into the matter in October. As the hon. Lady said, the energy saving factors today represent the big difference from the arguments of the 1960s and ’70s. Back then, energy security was not the big issue it is today. We had plentiful supplies of indigenous coal, and then we moved on to the benefits of North sea gas, so we did not think of energy security in the same way as we do today. Obviously, our minds have been changed by environmental and climate change issues as well. That is the big difference.
It was important that the Select Committee considered the benefits of energy savings. The positive nature of the evidence given by the academics from the university of Cambridge study and from a representative of the National Grid was stark. I stress that the mini inquiry considered electricity demand alone. Perhaps we should also have looked at the gas benefits. We might get the opportunity to do that in the future. As the hon. Lady said, the first thing people do in October when the clocks go back, is adjust their thermostats and the timings on their gas boilers, so that gas is used much earlier in the evening. That has an impact. Were we to quantify gas consumption as we can electricity, the environmental, climate change and CO2 emission benefits from the reduction of CO2 would be very obvious. We must take that forward. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, that would help with fuel poverty. I think that it is estimated that £200 million could be saved in electricity bills alone, and adding gas to that would make a massive difference to vulnerable people in this country. There are massive benefits to be had there.
The question and answer session that the Select Committee held with the academics and National Grid showed that there would be massive benefits, particularly in the shoulder months of November, February and March. That is when demand increases significantly. It is worth pointing out that throughout the UK there would be very little difference in demand in the months of December and January, because that is when, whatever we do with the clocks, there will be the greatest amount of darkness.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not feel, when he talks about the shoulder months, that he is actually arguing for a shorter, more symmetrical period of winter time, rather than the seven weeks before and the 14 weeks after new year that we have at the moment?
Albert Owen
No, quite the opposite. That is why I pointed out that there would be little difference during December and January.
As the hon. Member for Castle Point pointed out, the benefits from March to October would far outweigh any of the discomfort that people feel during December and January, which are the bleak winter months.
Malcolm Bruce
The proponents of the Bill are in danger of taking as fact research evidence that is highly qualified. After it attempted to analyse the figures, the university of Cambridge used words such as “probably increased” and
“could have a range of energy benefits”.
The Government said that the information was not conclusive one way or the other.
Albert Owen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but that is not the evidence we had most recently.
Albert Owen
Well, I was the person asking the questions, and I know that the Library notes are very thick. One survey, on buildings—particularly office buildings—was not conclusive, but on domestic homes and electricity peak demands, the evidence was to the contrary, which is why I am arguing that we need to consider gas consumption as well as electricity demands. We would then get a much clearer picture to show the benefits of energy savings.
Mr Foster
In responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), surely the hon. Gentleman might have pointed out that the Bill proposes more detailed research on such matters—research that I am convinced will lead to the sort of evidence to which he is referring.
Albert Owen
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help. I will develop the argument that what we are asking for is a full review over three years, so that we can have all the up-to-date evidence that we need to make a conscious decision in this House. That is an important point, because in many ways the academic research done by Cambridge university was narrow in its remit. I was disappointed by some of the answers of the academics who had looked at the issue, although I was very much encouraged by the National Grid representative, who talked about the energy savings that would be made immediately—now, today—on the basis of the evidence and the data available to National Grid.
Many of the benefits in the shoulder months relate to the reduction in electricity used of some 1,300 MW. I pushed the National Grid representative on what that would mean. It would mean one power station in the United Kingdom closing for one hour a day during the shoulder months. That would mean a significant amount of electricity being saved, alongside the savings in CO2, which would be in the region of 500,000 tonnes, and—I emphasise this point again because it is important—a reduction in what consumers pay of some £200 million.
Damian Collins
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there could also be a benefit from reducing the need to import energy? We have an electricity link from my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe to France, from which we need to import electricity at peak times just to meet the demand.
Albert Owen
Yes, and I did mention energy security. Indeed, we can break that down and talk about microgeneration, whereby individual houses and community buildings send electricity back to the grid. That is all part of the wider argument about saving energy that I am putting forward. In moving the motion, the hon. Member for Castle Point made strong arguments about other aspects, which I will touch on, but the energy saving argument is the big difference between now and the ’60s and ’70s, and it is one that we should push.
Mr MacNeil
I would just like to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the evidence from the Building Research Establishment, which indicated that darkened mornings might lead to increased electricity consumption, as people who switch the lights on in the morning may leave them on for the rest of the day.
Albert Owen
I responded to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) about that survey, which looked at offices. Let us be honest: most people who put their lights on in the offices do not pay the bills, so they are reluctant to come into line. However, households do have to pay those bills, so there is a difference, particularly in a climate where energy prices are rising for domestic households. That survey was about major office buildings. A lot of those office buildings were built in the ’60s or ’70s, and do not have proper insulation, so they are not very good buildings in the first instance. However, the National Grid representative made it absolutely clear that peak demand would be reduced if there was an extension to British summer time.
Mr Reid
The hon. Gentleman’s analysis is flawed because he is looking only at electricity. Electricity is used for both heating and lighting. There is evidence that lighting costs would be reduced by the change, but that heating costs would be increased. That means that the use of other fuels—gas, oil and coal—would almost certainly increase, meaning that the total effect of the change would be increased carbon emissions.
Albert Owen
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening when I argued that we needed more evidence on gas. However, one thing that is clear is that people in areas that are off-grid—areas such as mine and, I am sure, his—are paying more for fuel. Electricity is pretty universal across the United Kingdom, but there are certain areas—periphery areas in particular—that are off the gas grid. Those areas have to pay for oil or liquefied petroleum gas, and they therefore pay more. Far from the proposal being flawed, the evidence will show that with an extra hour in the evenings in November, February and March, those people will use less fuel. However, that is why the Bill is asking for a trial period. All that evidence will be produced and will, I think, lead to the conclusion—indeed, I am certain that it will to this conclusion, as happened with electricity—that lead consumption would be reduced and energy saved if we had that additional hour in the summer and, in particular, the shoulder months of the winter.
I want to talk about the benefits that the Bill and its outcome—if the commission were to move British summer time—would have for tourism. The United Kingdom has a great product to sell, but often local trade is lost in the winter as people go home from work, owing to darkness falling across the United Kingdom relatively early. The extension of an hour in the winter months and, in particular, the summer months would benefit our tourism industry, retail outlets and sporting activities. There is a massive plus there that we need to consider when we look at the big picture.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
We have been talking about the changing significance of the proposal since the previous experiment. Tourism and leisure are proportionately more important, given the changing structure of our industries, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that the employment argument is now very significant?
Albert Owen
I certainly agree that tourism is increasingly important to the British economy—there is absolutely no doubt about that—and if we in this House can get extra benefits for it, we will be doing a good thing.
As the hon. Member for Castle Point said in her opening remarks, the Bill would be proportionately beneficial to Scotland, Northern Ireland and periphery areas. It is important for the United Kingdom to have more even economic development for those areas. This Bill offers a win-win situation for areas in Scotland, Northern Ireland and my constituency in north-west Wales. As the hon. Lady also said, the nature of what the study in the ’60s looked at has changed. Agriculture trends have changed considerably, through mechanisation and vehicle transport. That is why the National Farmers Union of England and Wales is now neutral on the Bill—it is not hostile—and why the National Farmers Union of Scotland is in favour. That is hugely beneficial.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman is right to put that on the record, but again he is enhancing my argument in favour of the Bill. The National Farmers Union of Scotland was very much against the proposal in the ’60s and ’70s, but it now wants a study because it believes that there could be overall benefits. That is a huge move on the part of an organisation that in many ways is slow to change its policies.
There are, of course, other arguments used by opponents of the Bill. One is that they would feel less British, which I mentioned in an earlier intervention. I am an ex-seafarer. I know how important GMT is to the world. However, that would remain exactly the same, and for the months of March to October we move to European time anyway, so that one can be dismissed pretty easily—
Albert Owen
—although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will argue to the contrary.
Mr Gale
I am entirely in support of everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. Setting aside the Daily Mail’s xenophobia for a moment, the editor of the Mail might like to recognise that there is one little corner of a foreign field—Gibraltar, which could not be more British—that is on that time the year round.
Albert Owen
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I misread him. He and I do not agree on quite a few issues, but I am very happy to have him on side on this one. He mentioned the Daily Mail. It is only fair to mention the Daily Express, which has been actively campaigning for the Bill and for extra daylight hours in the evenings. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to point that out, and he is absolutely right about the benefit that parts of Europe, especially Gibraltar, enjoy.
I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion. This is a good Bill. It is a good idea, and it would be good for the United Kingdom. However, I want to see those independent analyses of the four nations, which will be important in making our mind up. This is not an anti-Scottish Bill; it is a pro-UK Bill. It would benefit the whole of the United Kingdom. The proposals would reduce energy consumption. The evidence relating to electricity demonstrates that, and there would also be benefits for gas consumption. Crime would also be reduced, because opportunist crime peaks during October and November when it gets dark before people come home from work, so their properties are empty after nightfall.
The hon. Member for Castle Point mentioned the reduction of accidents and fatalities on our roads, and it is essential that we address that point in the Bill. The increase in tourism would be very positive, as would the increase in sports and leisure. Who likes going to a football match in the winter when it gets dark early and they have to put the floodlights on by half-time?
Albert Owen
I agree that there is an argument about summer football, which the hon. Gentleman is making from a sedentary position, but cricket has traditionally dominated the summer period—particularly in England—while football dominates the winter. Also, we now have the Twenty20 series throughout the year, so perhaps we could review that position. That is not a matter for this Bill, however.
The Bill would allow us to take a massive positive step. Although the measure is moderate, its outcomes would be profound.
Albert Owen
I will not give way. I shall finish my speech now so that other people can have the opportunity to speak.
I believe that the measure would increase our well-being. In the spirit of cross-party support here, I believe that we should look at the happiness agenda. I think that having a barbecue at 11.30 pm, using clean coal and perhaps serving some salad dishes in the summer would increase the well-being and happiness of people throughout the United Kingdom—
Albert Owen
I did say “clean coal”. The hon. Gentleman is always jumping in; he is a bit too keen. I was talking about clean coal, and eating salads and healthy dishes so that we can participate in sport. The measure would increase the well-being of the people in the United Kingdom, and that is what we have been sent to this House for. I am happy to support the Bill and happy to help to take it forward in the House.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on introducing this very sensible measure. I have a sneaking feeling that Sir Bernard Braine would be extremely proud, were he around to hear her speak today. The point has been made, and it will be made again, that, if the proposal before us were adopted, it would enhance tourism and road safety, that it would be very good for sport and for the economy of the British isles as a whole, and that it would probably enhance the happiness and well-being of the nation generally. That is why I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend’s Bill, and why I believe that we should come into line with Gibraltar time and adopt this measure.
I want to cover just one issue briefly. My friend, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) raised the possibility of Scotland exercising a choice in this matter. I do not think that that is a ridiculous or improper suggestion, and I do not think that it would in any way damage the unity of the United Kingdom. Scotland has its own Parliament and it takes its own decisions. It is certainly marginally true that there are areas in the far north of Scotland that would be a little more affected by these proposals than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I am not speaking as a founder member of the Rebuild Hadrian’s Wall Society, but it is incorrect to say that the concept of having one time zone south of the wall, or border, and another on the other side of it is unacceptable.
A gentleman in the Library called Oliver Bennett has been extremely helpful to us all, and we should thank him for his hard work on this subject. He has advised me that, over the four mainland time zones in the United States, there are inevitably towns in which crossing a bridge can take someone from one time zone to another. One such town has two time zones separated by a river. That happens and it is manageable. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys)—I hope that she catches your eye in due course, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I represent part of the United Kingdom that is 25 miles away from a different time zone for part of the year. That is 30 minutes away by train, and the difference is perfectly manageable. It is not an impossibility. In the United States, the Department of Transportation is, curiously, responsible for determining whether a county should change from one time zone to another.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
That is also true of the Soviet Union, or Russia, where there are 11 time zones, often separated by rivers and bridges. Having different time zones is undesirable, however, in a small country such as the United Kingdom. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it would be desirable for the UK.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
If separate time zones were operating across the UK, would the hon. Gentleman be in favour of retaining the BBC news on Greenwich mean time or on summer time?
Mr Gale
I think that the BBC will do what it has continued to do for a very long time, and live in the past.
I was saying to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) that it is practicably possible to have different time zones, and that if the Scots, who have their own Parliament, genuinely choose, having consulted the people who elect them, to adopt a different time zone, there is practicably no reason why they should not do so. It works right across the United States and across Europe, and we have already established that Gibraltar is in a different time zone from the United Kingdom although it proudly flies the Union flag.
Mr Gale
I am going to conclude now; a lot of other people want to speak. When the hon. Member for the Western Isles—I wish I could remember the proper name of his constituency; I did it the other day, but I cannot remember it now—rises to speak, I urge him to consider, instead of seeking to impose a rejection of change on the whole of the United Kingdom, the fact that there is a perfectly viable alternative. If he and those whom he represents, and those in the Scottish Parliament, chose to go down that alternative road, he might find that quite a lot of people on the Government Benches would be perfectly willing to support him.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I do not intend to say a great deal, but I want to address a couple of the issues from the perspective of someone who represents one of the most northerly constituencies in the UK. I must confess that I approached this issue with a very open mind. After 40 years, it is always worth looking at an issue again with fresh eyes in the light of changing times, and I have therefore listened very carefully to the lobbyists, spoken to the stakeholders and looked at the evidence. I live in the far north of Scotland and I represent people who will be disproportionately impacted by the proposed change, however, and I have to say that I remain decidedly ambivalent about the potential benefits and unpersuaded by some of the evidence that I have seen.
I have also been approached by numerous constituents —just ordinary citizens who are not part of any lobby group—who are worried about the impact of the proposals on their quality of life. They tell me how the measure could compromise their safety. One of my main concerns with the evidence that I have seen and heard is that an awful lot of it is simulated, as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) pointed out. It is speculative, and it is not based on empirical data. It does not take into account other relevant attendant factors that can influence this process, such as the weather. I have been slightly bemused this week to observe how a light dusting of snow in central London seems to have brought the metropolis to a standstill. However, many parts of the country are experiencing very severe weather at present, and I think it brings home to many of us just how dangerous it can be to travel in icy conditions.
The local authority in the area that I represent grits the roads during seven months of the year. Driving before dawn is dangerous, not because it is dark but because the roads are icy. In the dead of winter, there are many days on which the mercury is never going to rise above zero, but on most winter days, the temperature will rise after sunrise, and as the sun gets up, the roads become less hazardous. I have to confess that the thought of having to drive on icy roads does not fill me with relish. That concern is shared by many people who live and work in northern climates. It is not just road safety issues that are of concern. Hon. Members have mentioned the problem of kids standing around waiting for school buses in the cold and the dark. We have bitter, dreich, nasty winter mornings that are already bad. Taking the time back an hour further would make that even more unpleasant.
The other factor that has not been considered is that, when the experiment took place in the 1960s, road fatalities in the north of Scotland did, indeed, increase. That happened despite the fact that, during the same period, speed limits, drink-driving legislation and seat belts were introduced. Unless we believe that none of those measures had any impact on road safety, we have to take some of the evidence on road safety with a big pinch of salt. Early mornings are a hazardous time to be on the roads. We cannot just isolate the one issue of darkness and extrapolate from that without considering the wider context.
Malcolm Bruce
Does the hon. Lady agree that hon. Members who represent southern constituencies should realise that what she is describing are the conditions we currently experience, and that they will experience them if we have this experiment?
Dr Whiteford
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. He has experience, as I do, of getting up in the dark, going to work and school in the dark and coming home in the dark. The ontological reality that we live with is that there is a limited amount of daylight. As small child, I was very fond of a poem by Robert Louis Stevenson that begins:
“In winter I get up at night
And dress by yellow candle-light.
In summer, quite the other way,
I have to go to bed by day.”
I empathised with the child in the poem, who had to be carted off to bed when it was still time to be playing outside. As I get older, it is becoming very clear to me that getting up in what feels like the middle of the night in the far north is not pleasant and it is not good for our well-being, health or happiness. Such a measure will lead to danger and misery for people who live in the north.
Rebecca Harris
I am very sympathetic to the concerns of the hon. Lady and her constituents. As she will see, I have drafted my Bill carefully to ensure to that exactly those factors are taken into account, so that there will be no danger of any change taking place to the disbenefit of any part of the United Kingdom. I hope that she will look at the science of the road safety experts, who say that even in the shortest mid-winter days in the north of the country, there will be a saving. In parts of Scotland, children go to school in the dark already. At least this measure would mean that they came home in the light, during the lighter period of the day.
Dr Whiteford
I am afraid the reality is that there is a limited amount of daylight. Children are already dealing with the fact that there is half-light. The measure will not make any difference to that. The only difference is that we will have to get up even earlier. We can debate whether the prospect of separate time zones across the UK is realistic or not.
Dr Whiteford
Not just now because I am winding up.
We have to think very seriously about the logistics of having separate time zones. The reality is that we could all get up a bit later, and start schools and work at 10 o’clock. However, that would be very difficult for those people who work for UK-wide organisations and who have difficulty in changing the time of day when they do things. The benefits of the measure are rather untested, and are outweighed by the dangers of driving in hazardous conditions, which have not been properly considered. Some of the evidence we have heard demonstrates that the methodology is rather flawed and the evidence is incomplete. I ask hon. Members to think carefully before imposing the measure across the UK.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on introducing the Bill. She may have drawn accusations that she is a barbecue-obsessed southerner but, considering today’s temperature, that seems irrelevant. I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for his comments about the work of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which has recently considered the issue. I am impressed to see a significant proportion of the members of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, present. It too appreciates the potential benefits of the measure.
The 10:10 Lighter Later campaign has certainly been very active. Little did I know that when I met a member of that campaign during the general election, I would be standing here in December debating the issue. I even managed to convince a number of my constituents to spend a significant proportion of their time phoning hon. Members yesterday to exhort them to stay for today’s debate. I thank all those people from my constituency who did so—I spoke to a good number of them yesterday afternoon. I particularly congratulate those who have struggled through the snow to be here today.
None of the individuals, businesses or organisations that are supporting this examination and analysis are supporting change for change’s sake. What we want is a cross-departmental analysis of the potential benefits of a new, updated trial, so that any evidence is based on modern statistics and current thinking and analysis, rather than on information from the late 1960s. Much has changed since the last trial—in particular, farming technology. I come from a reasonably rural constituency and have family links to the farming industry, so I know that that measure was obviously of concern. However, the agricultural community has rowed back from its earlier position. At worst, it is now neutral on the subject, and some members of the farming community are positive about the possibility of a new trial.
Importantly, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I know that there are new considerations that were not uppermost in people’s minds in the ’60s and ’70s. I was pleased to hear the Committee’s Chairman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), make the point about the impact that the measure could have on CO2 emissions. It has massive potential benefits for the UK’s carbon footprint and, indeed, for individual domestic energy bills. More than a 2% reduction in CO2 emissions during winter is a significant improvement. I am sure that we in this House are all committed to meeting challenging environmental targets. That could be done, via this measure, at no cost.
I admit that Romsey and Southampton North is about as southern a constituency as there is, and I am convinced that we will have some interesting and enlightening contributions from some of the more northerly Members shortly. However, there are many options to consider: balancing the time change around the winter solstice; having a permanent change to British summer time, so that my constituents who remain concerned about the difficulties of having to change their clocks twice a year could avoid it; and the proposal advocated by Lighter Later, which would involve a move to GMT+1 and GMT+2. All those ideas are in the mix and are worthy of proper analysis.
If such a measure was good enough for a coalition Government during the second world war, it is good enough for a coalition Government to examine now.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on being successful in the ballot. I wish she had chosen something else but, nevertheless, she has perhaps chosen her specialist subject. As a result, some of us are here fielding or batting in the opposite direction.
I am happy once again to be debating the subject of changing the time when the clocks go back in the United Kingdom. I think this is the third time I have participated in such a debate since being elected in 2005. The matter seems to return to the House fairly regularly. As hon. Members may assume, I will not argue in favour of the change, which will have a disproportionate effect on my part of the world. That is not to say that I am resistant to change. I am happy for there to be a compromise. I would like the period of winter time to be changed from 21 weeks to perhaps 10 weeks. Rather than seven weeks before mid-winter and 14 weeks after mid-winter, there should be five weeks either side of mid-winter. That might be a compromise that we could live with.
Moving to central European time would be a mistake given our longitude. That fact is exacerbated by the latitude differences within the United Kingdom, which mean that the further north we travel, the shorter is the day in winter. There is a great argument for symmetry either side of the mid-winter day. I hope that we will try to change that. However, European directive 2000/84/EC seems to tie our hands to a time change on the last Sunday in October and the last Sunday in March. That directive seems to enshrine the asymmetry.
However, it is only a directive. Given the strength of feeling in this place about matters European, one would think that some Government Members, who are no longer in opposition, as they were when I last spoke about this, would realise that it is not a commandment, but a directive, and perhaps do something about it.
The Bill does not seek to move the daylight, as some would have us believe: in fact, it wants to move us, the people, into the night. I ask anybody watching, wherever in the UK they may be—I am sure that, as the hon. Member for Castle Point said, people will be riveted to the parliamentary channel—to imagine getting up an hour earlier today.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman and I have sparred over this issue for a number of years. I think that he inadvertently misleads the House, because in Glasgow, for example, sunset today takes place just six minutes after it does here in London. The statistics for his own constituency suggest that schoolchildren are going to school in the dark and returning home in the dark. The clock change would allow at least one of those journeys to be made in the light. Were this Bill to go through, his adult constituents would benefit from 160 more hours a year after work and children would benefit from 84 hours of daylight after school. That is a useful statistic for his constituents to be aware of.
Mr MacNeil
If the hon. Gentleman’s argument is for one hour, why does he not extend that logic to two, three, four or eight hours? Perhaps we could have our daylight at 4 o’clock in the afternoon when we have all finished work so that we had more leisure time at the end of day. That would be the logical conclusion of his argument.
The crux of the matter is that people getting up an hour earlier face the darkness of the morning for another hour. As I make this argument for the third time, I sometimes feel that we are doing battle with the forces of darkness—I am looking directly across the Chamber at the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). Some Members will imagine that I am participating in this debate merely to indulge in what is claimed to be the perennial Scottish ritual of opposing any changes to the clocks, but that is not true.
A similar idea was defeated in this House in 1970—this may help the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) —when the then Member for the Western Isles, the late Donald Stewart, started his Commons speaking career by opposing this very argument 40 years and a day ago, on 2 December 1970, when I was a mere babe in arms of five months. I was reminded of it by one of the Doorkeepers, Mr Robin Fell from the Serjeant at Arms office. He was working in the Commons at the time, and such is his impressive institutional memory that he remembered the debate. Donald Stewart said:
“Public opinion polls would indicate that there is a case for abolishing British Standard Time.”
He went on to say:
“Central European Time is really what we are discussing. It has little relevance to England and none at all to Scotland. It is pleasant to know that several hon. Members from English constituencies, some of them in the south, have indicated to me that they intend to vote for the abolition of British Standard Time.”—[Official Report, 2 December 1970; Vol. 807, c. 1346.]
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I hope that, as a Conservative and Unionist, I will not do the hon. Gentleman’s credibility any damage if I agree with that point. Some Members from southern constituencies, although they may be not completely against changing the clocks, do at least have significant concerns about it.
Mr MacNeil
I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is borne out in my next point. The result of the Division on 2 December 1970 was 366 to 81. The hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) were here, and they voted to abolish British standard time, so I imagine that today they would be on my side of the argument. I would have had 366 Members on my side and there would have been 81 on the other side. I cannot see 81 in front of me today, but I think that those who are most vexed by this proposal are here.
Dawn happens when dawn happens. Supporters of the Bill have painted a picture—
Mr Reid
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman referred to the earlier debate. The fact is that we have had an experiment in this country, and we do not need another one. From reading the Hansard record of that debate, it is obvious that members of the public were writing in their droves to their MPs demanding that this awful experiment be stopped. The experiment failed, and we should move on.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. There are of course the interested parties—the busybodies, perhaps—but most people feel that this is just Westminster going through its contortions yet again. This is the third time that this has come before the House in five years, and people feel that it is not as serious as it might seem, or not as serious as it could be if the mistake is made.
The experiment has happened not only here but in Portugal, in the 1990s. Portugal’s dawn is about the same time as dawn here. Its daylight hours would have been longer, but people changed back, I presume because of the disbenefits in the morning. The experiment has happened not once, but twice, and people have changed back both times.
Albert Owen
I am reluctant to go with the Portuguese example, but it happened because Portugal had extra benefits already, so that is not a strong argument. I do not think we should be discussing Portugal today, because the only thing that it has in common with England is that both lost the FIFA world cup bid. The hon. Gentleman said that he was happy to compromise and to move forward. All that this Bill is asking for is an analysis of cost benefits and a trial period. Surely, in the spirit of compromise that he mentions, he should support this measure.
Mr MacNeil
The trial period is the dangerous part. A trial period of three years is quite a large percentage of somebody’s life. I would be happier if something could be done about the EU directive. Rather than plunge people in Scotland into misery, we could turn the other way, look south-east towards Belgium—towards Brussels and the EU—and move forward with greater security, but instead we will be shoehorned into this by interests in the south of England aligning with interests in the EU and plunging Scotland into darkness.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman says that he is representing his seat and Scotland by claiming that we are going to plunge them into misery. How does he square that with the three recent polls in Scotland in which people said they favoured this move, and with the fact that the farmers, who were the big opponents of this change, have now decided to embrace it because in many cases they have moved into the world of tourism?
Mr MacNeil
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to an Ipsos MORI poll on changing the clocks, which showed that 19% of people in Scotland were in favour and 28% of people in London were in favour. The average throughout the UK was 25%, so the polling evidence is not as conclusive as he suggests.
Mr David Hamilton
Is not the fact that very few central Scotland MPs, and no MPs from the borders, are here an indication that this is not the major issue in Scotland that the hon. Gentleman makes it out to be? I have to say that he does not speak for Scotland.
Mr MacNeil
In all areas and at all times there is a difference of opinion. The reason many of them are not here is probably that they and their constituents do not think that this change will really happen—that it is just Westminster going through a debate. If constituents did think it was going to happen, we might indeed have 366 Members here to debate against 81. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is possible.
In 1968, the image that was often painted was one of slimmer people, the elderly feeling safer, more tourists, more money in our pockets and more lives being saved during the winter. Those arguments have not changed since the ’60s.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something significant has changed since 1968, which is that we face catastrophic climate change and an energy crisis? This measure has the potential to take the equivalent of 172,000 cars off the roads. Does he not think that that alone merits at least a trial?
Mr MacNeil
A number of things have indeed changed since the 1970s; of course, I have aged 40 years. The hon. Lady is incorrect in the assumptions that underlie her intervention. I will try to come to those matters later; if I do not, I will be happy to take another intervention.
The report to Cabinet spoke of a reduction in Scottish resistance to the idea, as we heard again today, save in the rural areas, which I come from, of course—the Outer Hebrides—but two and a half years later, on 2 December 1970, it was all change. When people had been through the experiment, in its third winter, it was resoundingly defeated in the Commons—let me reiterate—by 366 to 81.
Portugal, as we have mentioned, has dawn around the same time as us. Regardless of what the clock might say, the sun rises in Portugal at around the same time as it does in London—when I say us, I mean this House. Portugal changed back after its experiment in the 1990s, and the 1968 arguments seem to be based on today’s model of simulated modelling and supposition. When we have empirical examples, I feel that the arguments are not borne out at all.
That was the past and now we have a raft of statistics to add to this version of the time change argument. However, in my office we have taken some time to look at the statistics and we have compiled a number of arguments that apply to our situation. First, the arguments about potential increases to the tourism sector are based on several assumptions, most importantly that people here and abroad will choose to spend their disposable income on holidaying in the UK. Surely a bigger factor is temperature. After all, it is winter. If the argument about tourist numbers is so strong, why not move the clocks two, three or four hours, as I have said? Why not have dawn at 5 o’clock?
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
On the point about people wanting to barbecue, for example, at half 11 at night, it is quite possible to do that on the north coast in Northern Ireland. Not many people do, generally, because it is quite chilly at that time of night.
Mr MacNeil
Once again, we have the voice of experience versus the voice of hope. Experience often triumphs over hope, I have to say. I worry that hon. Members who mention carbon savings in one breath are talking in the next breath about having a barbecue late at night. I wonder whether we have any data on the impact of the increased number of barbecues in Castle Point—or, indeed, in Ynys Môn.
The sleight of hand is that we are not moving the dawn about. We are actually moving ourselves by changing the clocks. Clocks, which started by measuring time, end up governing lives, and we are moving ourselves into the night. Such was the misery in the third winter that this House voted to end it with 366 votes. I would like to point out—I am looking at a couple of other highland Members—that even with the best will in the world we do not have 366 Members of Parliament from the Scottish highlands. Indeed, we do not have 366 Members of Parliament from the whole of Scotland. We therefore must conclude that the decision was made not on a Scottish basis, but on the basis of experience—and, I would say, grim experience—throughout the United Kingdom.
I have a letter here, and some people might think that it has come from Callanish in Lewis, from Castlebay in Barra, from Tobermory, from Isla or just from somewhere else in Scotland, but—no—it comes from Chester. It says,
“Dear Angus MacNeil,
I listened to you on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Costing the Earth’ on Wednesday.
Please do all you can to defeat the moves to bring in year round summer time. In 1968-71 I was a schoolchild and we detested it”—
the word “detested” is underlined—
“It was pitch black when going to school. (You may quote me on this detestation).”
I hope, Mr Roger Croston, that I have done you justice in doing that—[Interruption.] I was expecting an intervention. Any sound I hear, I expect an intervention.
On sporting issues, the same tourism study concluded that more people would go out if it was lighter later, but it also showed that the number of people participating in athletics was fairly constant during the year. The athletics events in which numbers fell were those that took place outside, such as sailing, which is also very temperature dependent.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although people who participate in competitive sport are probably fairly consistent in their participation, it is those with the “jumpers for goalposts” mentality—the people who take part in spontaneous sport—who will greatly benefit from lighter evenings?
Mr MacNeil
I am tempted to say that perhaps people should get up an hour earlier if they are that motivated. Let us assume for a second that the hon. Gentleman has an argument and that he is right—why not go for the compromise of five weeks either side? Without inconveniencing people in Scotland and perhaps in other areas, such as Chester, we could reduce the “winter” period by 10 weeks. That would help us on to a more secure stepping stone than the present suggestion.
Malcolm Bruce
Although I would support that move, does the hon. Gentleman not realise that one reason it would be resisted by other members of the European Union is that France, Spain and the Benelux countries are in the wrong time zone and could not tolerate the dark mornings being extended further back?
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes a point that I perhaps have not fully thought about, but it is worth putting on the record.
I have a serious problem with the proposition that lighter evenings will automatically increase the tourism money coming in to the various isles and decrease obesity—that is, that if it is lighter outside, people might want to get up and go out and exercise. There are various other reasons for doing that, however.
On the environmental aspects of changing the clocks, I have a problem with the arguments that changing the clocks will foster a decrease in energy use. We have not been able to find any domestic studies that use empirical data, but we have found studies from the United States that recorded the use of energy during daylight saving time. In 2008, a study was conducted in the state of Indiana. Indiana has 6.4 million inhabitants and, geographically, it is probably approximately the same size as the UK. Its GDP is comparable with that of this country. Indiana is interesting for this argument because certain counties were able to use daylight saving time whereas others were not.
The study found that household costs and energy consumption increased owing to people heating their homes in the colder winter mornings, doubtless wanting to rise to a warmer home to counter the feeling of darkness and gloom outside. The empirical data from Indiana say something different from the data we are hearing.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman cites many trials and much evidence in his speech, and he clearly feels passionate about this. By not voting for this Bill, however, is he not denying the one thing that really matters, which is for this provision to be tested in the United Kingdom for the people of the United Kingdom?
Mr MacNeil
If we could conduct a trial without going through the inevitable misery and changing back, I would agree. I am tempted to suggest that the hon. Gentleman conduct his own personal trial this winter and get up an hour earlier. He could come back to me in the spring and tell me how the experience went. I could see him in the autumn again and see whether he wanted to go through the trial once more. I wager that he would not, but I shall leave that suggestion as it is.
Darker mornings will mean sunrise at 10 am for many people. Indeed, London’s sunrise will be at a quarter to 9. Let us consider some of the sunrise times in the UK this morning, starting in Scotland. In Aberdeen, sunrise was 8.26 am, with a length of day of seven hours and five minutes. In Edinburgh, it was 8.22 am, with a length of day of seven hours and 20 minutes. In London, it was 7.46 am, with a length of day of eight hours and seven minutes—almost an hour more daylight than in Aberdeen, due to the effect of latitude. That would leave London with sunrise at a quarter to 9. Let me draw attention to the west coast of Scotland. Stornoway had sunrise at 10 to 9 today, which would of course become 10 to 10. Tobermory, which some people might think is quite close to Stornoway, has a difference of 13 minutes in its sunrise, which is 13 minutes earlier, and sunset is nine minutes later.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman cited some times, but how long does that situation last in those places?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady leads me nicely on to the next part of my speech. In this, I am not only a Scottish nationalist—I feel the mantle of English nationalism, too. I care for the good people of England and I care that for two months of the year, in the area north of Manchester, they would not see sunrise before 9 o’clock in the morning. Somebody has to speak up for the good people of England and I am happy to do that, come what may.
Sir Alan Beith
I should hate to leave the hon. Gentleman with that burden unaided. Do his constituents, like mine, have the experience of seeing many children waiting at the roadside for school transport? Some are dropped by taxis from more remote locations and left to wait for the school bus. One of people’s real concerns is that if the clocks were changed, that would have to be done in the dark on many more occasions.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. That is also one of my concerns, but I should like to see a compromise. I wish that others would meet me halfway, rather than railroading us into a situation that we would not enjoy.
Let me return to the issue of Indiana for a moment. The Indiana experiment showed that people spent an additional £5.5 million on energy—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a compromise. He has been speaking for quite a long time, and he has the right to do so, but many other Members wish to speak as well, and I know that he wishes to allow them to do so.
Mr MacNeil
One thing that I am certainly not trying to do, Mr Deputy Speaker, is talk the Bill out. That is not a parliamentary tactic of which I approve. However, some may think my speech long-winded, and I apologise for that. At your instigation, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall try to proceed a wee bit more quickly.
Safety is an important aspect of this issue, but data relating to the saving of lives are often based on projection. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), changes were made in the 1960s. We know that the most dangerous hours of the day are 8 am and 3 pm. The Bill would send 8 am further back into the darkness, although 3 pm would probably not be affected, as it is always light at that time.
Mr Bradshaw
Is it not time that we scotched the myth about the rate of road accidents in Scotland during the experiment? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the overall reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries was 11% in England and Wales and 17% in Scotland—a significantly higher proportion? A very small increase in the north of Scotland was massively outweighed by the overall decrease in the mornings throughout Scotland.
Mr MacNeil
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan—the new Madame Ecosse—the statistic was greatly affected by the introduction of seat belts, speed limits and drink-driving laws. Let us, however, consider the difference between accident rates in Berlin and Paris, which are in the same time zone although, as one is further west, it presumably has lighter evenings. The accident rates in Paris and Berlin are 31.8 and 14 per million of population respectively, which shows that there are not necessarily fewer accidents where there are lighter evenings. When we compare the rate in Paris with that in London—[Interruption.] Members may not like it, but these are the data. The accident rate in Paris, with its lighter evenings, is 31.8 per million, whereas in London it is 23.9 per million. The evidence is certainly not conclusive; it should be balanced with other evidence.
Rebecca Harris
When it comes to accident statistics, the only evidence that matters is the differential between what happens in the darker mornings and the lighter afternoons. All the hon. Gentleman’s arguments point in one direction: the Government should conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis. Every point that he has made demonstrates that there are genuine concerns in parts of the country, and that is precisely why we should put the argument to bed once and for all—unless, as I suspect, the hon. Gentleman rather welcomes this annual discussion.
Mr MacNeil
I have to say that I would much rather be in the outer Hebrides than in London on this Friday morning.
Mr MacNeil
I have probably just missed a decent quip in the Chamber, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Reid
I am sorry to keep the hon. Gentleman away from the flight home to Barra, but he is right about the accident statistics. The experiment lasted from 1968 until 1971. I have the official Department for Transport figures relating to deaths on the roads in Great Britain. There was indeed a substantial fall between 1967 and 1968, but, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that was due to the introduction of the breathalyser. If the clock change had been responsible for a reduction in the number of deaths, there would have been substantial increases after the experiment finished, but that did not happen.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman has neatly completed a picture of which we had probably been given only half. The other half is very interesting.
I agree with the hon. Member for Castle Point about the need for an analysis. I have given facts relating to Paris, Berlin and London. However, I do not want any analysis that would involve changing our clocks and making us undergo three years of misery before the clocks were inevitably changed back again. It seems that once the memory of 40 years ago has dimmed, a new generation must learn painfully and slowly over three miserable winters that this is the wrong thing to do.
I am trying to proceed with my speech reasonably quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker.
According to a 2005 survey by Ipsos MORI, Scots are in favour of lighter evenings. That is true: we are in favour of lighter evenings. However, only 19% of Scots who were polled want the clocks to move back permanently. Of course, some people might be in favour of Christmas every week, but they realise that that cannot happen. Similarly, we might want lighter evenings, but we know that the earth tilts. We know that we will have cold and frost.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I have been enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech enormously. I think that he has identified the nub of the problem, which is simply that there is not enough daylight in the winter, and there is remarkably little that Government—or even a sovereign Parliament—can do about it.
Mr MacNeil
I welcome that sensible point from a new Member whom I admire enormously. I want to put on record the fact that I have really enjoyed his contributions. I think that I detected some agitation among Labour Members when I paid the hon. Gentleman that compliment! As I was saying, people might be in favour of x, y or z, but they know exactly how things pan out in reality.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland has discussed the issue. Incidentally, when Donald Stewart spoke about the issue, he said that he presumed “NFU” to refer to the National Farmers Union of England and Wales—which, for some reason, does not brand itself properly—rather than the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Anyway, if we are to believe newspaper reports, it seems that every farmer in Scotland is in favour of change. One newspaper stated:
“Scott Walker, NFU Scotland policy director, said today that the organisation had softened its stance towards the move, which would see clocks shunted forward by an hour throughout the year while retaining the changing of clocks forward in March and back in October.
‘If people can put a good argument forward to us as to why there should be change, we’re not going to be the ones who stand in the way of that change, if it’s for everyone else’s benefit’”.
That is not a resounding “yes” to change; it is only a “yes” to listening. I, too, am willing to listen, but I ask those on the other side not to indulge in a kamikaze leap—
Mr MacNeil
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to indulge in a kamikaze leap.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman is manfully presenting arguments against what seem to be manifestly sensible reasons for moving the times of day. May I put to him an argument that has not been put so far? The unofficial opposition to the Bill appears to have been mobilised by Mr Peter Hitchens. Is that not the clincher in favour of a successful passage for the Bill, or does the hon. Gentleman wish to find himself in alliance with Mr Hitchens?
Mr MacNeil
I am not very familiar with Mr Peter Hitchens. I believe that he writes in The Times or the Daily Express, or perhaps the Daily Mail. I have heard that Mr Peter Hitchens is involved, but I have had no contact with Mr Peter Hitchens, either positive or negative. Perhaps the word “kamikaze” could be attached to Mr Peter Hitchens; I have no idea. However, if Mr Peter Hitchens is on my side, I welcome that. What an eminently sensible man Mr Peter Hitchens must be. [Interruption.] I have just been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan that I did not want to say that. Hansard, strike it from the record! [Laughter.] It seems that Mr Peter Hitchens has been a torpedo to my argument, whoever he is.
I have raised all those issues in order to challenge data that have been used to suggest that opposition to this idea has all but evaporated. It has not evaporated. Eminently sensible members of all parties—and, it would seem, eminently sensible scribes in certain newspapers—are backing the argument against this move.
The Bill offers an even-handed new approach, save one part. It has much merit therefore, and the hon. Member for Castle Point has conducted herself very well in making her arguments, and I have enjoyed engaging in discussion with her. Changing the clocks will definitely advantage the south of England, while sunrise in Manchester and areas north of there will be after 9 o’clock for two months of the year. I was therefore surprised to note that there is no geographical requirement regarding the membership of the commission that will implement the change in the clocks. I hope—indeed, I am sure—the Bill will not pass, but under its provisions the commission’s membership would be selected by the Business Secretary, and we could have a commission comprising 12 people from London, Dover or Blackpool, for instance.
There is also no provision in respect of the Scottish Government or Parliament, and I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) arguing for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. I say to him, “Join me, brother, and let us have all powers pertaining to Scotland moved from here to Holyrood”, which is the rightful place and the most democratic forum in which to discuss Scottish matters. The hon. Gentleman might be coming my way a little bit. I welcome that and hope that he will move further in my direction.
Mr Gale
I do not want to go too far off-piste, but I happen to be in favour of four national Parliaments and a United Kingdom Senate. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has not yet mentioned whether this matter has been discussed in the Scottish Parliament, and whether the issue of time zones has been considered.
Mr MacNeil
I understand that it has not been debated in the Scottish Parliament, because they think this is one of the normal Westminster convulsions that happen from time to time. I am not sure whether people there are taking what is happening in Westminster particularly seriously. That might surprise people in Westminster of course, but for many people Westminster is not the most serious Parliament in Scotland. There is another, which deals with health, education and many other matters: the Scottish Parliament.
There is no provision to ensure that the Government or Parliament of Scotland—or, indeed, the Governments of Wales or Northern Ireland—are asked to agree, or are even consulted, on these potential moves, which would make Scottish mornings colder and more dangerous, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan has described very well.
I realise that I have been speaking for about half an hour. I am not here just to rant against the data. I have tried to provide reasoned argument. I am not here to talk the Bill out either; I would not do that. I am not here for purely selfish Hebridean reasons. I am here for Scottish reasons, and for English reasons as well. I understand more than most the effect of darker mornings. As the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, when this Bill is foisted on the rest of the UK, other people will understand that too. I would propose changing the clocks for five weeks either side of the middle of winter, thereby maximising the light in the darkest part of the year.
Mr David Hamilton
I understand fully that the hon. Gentleman is making these arguments because of where he comes from. If I came from that constituency I might make the same arguments. However, if the Scottish Parliament were to debate the matter and the outcome of the vote was that we should keep things as they are, would he want the Scottish Parliament to put in place separate time zones in the UK?
Mr MacNeil
I feel the hon. Gentleman is coming on to good territory in that he seems to want to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament. It is a welcome move: come with me, brother, we are heading in the right direction.
The situation is confusing. Why is there this asymmetrical period of winter change of seven weeks before mid-winter and 14 weeks after? I have never received a reasonable explanation for that. If we could have one, or if we could deal with the European directive I mentioned earlier, we might be able to make some progress.
I have enjoyed making this contribution, and the numerous interventions.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), and I will address some of the points that he made later.
The principal argument for considering changing the clocks is simple: it is about how we can best align our lives to maximise the benefits of daylight. The idea is not new, of course, but the circumstances in which we are debating the matter are new. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on selecting this subject for her private Member’s Bill and on outlining how the pace of change in our modern busy world makes things different from when the subject was last considered. The second key point is that there is new evidence to support the clock change. Thirdly, the public are more educated in their views than ever before, and that is the case across the country, from Bournemouth all the way up to the constituency that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken represents. That is reflected in the diverse range of constituencies represented by the Members who are attending this debate. The hon. Gentleman said there were an awful lot of voices against this move in Scotland. I am sorry his hon. Friends were not able to find the time to join him and present themselves and their arguments today.
I first came across this issue when I was shadow tourism Minister. I looked at it without prejudice or passion, and it became clear that it is very important for the tourism industry—I say that just as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) departs. The Tourism Alliance has done a lot of work on this. However, I stepped away from the specific issue of tourism and thought about how it might benefit or damage the whole of the country.
It is clear that there would be huge benefits in many corners of our lives. I studied the change’s potential impacts on British society as a whole and why the last experiment was unsuccessful. It is clear that Britain is in a different place today. Our lifestyles, technologies, industries and priorities have fundamentally changed since the last experiment. Most people rise after sunrise and stay awake long after sunset, wasting one of the few things in life that are free: daylight. Essentially, this subject is about how we align our lives with the movement of the sun across the heavens.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I believe my hon. Friend’s constituency contains a community of orthodox Jewish people, as does mine in Hendon. Would he like to speak about how the proposed changes would affect them, particularly in the winter, but also in the summer when their days of prayer are dictated and determined by sunrise and sunset?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are many groups, such as the one he has just mentioned, who have concerns in respect of various aspects of life, and those matters need to be weighed up in deciding on the bigger picture of whether this change is worth making. The whole purpose of having this debate and allowing the discussion to progress and the Government to take an interest, is to balance out the various arguments and see whether the change is in the interests of Britain as a whole.
The idea is not new. It is not only various hon. Members of the past who have brought it forward. The Romans adapted their way of life to when the sun was in the sky, using water clocks with various weights to make sure they were up when the sun rose and went to bed when it set. When Benjamin Franklin was ambassador to Paris, he commented on the fact that most Parisians did not get up until midday. He then realised—this is a capitalist viewpoint—that more revenue could be made by putting extra taxes on candles, because they were needed in the evening. He was also encouraging people to take advantage of the free sunlight, however, and he came up with the saying, “Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.”
The advent of our railway system moved us on from local timings in towns and villages, as we now had to synchronise time across the entire country. This was measured at the Greenwich observatory, and gave rise to the now familiar Greenwich mean time. Greenwich was referenced as zero degrees longitude and 24 time zones were created around the globe, each covering exactly 50 degrees longitude, but as has been pointed out, not everybody adheres to that. Spain is in alignment with the UK, but it chooses to operate on continental time.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
I hope my hon. Friend will pay tribute in his brief history of the daylight savings movement to Mr William Willett of my constituency of Orpington, who was among the very first to bring this idea to the centre of national debate. Back in 1907, the sight of drawn blinds in the homes of Petts Wood, a ward in my constituency, where he saw residents sleeping as the town basked in sunlight, persuaded him to write his highly influential pamphlet, “The Waste of Daylight”, in which he argued forcefully for the changes that were introduced just a few weeks after his death in 1915, during the first world war. I hope my hon. Friend will commend his hard work in bringing this debate into our national life.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to his former constituent. It is also worth mentioning Robert Pearce, MP, who was a friend of Mr Willett, and who then took this idea on. Mr Willett was a keen golfer and he was horrified that the golf courses he used closed down when it got dark. He wanted them to stay open. That was the initial thought that put the idea into his head of taking advantage, from a leisure perspective, of the evening sunlight. So we should thank Robert Pearce for first bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
I wish to bury some of the myths and some of the headlines that we see in some of the press. We are not putting anywhere into the dark; we are not getting rid of any sunshine in any form. We are transferring light from one part of the day to another—from the morning to the evening. We are saying that, on balance, it is more useful to have that light in the evening than in the morning. Some extreme cases have been mentioned, but for much of the year—nine months of the year—we sleep through this asset. When we awake the sun has been out for an hour or more. If we suppose that an average working day ends at 5.30 pm, a clock change would result in about 300 extra hours of daylight a year in London. The figure for Glasgow would be 175 hours and the one for Shetland, at the very north of the UK, would be 160 hours. That change would be life-changing and would have an impact on everybody. It is useful to have that extra daylight at the end of the evening to do whatever one wants to do.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The crucial thing is: will we save lives by changing the hours at which daylight starts and daylight ends? We should check that and the only way we can do so is to give this a trial, 40 years on from the previous one. If we save one life by changing our clocks, it is worth it.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes one of the most powerful points for this argument, and it cannot be refuted by any Member or any person in any part of the country. Lives will be saved, as they have been proven to have been saved, through the clock change. Let me further the argument on how our lives will change. Schoolchildren would also benefit if we transferred that hour of light from the morning to the afternoon. In London, they would benefit from 233 hours of available extra daylight between 4.30 pm and either sunset or bedtime taken at 8.30 pm. That is 233 hours when activity could take place, after-school events could happen and, as my hon. Friend just mentioned, people could travel far more safely than they are able to do when it is dark.
Those arguments are also why Help the Aged says that it wants this change. At the moment, darkness acts as a guillotine on when the elderly are out; as soon as it gets dark, they lock the doors and close up shop. They are denied the opportunity to spend time in the town centre doing recreational activities or working in the garden—darkness comes and that is it.
Mr Reid
We had an experiment in the 1960s and there was no clear outcome in the studies of the road accident statistics. The Home Secretary of the day, Reginald Maudling, said:
“The figures are not clear enough to base a decision upon.” —[Official Report, 2 December 1970; Vol. 807, c. 1335.]
So we have had the experiment and no clear figures emerged, because of other factors, such as breathalysers, seat belts and so on. Another experiment would simply result in the same unclear figure.
Mr Ellwood
Let us just focus on that debate for a moment. Reginald Maudling did make those comments, but he also read out some statistics that showed that the number of deaths and injuries decreased during the period of the trial. What actually happened, as has been confirmed by colleagues who are now in another place, is that the farming industry—that powerful lobby—pressurised many Conservative MPs by saying, “If you want those precious poster sites in our fields for the general election, you must vote against this.” That is one of the reasons why many chose to follow their heart rather than their head and said, “ We should oppose this motion.” The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which is why we are calling for more information. We are encouraging the Government to examine the matter more closely, leading up to a trial.
Mr MacNeil
I am intrigued by that last contribution. Has the hon. Gentleman uncovered corruption in the Conservative party 40 years ago?
Mr Ellwood
I think I will gloss over that and move straight on to some of the other areas that have been mentioned.
The roads issue is important. There were 1,120 fewer deaths and injuries during that trial period. That is an important piece of evidence. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is also important to Scotland, because there is a 27% higher risk of an accident in Scotland; more people walk than use cars and so on, so there is a greater likelihood of people being in danger, particularly children. As I said in an intervention, the Cambridge study said that had the experiment continued, more than 3,500 people who died during that period would be alive today.
Dr Whiteford
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is simply displacing the problem from one end of the day to the other? Children are affected not only by light and dark, but by hot and cold. We have to examine the whole aspect of the climate, not just one isolated bit of it.
Mr Ellwood
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the method and the style with which she is putting her arguments forward. It is very important that we have a full debate on these matters. When children go to school in the morning the people using the roads are normally going to a destination with which they are familiar; they are either going to work or to school, and they have used these roads before. So even when they are doing so in the dark, they are making a safer journey than those they make in the afternoons and evenings, when our world gets far busier and far more complex. That is when the accidents happen. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) shakes her head, but she cannot refute the current statistics, which show that three times as many accidents happen in the evening rush hour as in the morning rush hour. That is a powerful argument.
Naomi Long
I wrote to Translink, the main public transport provider in Northern Ireland, in relation to this debate and it took the contrary view. Translink said that if it were darker in the mornings, when the rush hour is much more concentrated in Northern Ireland, that could lead to more accidents than if it were darker in the afternoon, when the rush hour is more staggered. The hon. Gentleman can talk about his evidence, but other professionals in the field see things slightly differently.
Mr Ellwood
I looked carefully at the statistics for Northern Ireland, because it is important to include all parts of the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that I did not recognise those statistics that the hon. Lady cited. I would be happy to speak to her about them after this debate. It is important that we get these issues right. A lot of statistics have been thrown around today and were the Government to push this proposal forward, it would be important for them to carry out their own study and present that to Parliament.
A reduction in crime has also been mentioned in relation to this proposal. The Home Office British crime survey has indicated that a clock change would lead to a 3% reduction in vandalism and petty theft. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) raised the health and well-being issue, and people are happier and more energetic in the longer and brighter days. Conversely, our mood and spirit declines, and sickness rates increase, during the shorter, duller days. On average, we enjoy about four hours’ spare time a day—that is time when we are not working, travelling to work or sleeping—yet three of those hours are experienced after sunset. That suggests that we are not aligning our lives properly. There is also a 60% increase in the level of television watching when it gets dark, so there is strong evidence to support a clock change. I can see that you are looking at me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I just wish to touch on some other issues.
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way for now and I shall make some more progress, because Mr Deputy Speaker is giving me that look. Obesity—this has nothing to do with looking back at Mr Deputy Speaker—is an issue with which we need to be concerned in the UK. About 25% of the nation are now clinically obese, which is costing the NHS about £2.3 billion a year. Some 50% of the population in Scotland are predicted to be obese by 2050 unless something changes, such as our providing a greater period in which outdoor activities can take place after school and after work.
The tourism argument has been well made, but I just put on the record the fact that I support the call by the Tourism Alliance for a clock change. The arguments about CO2 emissions have also been put forward; in those terms, the clock change would result in the equivalent of more than 200,000 cars being taken off our roads. That is a major issue and I am pleased that the concept behind the Bill is receiving the support of the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which is is worth expanding on. All fuel bills would go down by about 5%, and as fuel poverty is a concern, that is a relevant issue. We need to recognise that we are an importer of electricity. When there is a spike in demand, either we have to buy it in from places such as France or our easy-to-start-up coal-fired power stations come on line. They are dirty and they increase our carbon dioxide emissions. By reducing our net requirement by about 2.2%, we would remove the need to resort to those nasty, dirty coal-fired power stations.
Malcolm Bruce
The hon. Gentleman is quoting evidence very convincingly, so I shall quote some evidence:
“National Grid has also recognised that if the UK is on the same time as France, a loss of capacity or severe weather”
would push up energy prices here because we would be competing with France for our needs at the same time.
Mr Ellwood
The right hon. Gentleman’s point is now on the record.
We need to ensure that we do not resort to using coal-fired power stations, and that aim can be achieved through the clock change.
Ben Gummer
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has just raised an important point about capacity, but that is entirely to do with generating capacity—an inheritance from the previous Government, I am afraid—and nothing to do with daylight saving time.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for that clarification.
A time change would bring huge benefits for business and overseas trade. As part of my work as the shadow Tourism Minister I spent some time in Scotland and it was interesting to meet Scottish business people, who were very keen to have an alignment of timing. Currently, 62% of our exports and 50% of imports are within Europe. When we go to work, the Europeans have already been at work for an hour, we break for lunch at different times so two hours are lost there and then we lose another hour in the evening. Four hours a day are lost because of the failure to align our times.
One might say that that is where the idea of Berlin time came from. Let me say a word about Mr Peter Hitchens.
Mr Nuttall
This might already have been mentioned, but is it not more accurate to refer to it as Gibraltar time?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He has been a passionate supporter of a clock change for some time.
But let us get back to Peter Hitchens. He is one of the few voices that are against the daylight saving, but I believe that he now acts as a drag anchor against that great British newspaper the Sunday mail—[Interruption.] —I am sorry; The Mail on Sunday. He is anti-change; he is anti-technology, so he abhors the idea of moving the clocks. That is slightly odd. Because he does not like inventions and technology, one would have thought that using the light bulb less might appeal to him, but he does not put that argument forward. He would rather put forward a wartime rhetoric with references to Berlin time to foster prejudice against the Bill.
“Why Berlin time?” it has been asked. “Why not Gibraltar time, Madrid time, Paris time or Rome time?” Clearly, those descriptions would not conjure up the same worrying image as the UK crumbling to the mighty powers of Berlin after the sacrifices that we made in two world wars. I say to him, “Peter, you are potty. Clearly, you are a very, very angry man and stuck in the past. You are a cross between Alf Garnett and Victor Meldrew but without the jokes.” He is a restless regressive: the King Canute of politics, fighting the tide of change. He will never lose sight of the past because he has chosen to walk backwards into the future. This is nothing to do with Berlin or wartime images. The only connection with the war is the fact that we first adopted a time change during the war because it was useful. [Hon. Members: “Churchill time!”] Yes, that is what we will call it—not Berlin time but Churchill time!
To summarise, moving the clocks forward would provide the entire country with about 200 hours of extra daylight in the evenings—after a normal working day for adults and after the end of school for children. That would change our lives. It is hard to imagine a more simple, cost-effective piece of legislation that would more dramatically change our way of life for the better. Sunshine brightens our day, our lives and our spirits; it makes our world happier. We should utilise this valuable resource to coincide with the period of the day in which our modern world is at its busiest and most dangerous. Carpe diem, Mr Deputy Speaker; let us seize the day.
Mr Deputy Speaker
There are many speakers, so a little brevity will be helpful.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on proposing the Bill and refusing to be discouraged by the failure of previous attempts in the House to introduce daylight saving time. I am extremely glad that she has proposed the Bill, because the urgency of the problems of climate change and fuel poverty means that the arguments for bringing the nation’s clocks into closer alignment with the hours of daylight are stronger than ever. Moving our clocks forward by an extra hour throughout the year would bring a range of benefits, as we have heard, but I would like to draw particular attention, again, to the substantial reductions in energy consumption and carbon emissions that would result from the simple and effective measures in the Bill.
Daylight saving time would cut consumption, particularly of domestic fuel, in a number of ways. First, it would lower the demand for electricity for lighting, Secondly, it would smooth out fluctuations in demand, particularly in the two daily peaks in the morning and in the afternoon, which reduce the efficiency of power generation. Thirdly, because there would be higher temperatures during the evening period of peak demand in the colder months of the year, there would be a lower demand for domestic heating.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady is, as we would expect, making an argument based on the effect of a time change on carbon emissions. If evidence was to appear—empirical evidence rather than projections—from Indiana, for example, that it would cost more, would she change her mind?
Caroline Lucas
If it were to be proved that such a change would make carbon emissions worse, I would reconsider my position, but I think that is highly unlikely to happen. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about empirical evidence, but the only way for us to get relevant empirical evidence is to pass this Bill now and have the cost-benefit trials that we are talking about.
Mr Reid
Surely, if we passed the Bill, we would be more active at the coldest hour of the day—the hour before dawn—and would therefore use more fuel for heating at that time. The Building Research Establishment investigated this and found that there would be an increase in domestic heating if the Bill were passed.
Caroline Lucas
That was an early intervention in my speech, and if the hon. Gentleman listens to the next bit, some of these questions will be answered, because I do not agree with his point.
On reducing demand for artificial lighting, about 13% of domestic electricity consumption and about 30% of electricity consumed by commercial and public buildings currently goes on lighting. An extra hour of evening daylight would reduce the need for domestic lighting as people arrived home from school or work. Recent research by the Policy Studies Institute shows that the effect of the proposed clock change would be to lower demand for domestic lighting by as much as 9%. In other words, the Bill would lead to household savings of nearly £180 million per year on electricity bills alone. A common argument—I expect this will be made, so I will pre-empt it—against daylight saving time is that any drop in demand for evening lighting will be cancelled by the need for extra lighting on darker mornings. That may be true during the winter months, when the days are shorter, but the Bill proposes an adjustment of clock time throughout the year, which means less need for artificial lighting in the evenings all year round.
Regarding commercial demand for evening lighting, it is more difficult to quantify the potential savings for offices, workplaces and public buildings, as patterns of lighting often vary widely from sector to sector, but again, the studies indicate that overall demand from commercial customers is also likely to be lower. That aspect must be subject to detailed research during the initial trial period proposed in the Bill, as it offers the greatest potential for a nationwide reduction in domestic carbon emissions.
My second point is closely related to the first. Daylight saving will cut carbon emissions from power generation because it will even out the daily peaks in demand for electricity. For power companies, the late afternoon peak period determines the maximum number of power stations that are required to be on stream to match consumer demand. Currently, the extra capacity required for that short period of peak demand comes from inefficient and carbon-intensive sources such as oil-fired stations and pump storage facilities or, as has been said, by imports from France, which can be an expensive alternative.
The introduction of daylight saving would reduce peak demand for electricity on winter evenings. During that famous 1968-71 experiment with retaining British summer time throughout the year, the evening peak was reduced by 3%. Research carried out by the university of Cambridge calculates that lighter evenings now would reduce peak demand by up to 4.3%. The electricity industry also acknowledges that a reduction in evening peak demand would reduce carbon emissions by avoiding the need to keep inefficient and polluting spare generating capacity on stream.
The university of Cambridge study calculated that a move to daylight saving would mean a drop in CO2 emissions from power stations, across the UK as a whole, of about 450,000 tonnes a year. That is the equivalent of taking off the roads about 200,000 cars. There would also be a significant reduction in power companies’ generating costs, both for resources and for the transmission and distribution infrastructure.
In addition to reducing demand for lighting, daylight saving also offers potential for reducing fuel costs and carbon emissions from heating. Domestic demand for heating is highest from November to February. The PSI study found that whereas there is little variation in average temperatures between 6 am and 8 am, when most people leave the house, temperatures tend to fall much more quickly in the late afternoon, around sunset, when people are arriving home from work or school.
Since the introduction of daylight saving will mean that it gets colder later, it is possible that households will be able to save money on their heating bills, while shrinking their carbon footprint. A small increase in fuel use for heating in offices and commercial and public buildings may be likely because of the earlier start to the day, but the resulting carbon emissions will be offset by reductions in domestic fuel use, so overall there is a clear reduction in carbon emissions.
Malcolm Bruce
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the fact that the temperature does not change much between 6 am and 8 am is because that is the coldest time of the day, and that is exactly the time when the cost of heating to compensate for the cold is at its highest, and that the energy consumption required at that time would be much higher under the changed rules than it is at present?
Caroline Lucas
No, I do not accept that, and I do not think that it is what the evidence suggests. One of the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making has more to do with the way in which we generate energy now and our spare capacity, rather than being a fundamental point to do with changing to daylight saving hours.
In all of the three areas that I have discussed—reducing demand for lighting, efficient management of peaks in demand, and reduced demand for heating—the greatest potential savings lie in household energy use. For this reason, I believe the Bill offers an easy and inexpensive means of combating fuel poverty. Many of us have constituents, often elderly ones, who struggle to pay their electricity bills and their heating bills. In Brighton and Hove, for example, more than 20,000 households, many of whom are my constituents, have been identified as fuel-poor—in other words, forced to spend over 10% of their income on energy bills.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Bill will allow any of us to relax our efforts to eradicate fuel poverty, or to ignore our duty to take meaningful action on cutting carbon emissions. But the beauty of the Bill is that the action that it requires is simple, while the benefits that it will bring are profound.
Mr MacNeil
I hear the hon. Lady making an argument about what could/will/should/may happen. Can she point to an empirical example? I pointed to Indiana, where there was an increase in energy consumption of 1 to 4% and presumably, therefore, an increase in carbon, methane and so on. Where is the empirical study that she is talking about?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman seems to be obsessed with Indiana. There may well be other reasons why the results in Indiana were shown to be what they were. As many people have said, we need to look at what the results would be in the United Kingdom. There is one way to find that out, which is to allow the Bill to progress to the next stage so we can establish that.
Dr Whiteford
I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about carbon emissions. It is important that we take that into account. I also share the concerns about fuel poverty. However, my fundamental concern is that pre-dawn temperatures are so much lower than temperatures towards the daylight hours that people will spend much more on fossil fuel heating for their homes, rather than going out at a slightly less cold time of day. They will have to use heating and lighting in far greater quantities in the middle of the night.
Caroline Lucas
We can trade statistics across the Floor of the House for a great many hours and not become very much the wiser. The points that the hon. Lady makes are serious ones, but the way to explore the matter further is precisely to allow the passage of the Bill and to have the cost-benefit analysis that it proposes.
Caroline Lucas
No, the hon. Gentleman has spoken a lot. [Interruption.] Oh, he is going to agree. In that case, I shall let him speak.
Mr MacNeil
Perhaps I have misled the hon. Lady!
Why reinvent the wheel? Why not look to other parts of the world where the change has taken place and avoid three years of misery and the inevitable change that the UK and Portugal have experienced before? I say to the good people of England and Scotland, let us make sure that we learn from elsewhere before we go through such misery, because, I must regretfully tell the hon. Lady, the evidence from elsewhere does not support the supposition and conjecture at all.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who just reminds me never to trust him again! My giving way was an aberration, and it will not happen again.
I return to the point that any impact analysis of the Bill’s proposed changes has to take place in the country and nations under discussion, not in another place with completely different variables that we cannot analyse or factor into our equations.
Charlie Elphicke
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her passion in setting about the Luddites who are against any change. Is not her argument bolstered empirically by the graph showing energy consumption on the last BST Monday and the first GMT Monday?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Yes, indeed, there is plenty of empirical evidence to support our argument. As I say, however, the most important thing is to move the Bill forward so that, with the same figures on everybody’s laps, we can have that debate and make the same analysis.
In closing, I reiterate what others have said about how the Bill will also benefit tourism in the UK. My constituency owes a great deal of its prosperity to tourism, with about £690 million entering the Brighton and Hove economy last year. In the wider south-east region, the sector employs more than 300,000 people, about 8% of the work force. The Bill enjoys broad and enthusiastic support from all sections of the tourism industry, and it is estimated that moving to daylight saving will boost tourism throughout the UK by about £3.5 billion and create 80,000 jobs.
That is just one more argument to add to the many that we have heard today about why, at the very least, the Bill should progress to the next stage of its passage through Parliament. The issue should be analysed properly. I think the cost-benefit analysis will demonstrate that the trial should go ahead, and as a result all of us will have a much better quality of life.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on the Bill, which I am happy to support, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on her helpful remarks. I agree that the Bill is about scrutiny and debate as much as anything else, and I find it extraordinary that anybody would want to deny us the opportunity to have the issue sorted once and for all.
I have a long memory, and as colleagues have said we seem to go round and round on the issue. Every so often, it crops up again, we have a debate, it goes away because it is never properly decided on, and then it comes back again. I recall Sir John Butterfill in 1996 introducing just such a Bill.
Mr MacNeil
I should like to counter the hon. Lady. The issue has been decided on, but some malcontents return to the debate every so often. Perhaps that is one way of looking at it.
Angie Bray
The hon. Gentleman knows, however, that the problem with a private Member’s Bill is that it has to get over certain hurdles on a Friday, and that depends on how helpful people want to be. Such issues do not receive the proper scrutiny that they deserve unless we bring everybody’s concerns to the table and consider them in the round.
Sir John Butterfill, as Members said earlier, also attempted to introduce a private Member’s Bill back in 1996, and that is when I first became involved with the issue, working with him on his legislation. His measure was called “daylight extra”; the one before us is called “daylight saving”.
We have heard from the lighter evenings campaign, and Later Lighter—or rather, Lighter Later—has also commented.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I think that the measure should be called “Churchill time”, as my hon. Friend so cleverly suggested today. She represents an urban constituency and I represent a rural constituency, and historically farmers have been against such a shift, but I have talked to the NFU, and it is at worst neutral on the issue, so does my hon. Friend agree that the world has changed significantly since it was last debated? Farming in Devizes has diversified; we have a huge tourism industry, and I have had nothing but very strong support for the measure, call it what we will.
Angie Bray
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I was pleased to have a small role in suggesting the good title of “Churchill’s time”, which would be helpful to us patriots who get rather annoyed when people suggest that we are being pushed into this move by an EU directive or that we are going back to Berlin time.
Mr MacNeil
Perhaps rather than Churchill time, it should be Chamberlain time: appeasement is what is happening.
Angie Bray
It was Churchill who recognised that by going on to summer time, we would get more out of our factories and generally be more productive. That is why it was so useful during the war effort.
I introduced this matter as a member of the London assembly, because for Londoners, it is a no-brainer, although I appreciate that other regions have concerns and that not every region will think the same way. I was delighted to have full support from all parties on the London assembly. That was the one occasion when I found myself in complete agreement with the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. It was a very happy, if unusual, occasion.
I was contacted before this debate by many of my constituents, urging me to speak in favour of the measure. We must remember that we are talking about a period of scrutiny and a trial, and are not prescribing what will come out at the end. This is an opportunity for everybody to put the facts on the table so that we can sort the matter out once and for all.
Even in the mid-1990s, when I was doing the legwork for Sir John Butterfill’s Bill, I was aware that some of the old Scottish objections had less resonance. We have moved even further beyond that now.
Malcolm Bruce
I, too, was very much involved in that Bill. I took part in “On the Record”, which had a live studio audience and a phone-in. At the beginning, the vote was two to one in favour of the idea, and at the end it was two to one against. Nearly all the representations against the idea came from the south and south-west of England, not from Scotland.
Angie Bray
General polling suggests that the public feel rather differently from that particularly small sample. At the time, Sir John Butterfill was ably supported by two Scottish Labour MPs, George Foulkes—now Lord Foulkes—and Brian Wilson, who made it clear that the measure would be good for a large part of Scotland. As we have heard today, the move can only be a good thing for the vast majority of the population in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales.
At the time, we were deluged by letters from Scottish farmers saying that the arguments were a bit patronising because they did have electricity in their barns. Some Scottish builders also wrote to us to say that they would prefer to drive to their job of work in the dark if they could have an extra hour of light towards the end of the day, because they would be able to do a longer day’s work.
Dr Whiteford
One reason why farmers in parts of Scotland are less opposed to the measure than they were 40 years ago is that they now have heating and lighting in their steadings. That rather undermines the carbon saving argument. The farmers to whom I have spoken are less than enthusiastic; at best they are neutral. Clearly, they are not diametrically opposed, as they once were, but that is because they are now able to heat and light the buildings that they use in the early morning.
Angie Bray
In a sense, that makes the point that we are moving forward. All those arguments can be put on the table when we have the scrutiny.
I went to a Scottish university, St Andrews, and one of my flatmates never saw any daylight. Admittedly, he chose his own hours, but he used to go to bed in the early hours of the morning and rise at about 2.30 or 3 o’clock in the afternoon. By the time he had scrubbed his teeth and stepped outside, it was pitch dark again. A little light might have done him some good—he never looked a very healthy colour.
The number of organisations that support the Bill speaks for itself: ROSPA, the police, sports bodies—including my local group, the Old Actonians, which contacted me—the hospitality industry, the tourist industry, the CBI, environmentalists and many more groups say that we should have a serious think about how we set our clocks.
Call me a bit lazy, but I have to admit that were I to be involved in the scrutiny, I would not plump for Churchill’s time exactly, because I think that would have been two hours forward in the summer. I am more of a compromise girl, and my view is that if we have a chance we should go on to permanent British summer time, not least because I get sick to death of changing my clocks twice a year. Having a settled time would be very handy, and it would be a compromise that would give us a bit of extra light in the afternoon when it would be used most effectively.
I am not sure that I want to move as far as keeping it light until midnight. When I was at St Andrews university it was light until about 11 o’clock at night at certain times, and that seemed a little bit too long for me. I am a British summer time girl and I am for sticking with it right through the year, but that is another argument that will be tested if we have scrutiny and a trial. That is the only way that we can move out of the revolving door of private Members’ Bills. Let us have proper scrutiny, so that the matter can be decided once and for all for the benefit of our constituents and the country as a whole.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on securing the opportunity to debate this issue. Things such as environmental, social and economic benefits, fuel poverty and so on have been discussed in detail, but it is disappointing for me as a Member from Northern Ireland that so little thought has been given to the impact on that part of the country. We are not just further north but further west than the constituencies of almost anyone else participating in the debate, and that would have an impact if the changes were to take place.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) said that it was important to allow debate, and that that was the Bill’s purpose. I agree, which is why I will support the Bill, but I get slightly nervous when I hear the rather zealous opinions expressed against those of us who have concerns that we want considered. We are simply dismissed as though we were trying to hold back progress in some way.
Angie Bray
I would be very disappointed if the hon. Lady were to get the impression that I do not recognise the concerns. I think what I said was that all regions will have very different views, but that there will be an opportunity for those views to be put on the table and discussed and scrutinised properly. Of course all regions will have different views for different reasons, and I hope she accepts that I realise that.
Naomi Long
I do indeed, and the fervour that I referred to was not hers. However, some of the questions that have been raised have not been answered. For example, we must consider the coincidence of the last trial with the introduction of drink-driving regulations, speed limits and so on. That has not been effectively addressed by any of the proponents of the change.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not agree that the argument about breathalysers and seat belts in relation to the last trial back in 1968 to 1971 is slightly flawed? Seat belts were not compulsory until 1983, and in my experience very few people used them before that time. In the same way, people did not take a great deal of notice of the breathalyser in the early days of the drink-drive laws.
Naomi Long
I do not entirely agree. Although it was not compulsory to wear a seat belt, they were fitted in cars in that period, and I think people did take note of the breathalyser, because prosecutions were made.
Naomi Long
No, I wish to make some progress.
Those points are not the crux of my argument, because I do not wish to speak against the Bill. I am speaking in favour of it, but I am simply raising issues that I wish to be given due consideration as part of the trial.
It is important that those of us who come from the north and west of the UK have the opportunity to put our concerns on record. Rather than rehearse arguments that have been made, which have been incredibly English-centric with the exception of a few hon. Members sitting in front of me, I wish to talk about a specific issue in Northern Ireland.
Albert Owen
As a Welsh MP, I am certainly not English-centric. I made the point that we need empirical evidence from all parts of the UK so that we can formulate a proper argument. Indeed, the only data available on energy savings are UK-wide data from National Grid, but we need to consider whether there are different periods of peak demand within the UK. The hon. Lady is right that the Bill will get those data out into the open.
Naomi Long
Had the hon. Gentleman waited a few minutes, he would have heard me say that he was one of the few who said that studies are required specifically on the Northern Ireland context. To date, I have encountered very few specific references to the Northern Ireland situation in the correspondence and lobbying that I have received, but the Scotland situation has been addressed. The assumption is that the opposition to the change would come purely from Scotland, and little thought has been given to the impact on Northern Ireland.
I have received much correspondence in favour of the changes, but it has been generic and mainly on the GB situation—people in the south are very much in favour, but less so in the north. Scotland was at least addressed in that correspondence, but not Northern Ireland. Few have considered the impact on the more westerly and northerly areas of the UK, but we must take care to do so.
More importantly, there has been surprisingly little debate on this issue in Northern Ireland—it does not come to the minds of many people. In advance of today’s debate, I took it upon myself to write to a small sample of representative groups to ask for their opinion, including the Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association, the CBI and the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland, Sport Northern Ireland, Translink NI, which is our largest public transport provider, the Age Sector Platform and the Ulster Farmers Union, from which I received a number of responses. None raised huge objections to the proposal, but all indicated that they had given the matter virtually no consideration. I do not believe that daylight saving is on the radar of Northern Ireland political debate.
Malcolm Bruce
The hon. Lady is making a very important point about northern and western areas. Have the people of Penzance considered what it will be like to have sunrise in mid-December at 9.14 am, half an hour later than it currently is in Belfast?
Naomi Long
Sunrise times are critical. Belfast will be less affected than the north coast of Northern Ireland, where the changes would be much more significant. In some places on the north coast, sunrise would be 9.50 am in mid-winter, which would significantly change people’s quality of life.
Mr David Hamilton
I have come here today with an open mind, with no view on whether we should accept the proposal or not. I endorse what the hon. Lady said about daylight saving being a non-issue, certainly in my area. I have received one letter from a constituent who asked for things to remain the same.
On transport, there are millions and millions more vehicles on the road now than there were in the ’60s, so would the change be worse now than it was then?
Naomi Long
I confess that I have not given a lot of thought to that, because I wanted specifically to look at the differential impact. I am prepared to accept that there is a body of evidence on the UK generally, but I wanted to consider the impact specifically on Northern Ireland. The different patterns of transportation and commuting in different parts of the UK also need to be considered, and I will come back to that.
I am happy to support the proposal for a study on the basis that the Bill does not state that that would lead automatically to a trial. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis first, and on that basis, I would be happy to support the proposal. I would wish to be convinced, however, because the Bill has many positive elements—they have been stated today. However, I need convincing that people in my constituency, and Northern Ireland as a whole, would experience those positive elements.
The effect of the time change on my constituency would be marginal. In winter, there would be a later dawn, but it would not be a hugely significant change. However, in the spring and summer, the change would undoubtedly be slightly beneficial in the evenings. In the north-west of Northern Ireland, however, sunrise in December, as I have mentioned, would be about 9.50 am, which by anyone’s standards is quite late. The argument has been made that the gain in the afternoon would be significant, but actually it would be insignificant. Sunset would move from 4 pm to 5 pm, which is when people are travelling home from school. However, most of the commute will happen afterwards, so it will have little significance for commuter patterns in that part of Northern Ireland. That has to be looked at carefully.
I wrote to Translink, and it responded:
“The proposal would effectively mean darker mornings for longer in the Autumn/Winter, particularly in the mornings when most traffic is on the roads at one time, i.e. schools, commuters. Darker evenings in our view are not as big an issue as the majority of our schools traffic is over by 16.30/17.00 and the evening traffic is more staggered, with most commuters making their homeward journeys between 17.30 and 18.00.”
Translink is not convinced that the argument put forward necessarily holds true. A point has been made about more rural areas, where, for example, children stand at the roadside to be collected for school, but are picked up within the school perimeter on the way home. That is an important difference that raises significant issues.
Ben Gummer
These are important local issues, but surely we are dancing on the head of a pin. This is an opportunity to save 1.2 million tonnes of carbon per annum—the equivalent to 200,000 cars—and to make popular carbon savings. That is impossible in any other walk or area of life. Why can we not just take it?
Naomi Long
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me—I am in favour of the Bill. It is exactly that kind of response to alternative views that fills me with trepidation, because it dismisses those who might wish to bring to the table other opinions and concerns, and those who actually wish to see some evidence. If the point of the Bill is to get evidence to support the case, it is bizarre that Members have decided already that they have all the evidence required. If they have, they should simply have introduced a Bill saying that we should go ahead and make the change. If we accept the argument that evidence needs to be gathered, surely we have to accept the argument made today that we have to look with an open mind at the impact on all the parts of the UK. With a background in engineering and science, I would prefer to enter any assessment with an open mind looking at all the evidence, rather than with a closed mind having already decided what the outcome will be.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady has shed some light on why she supports the Bill—to get some analysis and gather information—although she has some reservations about the trial period. Has she had any indication from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) of the timeline, of when the analysis might happen and how many years the trial would last?
Naomi Long
The questions about the trial, the commissioners and the report are answered in the Bill. I am less concerned about the timeline than about the potential impact and the consideration given to slightly more remote areas. Those who live in the west of Northern Ireland often feel that they are ignored in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which sits in the east, where most of the population is based. Those living in the north and west of the UK are likely to feel even more that way if we overlook them when considering the impact of the Bill. It is important that we think about that.
There is a second issue that is unique to Northern Ireland—our land border with another region. That has to be considered carefully. There are cost and practical implications of the Bill. Many of the farms in Northern Ireland straddle the border—they do not exist entirely on one side or the other—so there are practical issues about time differences. Some people live on one side of the border, but go to school, church or community organisations on the other side. It is a very permeable border. Therefore, the proposal would have a significant impact on those living in the area. One Member said that they found it incredibly irritating to have to change their clocks twice a year, and I think that some people in Northern Ireland might find it irritating to have to do it three or four times a day.
It should also be noted that consideration is being given in the Republic of Ireland to a potential change—consideration that has been largely motivated, I think, by the debate here. However, we must recognise that we have no influence over the outcome of those considerations. We therefore need to proceed with caution. Although I accept the point made by other Members that it is not impossible to have different time zones within the UK, although not across these islands, it would not be a desirable position.
Albert Owen
The hon. Lady is making a strong argument. On the point about the land border, my constituency is closer to the Republic of Ireland than it is to England. The proposal would therefore have an impact on travel between west Wales and the Republic of Ireland. However, I happen to think that if the proposal went forward in the United Kingdom, Ireland would come into line with Europe, as well as with the United Kingdom.
Naomi Long
I would not wish to stand here and predict what the Irish Government might choose to do, because that is not a matter for this House, and I do not think that they would welcome our intervention. However, from my perspective, it would worry me if there was a time difference at the border, as it would have an impact on trade. A number of Members have emphasised the potential benefits of our being on, as it were, European time, but we should remember that our biggest trade partner is the Republic of Ireland, which is currently in the same time zone as us. Indeed, the fact that we are so inextricably linked was one of the arguments put forward in support of the recent economic bail-out, for example. We need to give detailed consideration to those issues. It would also help if we considered the cost implications when trialling the proposal, because it would affect basic things such as the timetabling of rail and bus services that operate on a cross-border basis. Those operating such services would incur the cost of having to re-do their timetables during the trial and, if it was not a success, having to re-do them again afterwards.
I am in favour of looking at the proposal. There are potential benefits to giving it consideration.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
When I heard the hon. Lady say that she wondered what the people of Penzance thought, my ears pricked up and I ran here from my office as fast as I could. I cannot speak for the people of Penzance, but I can most certainly speak for the people of Truro and Falmouth. I want to reassure the hon. Lady, along with my hon. Friends, that since I have become a Member of Parliament, no issue has generated as much interest in my constituency. More people have contacted me on this issue than on any other.
Naomi Long
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, although it was not me who mentioned Penzance—I think it was mentioned in an intervention by another Member. I have to say that no issue has generated less interest from my constituents in my postbag. I have to be entirely honest about this: I think I have had one e-mail from a constituent on the issue. However, that would not dictate my view on it, because there may be merit in considering the proposal, even though it might not be a pressing issue for all my constituents.
I do not wish to prolong the agony any further. I simply wish to say that I support the proposal to conduct a study.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her principled position and would like to ask whether she agrees that all the opponents of the proposed change should nevertheless support the Bill, because it simply seeks to remove the ambiguities and uncertainties that she has highlighted.
Naomi Long
I have reached my own conclusion, and I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will have done likewise. I would like to see the detailed evidence and the cost-benefit analysis considered properly, so that we can make a fully informed decision. I am therefore happy to support the Bill. In doing so, however, I would urge those taking it through the House to consider the impact in Northern Ireland. Those of us from Northern Ireland might not account for a huge number of people in the House, but the proposal would have a significant impact on us. We also face unique circumstances, owing to our border with the Irish Republic. Both those issues should be considered in much more detail than they have been to date.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is no longer in his place, made a telling intervention in which he pointed out that nothing in the Bill—and, indeed, nothing that Parliament can do—will increase the amount of daylight in any particular location in this country. The Bill seeks to find the most effective way of using daylight for the benefit of our constituents, whether they be in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England.
I was delighted to hear the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). Her contribution was one of the finest that we have heard. She clearly fully understood the purpose of the Bill. She rightly expressed concern that there had not been much debate on this issue in Northern Ireland, and pointed out that limited research had been carried out there. She also said that she had a number of concerns about what might happen if we adopted the proposals. She went on to say, crucially, that because of the lack of evidence, and because many people believe that there will be real benefits from the proposals, the Bill should be given a fair wind so that the appropriate research, and the appropriate analysis of that research, can be carried out, and decisions could then be made on whether any further action should be taken. It has to be said that her speech was in marked contrast to those made by representatives of the Scottish National party.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) made a valuable contribution. She began by saying that she was agnostic about the issue. She admitted that she had approached it with an open mind and that, having reviewed the evidence, she was not particularly impressed by it and was now ambivalent about the matter. That is fine, and at least she did not deny that there might be merit in the proposals, and in continuing with the research. That was in stark contrast to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).
Dr Whiteford
If the Bill dealt with no more than the research phase, I would be very happy to support it. It does not, however; it proposes a trial and, in the light of all the evidence that I have seen so far, I do not believe that the case has been made for such a trial.
Mr Foster
The hon. Lady condemns herself out of her own mouth. She says that the evidence to date does not persuade or convince her. Fine. Then let us carry out the research, and the independent analysis of that research, and bring back a proposal to the House through an order so that we can decide whether to go on with a trial.
Mr MacNeil
I am not sure whether that is good or bad. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for research, and analysis of that research, to be carried out. If that were covered by one Bill, and the trial were covered by another, many of us would feel a lot more secure. This Bill, however, sets us on a slippery slope, and we would go from A to B to C very quickly. We would have three years of misery, followed by repentance from all sides as we changed back to the current system.
Mr Foster
The hon. Gentleman seems to change his tune with almost every intervention. Only a few minutes ago, he was intervening on the excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to ask whether she would be willing to change her mind on the basis of empirical research. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will change his mind on the basis of such research—
Mr Foster
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He would do well to read in detail what the Bill says. I applaud the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for introducing a Bill that addresses all the approaches to this issue that might exist in this House. Perhaps it is worth reminding Members and others listening to the debate what the Bill actually says. It states:
“The Secretary of State must conduct a cross-departmental analysis of the potential costs and benefits of advancing time by one hour for all, or part, of the year, including…a breakdown, so far as is possible, of these costs and benefits for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
It goes on to state that the analysis must take into account research that is done
“by such bodies as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”
The Bill then proposes that there should be
“an independent Commission…to assess the analysis”
and that the commission should publish that assessment. On the trial period that clearly so worries the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Bill states it will only be introduced
“If the Commission concludes that the advancing of time by one hour for all, or part, of the year would be beneficial to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
The Bill does not state “or Northern Ireland”; it states “and”. The change would have to benefit all those areas. Even then, the Bill states that none of that can happen until an order is placed before Parliament. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would railroad people into doing something. Clearly, that is not the case. Even worse, he went on to state that it was a kamikaze leap. The Bill is exactly the opposite of that.
Mr Reid
When my hon. Friend read from the Bill, he failed to point out that the commission is unelected. The Bill does not state who appoints the commission; it appears from nowhere. If that unelected commission comes to the conclusion that making the changes would be beneficial, the Secretary of State must introduce the order. The Government would have no choice in the matter. The Bill would give far too much power to the unelected commission.
Mr Foster
My hon. Friend, who I know is a staunch opponent of any moves in the direction set out in the Bill, has revealed that his only real concern is about the details of the appointment of members of the independent commission. I am absolutely certain that the hon. Member for Castle Point would be more than happy for him to be a member of the Bill Committee. I am sure that she would be very happy to look favourably on an amendment that alters how the commission is introduced.
Many hon. Members still wish to speak. I would have loved to have spent time discussing how we only have to look at the business of the House every day to see how nearly every debate would be influenced by a move in the direction proposed by the Bill. Whether in our debates on the economy, crime, the retail industry—particularly in terms of tourism—and many other issues, the proposals would give us an opportunity to analyse whether, in each of those areas, a real benefit could be brought to our constituents in all parts of the country.
When the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar—I regret that I cannot correctly pronounce his constituency; I apologise for that—makes flippant remarks, he does himself a disservice. He challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) to carry out a trial by changing his personal clocks. He failed to realise that the disadvantage to my hon. Friend would be that he would have to operate on a different time zone from the rest of his hon. Friends and from the work of this Chamber. That would put him at the same disadvantage as businesses and people in this country who try to operate not only with people in Europe—one of our main trading partners—but, as I said in an intervention, with people in emerging countries, such as China and India.
Malcolm Bruce
If the benefits of these long summer evenings are as great as the proponents of the Bill suggest, why do the House and schools in England not set an example by continuing their business during the eight weeks that have the lightest evenings of the year?
Mr Foster
My right hon. Friend begins his question with the word “If”. That is a move in the right direction, because I assume that he is now prepared to allow research to be carried out. He can ignore, as can the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the fact that all the research evidence, whether from Ipsos MORI, npower or MoneySavingExpert.com, demonstrates that more people in Scotland are now in favour of moves in this direction than of retaining the status quo. They can ignore that—that is fine—and they can say that the people of Scotland are unsure, and they may be right, but that is why the research is so important.
I hope that all hon. Members have had an opportunity to look at the excellent publication produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has done so much work on this issue, and has, I am sure, been supporting the hon. Member for Castle Point. The hon. Member for Belfast East is right to say that if we are saying that more research and analysis needs to be done, none of us can argue that all the research is yet conclusive. However, in the summary of his excellent book, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East notes that if we move in this direction it is likely that there will be safer roads, a reduction in the NHS budget, a reduction in crime, improved health and well-being, a boost to UK tourism, a reduction in our energy bills, a reduction in our carbon footprint, and increased international business and trade.
Those are aims that every Member of this House should be seeking to achieve, and that is why every Member of this House should support this Bill to allow further research and analysis to take place, and only then, if it all points in the right direction, to enable a trial to take place.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for bringing the Bill before us. I hope she is enjoying today’s experience a little more than the Postal Services Bill Committee, on which we both sit. I suspect she might have become sick of the sound of my voice over the past few weeks, but if she will tolerate me a little longer I might have something interesting to say to her.
The Bill certainly has a strong campaign behind it. The hon. Lady and those at Lighter Later deserve credit for so forcefully making their argument. Perhaps there is a less vocal and less organised argument against these proposals but, as we know, it is not always those who shout loudest who win the argument. The Opposition do not disagree with the aims of the Bill in principle, but we are concerned about how it will work in practice. I will come on to some of those concerns in a moment or two.
The basic goal of the Bill, as I understand it, is to examine the possibility of changing our daylight structure to ensure that we make the best use of the available daylight. Members on both sides of the House have contributed to a very lively and interesting debate, and not just today. As much as we would like to, we can never increase the number of daylight hours in each day. That is the will of a higher power, if Members believe in such a thing; if they do not, it simply has to do with how the earth spins on its axis. Either way, we have no control over it.
The Bill sets out provisions for a three-year trial of the new daylight regime. However, that trial can begin only after completion of a cross-departmental review by Government and the establishment of a commission to determine whether the change will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom. Even after that, the Secretary of State would have to lay an order before Parliament. It is therefore clear that any change to our time structure would have to clear a considerable number of obstacles—or perhaps I should say “checks and balances”—after Second Reading before anything came to fruition.
I commend the hon. Lady for being so conciliatory in the wording of her Bill, but I remain to be totally persuaded that the wider public are as convinced as has been suggested today. If the Bill were passed today, a trial period should be instituted before the implementation of any wholesale change.
Mr Reid
The hon. Gentleman mentions the three-year trial. Has he noticed that under clause 3 the success of the trial has to be reviewed
“Not later than six months before the Trial is due to end”?
Effectively, therefore, it is only a two-and-a-half year trial that could cover only two, not three, winters.
Gordon Banks
Irrespective of the length of the trial—two and a half or three years—it is a substantial period that would enable the gathering of a significant amount of information and allow us to make the decision on the basis of information gathered in the UK, not in Indiana or somewhere else, and the decision would be based on the UK in the 21st century.
When I read the official transcript of the recent Adjournment debate on this subject, I was surprised by the strength of personal belief in favour of the change, but I was also impressed by the quieter voices arguing for the status quo. That clearly shows that there are differing viewpoints north and south of the border.
Mr Bradshaw
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on, I think, his intention to give the Bill a fair wind? He talks about doubt, but may I commend to him the excellent report by the Policy Studies Institute, published in October, on the impact in Scotland? There has been a lot of discussion about Scotland today, and the report suggests that the benefits for Scotland are even greater than those for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Gordon Banks
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. There is a lot of conflicting information and there are many conflicting viewpoints. My suggestion, without giving away too much of my speech at this point, would be that a review could gather a lot of important information that could be well studied and well debated to allow a longer-term decision to be made.
Mr MacNeil
I would be interested to know the view of Opposition Front Benchers on a sensible, symmetrical shorter period either side of mid-winter. That would be a compromise between some of the extreme positions that we have heard.
Gordon Banks
I was waiting for that one. If I remember correctly, the hon. Gentleman said that he had not had a sensible response to any of those proposals in any of the debates, and I do not think he will get one from me, either.
In performing my duties as Member of Parliament for Ochil and South Perthshire, I have received representations from constituents that show the strength of feeling on both sides of the argument. I know that the Lighter Later campaign carried out polling that targeted Scotland and highlighted the fact that the majority of Scots backed lighter evenings. As with any poll, however, the key is how the question was asked and what questions were asked. I am sure that if any assembled mass of people were asked whether they would like an extra hour of daylight they would say yes. One must ask, however, whether they fully understood that to get the extra hour of daylight in the evening they would have to spend an extra hour in darkness in the morning. That is the key question, so, understandably, I reserve judgment on some of the poll results as they stand.
As we have heard, this is not the first time these issues have been debated in Parliament. I am aware of the work that the former Member for Stafford, David Kidney, carried out but he was not, despite possibly wanting to be, the trailblazer in this area. Robert Pearce, the Member of Parliament for Leek, introduced a Bill in 1908, and we have already heard from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) about Benjamin Franklin’s contribution, with his remark:
“Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.”
I am early to rise and late to bed, so what does that make me? Answers on a postcard please. Here we are, 100 years later, continuing the debate. I suspect that it could rumble on for another 100 years. The only good thing is that nobody here would then be able to be held to account for their decisions or blamed for them.
As we have heard, these debates often rear their head at this time of year. Having lived in Scotland for many years, I would welcome an extra hour of daylight at the end of a traditional working day. When I think about the Bill, however, I remember the old saying that not all that glisters is gold. Although we would all appreciate an extra hour of daylight at night, the question is whether it is worth the sacrifice of darker mornings. Although that might not be a major issue for constituents in the south of England, irrespective of what has been said, I know for a fact that it is an issue the further north one travels in the UK—and not just in Scotland.
I note that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East has been particularly vocal in his support for the Bill, but equally I hope that he will concede that he represents one of the southernmost constituencies in the UK. Were I in his position, I might well argue as strongly in support of the Bill as he does. I am sure, however, that he and the hon. Member for Castle Point would agree with the Prime Minister that we need a solution that suits all parts of the UK, not just the south. I recognise that that is an objective of the Bill.
Mr Ellwood
We went to some lengths to ensure that the Bill benefits not constituencies but the whole of the UK, and paid attention to Scotland specifically. Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the debate that Scottish Members had last week. I think it was the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) who commented that the previous Prime Minister, who is from Scotland, had said that this would be good for Britain and for Scotland.
Gordon Banks
I do not want to argue or disagree with the hon. Gentleman. If he bears with me, my position will become a little clearer.
Gordon Banks
I think it is important for the Opposition to identify some of the problems that a number of people outside the House, as well as a number of Members, have with the Bill. However, I believe that there is a solution to those problems, and I believe that that solution is in the Bill.
Let me now make our position a little less fuzzy, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East. Although we have some unanswered questions, it is fair to say that there is a strong argument in favour of analysis and more detailed scrutiny. I shall say more shortly about the problems that are envisaged. However, as we believe that scrutiny of the Bill and its objectives would be carried out most effectively in Committee, we will not oppose its Second Reading today.
The Bill’s approach broadly mirrors that of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and Visit Scotland. They, like us, welcome the debate on the issues, but have yet to develop a firm viewpoint on the potential viability of the changes. We reserve our judgment on the Bill until there has been a thorough and detailed assessment of its effects. Indeed, I believe that that is the Bill’s objective.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), who said in the recent Adjournment debate that the benefits to Scotland were “unquantifiable in advance.” Let me take that a step further, and say that at this stage the risks may also be unquantifiable. That is why we will not oppose the Bill’s progress to Committee, where those risks and benefits can be explored more fully.
Malcolm Bruce
That is a perfectly fair position, but does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that virtually all the evidence has been produced by interest groups who have approached the issue with a view to determining evidence in their favour? How can he be sure that any analysis will be resourced fully and objectively to ensure that the counter-arguments are investigated properly? So far, all the investigation has been on one side, and people are reaching conclusions that the evidence does not support.
Gordon Banks
I would argue that the independent commission’s job is to scrutinise both sides of the argument independently. Only then can it comply with the Bill and the regulations to make the position fair for all parts of the United Kingdom. I trust the independent commission to be able to do that. With great respect to Members who are present, I suspect that most of them have decided whether they support the Bill, but I am not convinced that the whole United Kingdom has reached that point. We need to reach a decision based on factual evidence that is relevant to the United Kingdom in the 21st century.
Albert Owen
Although I support the Bill, I—like many other Members, including the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—want to see the evidence, but we, as Members of Parliament, must be leaders as well. We must collate the evidence and then make our decisions. We cannot always be weathervanes; we must sometimes be leaders.
Gordon Banks
I do not disagree with that. After the commission has reported and trials of a permanent change have taken place, it will be possible for a vote to take place in the House, and for us all to make our views known at that stage.
Naomi Long
I agree with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) that we should not wish to be weathervanes. I too have said that I will support the Bill, although the subject is not much of an issue in my constituency. However, it would be foolish for Members of Parliament to disregard evidence completely. Decisions must be evidence based, and it is therefore important for that evidence to be collated throughout the United Kingdom.
Gordon Banks
I could not agree more. I put my faith in the commission’s ability to gather evidence from all over the United Kingdom, and to analyse it in an independent, structured and transparent way.
Following the Adjournment debate, I was intrigued to read in Hansard that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), had said that his Department had consulted on the Bill, but, despite repeated calls from Members during the debate, had refused to share the results.
The Government’s view on the Bill has not been made clear. If one were to believe the Under-Secretary—and I have no reason to doubt him—the Government appeared unlikely to support it. However, I read in the Sunday papers a fortnight ago that according to soundings from the Government a U-turn was in the offing. I look forward to clarification of the Government’s position from the Minister. I would, however, add my voice to those of hon. Members who have called on the Scotland Office Minister to release the information so as to allow us all a better opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. Perhaps the Business, Innovation and Skills Minister currently on the Front Bench might be able to encourage his colleague to do that.
The Bill calls for a cross-departmental analysis of how this change might affect all parts of the United Kingdom. It appears that the Scotland Office Minister is already ahead of the curve in that respect. If the Government have, indeed, already carried out some preliminary studies into the Bill’s proposals, I would be interested to know whether the BIS Minister or the hon. Member for Castle Point have any preliminary ideas of the initial financial burden of such a change on the Government and the economy. I note that the hon. Lady has tabled a number of written parliamentary questions to Government Departments. They have received mixed responses, which highlights the need for much more detailed cross-Government research and study. I hope that will be facilitated in Committee, should the Bill be passed today. I would also be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether the Government have had any discussions with our devolved Administrations about the contents of the Bill.
As has been mentioned, this is not the first time this issue has been debated in the House. We even have a precedent between 1968 and 1971, when a similar proposal was trialled. Although it was slightly different, the impact was, perhaps, comparable. It might surprise Members to learn that I was 13 when those first trials took place, and they clearly had an effect on some people in Scotland. I am reminded of the event by footage that showed schoolchildren walking to school wearing headlamps and reflective sashes. [Interruption.] The Minister mentions miners’ lamps, and I was about to come on to that. With Scotland’s proud traditions of coal mining, I am sure those headlamps were not in short supply back then, but I would guess a supply of headlamps might be harder to find today after the decimation of the coal mining industry in Scotland by the Conservative party. That is my one partisan comment of the day, and I hope the House will allow me it. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) will, as a former miner, have appreciated it, although he may be too busy keeping his eye on the clock to have taken note of the remark.
On a more serious note, I have to confess that the issue of children walking to school, or waiting at the roadside to be picked up to go to school, in the dark still concerns me greatly. I acknowledge the work carried out by the Policy Studies Institute; although I am not qualified to comment on whether there was any link between the daylight change and those statistics, I think it is worth noting. It also again illustrates that this Bill requires further, and much more detailed, scrutiny.
I also note that there has been a sustained campaign with many external supporters, but one thing I have learned as an MP is that the loudest voice is not always the right voice. I am not saying we disagree with the analysis and the opinion put forward by these many and varied organisations, but there are some inconsistencies. For example, the study by the Policy Studies Institute said that car accidents were more likely in the evening peak because of reduced visibility. However, if we implement this change will we not simply displace those accidents to the morning? I also do not agree that people are more attentive in the morning than in the late afternoon or early evening. These themes must be developed further in Committee and by the independent commission.
I will conclude in a moment, but one issue that has, perhaps, been missing from the debate so far is the change in people’s lifestyles across the UK that this change might cause. Indeed, one constituent who contacted me to voice her opposition to the Bill suggested we might have to change the working day in Scotland from the traditional 9 to 5 to 10 to 6.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that given that this Bill promises a detailed analysis and a trial, and given that it could save 100 lives on the roads, create 80,000 jobs and cut 450,000 tonnes of carbon emissions, as the Mayor of London says, if there was ever a political no-brainer, this is it?
Gordon Banks
If the hon. Lady had been listening to my remarks, she would have known that we are not going to oppose the passage of the Bill today. However, some questions need answering and that is why the Committee and the commission will sit. It is right that these questions are asked and that some of these concerns are being voiced in this debate.
I wish to go back to the debate about 9 to 5 and 10 to 6. We already have industries, such as construction, that do not conform to a traditional working day. I wonder whether any study has been commissioned on how these changes will have an impact on family life as a result of possible work practice changes, rather than just the leisure aspect. Such work practice changes may come about if people whose jobs currently operate from 8.30 am to 5 pm find themselves working from 10 am to 7 pm in future.
Matthew Hancock
Given that the hon. Gentleman has made a strong argument for the need to ask more questions and receive more answers, for example, on the construction industry, why will he not vote in favour of the Bill?
Gordon Banks
I have already told the House that we are not going to block the progress of the Bill. We look forward to the information that will flow from the Bill and allow us the opportunity to come back to have a full vote before any overall change is made to the time structure in the United Kingdom for a period longer than the trial period.
I have discussed only a few of the issues that have concerned me and are concerning others outside this House. If Members on the Government Benches did not share these views, they would not be proposing the commission and so on. The Opposition do not intend to oppose Second Reading stage today. However, as I have outlined, many issues deserve much greater scrutiny in Committee, should it be the will of the House that the Bill is passed today.
We should not be making decisions in this House on the basis of emotion; we should be making informed decisions, which is what the electorate expect of us. The Bill proposes to give us a raft of information, on the basis of which we would be able to make well-informed decisions, not emotional ones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), because in my many discussions with her during the past few weeks she has shown a huge amount of knowledge and passion about this issue, and enthusiasm for it, and she displayed that again when she opened this Second Reading debate.
This has been a well-argued, serious and good-natured debate. We have heard different voices from different parts of the United Kingdom; we heard from representatives of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Cornwall, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Castle Point because until I knew that I had to deal with her Bill I had not realised that I was a Minister of time—perhaps I should have done, given that the former Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, was known as the “prince of darkness.” Obviously, I have had to get to grips with these issues.
Concerns have been raised in the media about this change. Reference has been made to a certain Peter Hitchens during our debate, as has the idea that somehow we would be adopting Berlin time. So I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who have rechristened the idea “Churchill time”. That is not only a positive reference to the wartime coalition, but a reference to the great man’s membership of both the Liberal and Conservative parties.
As the hon. Member for Castle Point said, the subject of this Bill is a perennial issue, which has been debated and discussed often in this House and elsewhere. However, it seems that this time those who wish to effect this change have done some excellent research and have mobilised their arguments very effectively. I shall begin by briefly summarising the Government’s position. I agree with the hon. Lady that some of the arguments put forward for lighter evenings are compelling. Evidence would indeed appear to suggest that there could be an overall reduction in the number of road accidents and fatalities, and there could be benefits for some business sectors, particularly those most reliant on trade with other parts of the European Union. In addition, recent studies suggest a possible positive impact on energy usage and, as a result, carbon emissions.
However, we entirely appreciate that the arguments do not all point in the same direction. There are concerns about the longer, darker winter mornings that would result: much is said about the impacts in northern parts of the UK, but a change would mean delaying dawn in mid-winter even in London until after 9 o’clock, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has pointed out.
Mr MacNeil
I want to challenge the argument that there would be a carbon saving, because empirical studies show the exact opposite: more electricity would be used on the darker mornings and power consumption would increase by between 1% and 4%.
Mr Davey
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I shall assess that issue and put both sides of the argument because we must have a balanced approach to this important debate.
I have also heard arguments about the disadvantages of very late light evenings in summer. Experience of a similar change in Portugal suggested problems with children’s sleep patterns and some have suggested there could be implications for antisocial behaviour. In other areas, the case remains unproven. I think that the hon. Member for Castle Point would accept that it is unclear whether there would be a positive impact on crime rates and general public health. Some of the claims about the extremely positive impact for specific sectors would no doubt benefit from closer scrutiny.
Against that background, it is not surprising that opinion remains divided. People’s views depend significantly on where they live, what they do for a living and whether they enjoy outdoor pursuits. Also relevant are personal preferences such as whether one is a morning person or not. I am not sure whether you are a morning person, Mr Deputy Speaker—you are shaking your head. One thing we remain convinced about, which must lead us to oppose the Bill, is that we cannot make this change unless we have consensus throughout the United Kingdom. That has recently been made clear by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion.
We must acknowledge that the change would have widely differing impacts on day-to-day life in different parts of the UK. They would be particularly acute in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where it would not get light in mid-winter until nearly 10 am in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast; in Lerwick in the Shetland islands, it would not get light until 10.8 am on new year’s eve. Although hon. Members have spoken of changes in public opinion in Scotland, it is clear that much opinion understandably remains against the proposal.
The case is particularly difficult in Northern Ireland and I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who approached the debate in a considered and objective way. As she said, unless the Republic of Ireland also made the change, there would be additional cross-border complications. These issues would need further consideration and careful prior consultation with the Irish Government.
Malcolm Bruce
Does my hon. Friend agree that the point made in an earlier intervention that the Republic of Ireland would automatically follow whatever we did was a bit patronising and arrogant given the consequence in places such as Galway, where sunrise would be at 9.51 am? It is pretty reasonable that the Republic of Ireland should have a view on that.
Mr Davey
I shall discuss that in more detail, particularly in relation to Galway bay, if my right hon. Friend will be patient.
The Government’s view is that the consensus across all parts of the UK needed to justify passing legislation on this does not exist. That simple fact must lead us to oppose the hon. Lady’s Bill today, but I hope that some of my later remarks will be of comfort to her.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I agree with much of the Minister’s comments and I have concerns about the Bill, but should it not at least proceed? There is a debate to be had out there and the public are really interested, so why not let it proceed so we can go through those arguments once and for all?
Mr Davey
If my hon. Friend will have a little patience, I hope that he will react positively to some of my later remarks.
Our quandary is this: we appreciate the benefits that the change could bring, but we do not want any one community to be disadvantaged, or for its members to feel that they have had such a fundamental change to their daily lives foisted upon them.
There have been regular debates about the benefits of the change advocated by the hon. Member for Castle Point. Trying to change the clocks is, as I said, not a new idea. It is more than 40 years since an attempt was made to move away from Greenwich mean time in the winter months as well as the summer throughout the UK. Between 27 October 1968 and 31 October 1971 an experiment was conducted, and summer time—that is, Greenwich mean time plus 1 hour—was adopted throughout the year in order to test public opinion about continuous summer time. Although this was British summer time all the year round, it was known as British standard time.
There were two general arguments for a move to British standard time. The first was that the move would avoid the inconvenience of changing the clocks in the spring and autumn. The second depended on the fact that in those days most of our trading partners on the European mainland were on central European time throughout the year, the concept of summer time not being one that we had managed to sell to them at that time. So by adopting permanent British summer time, we brought ourselves into line with those countries at a time when we were eager to increase trade with our European neighbours, and at a time before e-mail and other technology made communication possible at any time of day or night.
Consultations carried out by the Government in 1966, before the experiment to change to British summer time throughout the year, revealed the divergence of opinion between the majority of people in England and Wales, who favoured British standard time all year round, and those in Scotland and the north of England, who were opposed. Nevertheless, the experiment went ahead and lasted for three years. A review of the experiment was conducted in the winter months of 1968-69 and 1969-70. The review found that it was impossible to quantify at that time many of the more important claims about the advantages and disadvantages of British standard time.
However, what the review did reveal was the many practical objections that were raised by the farming and construction industries and others involved in outdoor work, such as road maintenance workers, postal workers and dairy workers, particularly in the north of England and Scotland, who claimed that the change caused discomfort and inconvenience because of the late sunrise in winter. They also claimed that they could not easily change their working hours because of public demand for early services. Those objections would probably have less force today as the economy is less dependent on agriculture, and equipment can operate at night, but they are still a factor.
There was also concern about hazards to schoolchildren particularly in rural areas, who would be going off to school up to an hour and a half before dawn. We have heard much about that argument today. It appears that any increase in road casualties in the mornings would be at least offset by reductions in the evenings, but significant concerns about that remain, particularly in more northern areas.
Following a free vote—I repeat, a free vote—in Parliament on 2 December 1970, the House voted by the decisive margin of 366 to 81 to revert to the current arrangements. There must have been some weight behind that decision if, having lived through the experiment for three years, so many Members in all parts of the House were not persuaded. Portugal did exactly the same after it experienced four years of a similar experiment.
If we want to get a more recent idea of how a change to our summer time arrangements might impact on the United Kingdom, we can look to Portugal, which moved to central European time in 1992. Of course Portugal is in a different geographical location from us, but being at the westerly extremity of Europe it is currently on the same time zone as the UK and Ireland. Since most of its trade is with the European Union, its Government decided, as we had in the 1960s, that it would be beneficial to be in the same time zone as its neighbours and trading partners. The experiment was abandoned in 1996 and Portugal reverted to GMT because its population decided that the gains of lighter evenings were not, in the end, offset by the pain of darker mornings. So perhaps the change did not bring all the benefits that were hoped for, which highlights the practical reality and consequences of an actual change.
Some of the complaints resulting from the Portuguese experiment were not necessarily ones that I had immediately thought of. For example, the light summer evenings apparently had a disturbing effect on children’s sleeping habits, which in turn led to poor performance in school and lack of concentration. Pollution from road traffic increased as the rush hour in the summer months coincided with the hotter times of the day. Let us remember that these are actual findings from an actual experiment.
Perhaps more importantly, Portugal found that the energy savings arguments were relatively weak. The intended savings in household electricity consumption were disappointingly low as, according to the report, the change resulted in an “insignificant saving.” It would appear that the extension of daylight hours meant that people tended to engage in other leisure activities after work, which might have been good for the leisure and tourism industry but unfortunately led to higher energy consumption.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister speed up his statement? Many Members on both sides would like to get home before it gets dark.
Mr MacNeil
Is not the intervention of the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) an example of such a speedy, kamikaze, headlong and blinkered rush into an inevitable period of repentance? I urge the Minister to inform the House as he is doing, of matters regarding Portugal, which I certainly did not know about, and please to continue.
Mr Davey
I am grateful for that, but my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) always goes about things in a calm, balanced and measured way.
There was also evidence, gathered by the Portuguese Government at the time, that people’s mental health suffered, and there was an increase in the sales of tranquilisers and sleeping tablets as many people, like their children, were unable to get enough sleep. Information from insurance companies indicated that there was a rise in road traffic claims, rather than the reverse, and the Portuguese Government decided that the disadvantages outweighed the benefits, so they went back to Greenwich mean time. Their view was that there was nothing to prevent any business that traded internationally or throughout Europe from starting their operations earlier if they wanted to, but that there was no need to inconvenience the whole population on their behalf.
So, we have had two experiments in different countries which were both abandoned not necessarily for the same reasons, but because on the whole more of the population found that the change affected their lives for the worse, rather than for the better.
Mr Bradshaw
I am sorry and surprised that the Minister sounds more negative than the shadow Minister, but may I concur with the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) by suggesting that the Minister’s speech would benefit enormously from a radical sub-editor’s pen?
Mr Davey
And I am keen to say it.
I was saying that we have had two experiments in different countries which were abandoned not for the same reasons, but because on the whole more of the population found that it affected their lives deleteriously. Of course, the argument that it is necessary to be in the same time zone as other member states in the European Union is perhaps less important than it was, because expansion has meant that the EU spans three time zones, not just one.
Jersey also deserves a mention. We have heard about Gibraltar, but what about Jersey? Normandy is just 14 miles away from the Channel Islands, but, despite being closer to the French coast than to the UK mainland, in a referendum in October 2008 Jersey residents voted against moving to central European time by 17,230 votes to 6,564.
Mr Davey
I am not going to give way. I want to make some progress, and then I shall take some interventions.
Of course, much of the reason for the vote against the change was that the residents did not wish to be in a different time zone from the rest of the United Kingdom, but it has to be said that farmers in Jersey were among the most vociferous opponents of a move to central European time.
Let us consider the detailed arguments that have been put forward today, starting with the arguments on energy saving and climate change. Apart from the general attractiveness of lighter evenings, one of the most persuasive arguments in favour of moving the clocks forward is to save energy. One reason why I came into politics was to push forward the green agenda, and like most people I think that any change that might contribute to saving energy and reducing our carbon output needs to be considered carefully.
I have looked particularly closely at the evidence on that issue, because it is not totally one-sided. The report for the 10:10 Lighter Later campaign quoted studies by Cambridge university that suggested that darker evenings produce a 2.2% increase in demand for electricity in the late afternoon and early evening, which requires the use of the most expensive supply source provided by inefficient power stations that have to be brought on line to cope with the demand. The studies also suggested that a reduction in CO2 emissions of 1.2 million tonnes could be achieved during the six winter months, which is the equivalent of removing 20,000 cars from our roads over the same period.
However, a recent response from the Department of Energy and Climate Change to the Energy and Climate Change Committee pointed out that energy saving benefits are far from clear-cut. It concluded that although we might expect overall energy use to be reduced by extending British summer time, the effects are likely to be small. The most significant effect would be the switch of lighting demand from the evening to the morning. Although, on the one hand, the working day would be more aligned with natural daylight, leading to a reduction in demand, there are other factors, not least that households may be more likely to turn lights on when it is dark than off when it is light. Energy use might therefore increase due to people leaving lights on after switching them on because of the darker mornings. Although evening peak electricity may flatten or reduce, evening peaks between Britain and France may become more aligned, which would have implications for prices and security of supply in situations of low generation capacity margin.
Finally on this issue, a study in 1990 by Paul Littlefair, the project leader for the Building Research Establishment’s programme of daylight research, concluded that the introduction of single/double summer time would lead to extra lighting energy costs, probably to the tune of £10 million a year. We should remember that Portugal ended its experiment with central European time because the small energy savings could not justify the inconvenience that the change created.
In this area, as in others, the evidence is not clear-cut. However, the importance of the climate change agenda means that even relatively small savings are worth while. As I am a firm believer in that agenda, I believe that we should consider this matter seriously.
I shall turn to the arguments regarding business and trade. One of the major arguments for the 1960s experiment of moving to British standard time was that it would be far easier to do business with our European neighbours, which would have positive impacts on our economy and prosperity. The European Union remains our largest trading partner, but since 1970 the world has changed and is now almost unrecognisable. We now have a Union of 27 member states over three time zones, whereas previously the UK was trying to join a common market of six countries all in the same time zone. At that time, the population and the Government were interested in tapping into the prosperity that access to that market could bring.
Mr Davey
I want to make some progress, because I have an important announcement to make to the House.
The Republic of Ireland is one of our most important EU trading partners—we trade more with southern Ireland than with Brazil, Russia, India and China. That is partly for historical reasons and partly because many multinational companies have their headquarters there. Sadly, it has taken the recent banking crisis in Ireland for us to remember how important our trade with Ireland is. There would be concerns in that regard if we harmonised our time with the European mainland, because we would be unharmonising it from the Republic of Ireland.
What of the large proportion of our business that is not conducted with the EU? Who would benefit and who would be the losers? Companies trading with the far east might benefit, while those trading with the USA might not. Once again, we realise that there is no right answer and that compromises must be made.
Naomi Long
On the inconvenience to those who trade with the US, we should remember that the US is one of the biggest foreign direct investors in the Northern Ireland economy. That is another specific way in which the measure would impact on Northern Ireland and it must be given close consideration.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Forty years after the last experiment, is it not right for the Government to consider the fact that the population has changed? We have an older population who will benefit from the extra hour. Farming has also changed hugely, with much more milking being done and cattle being kept inside, so there is no reason not to change the time. I am surprised that the Government are not more supportive of the Bill.
Mr Davey
I urge my hon. Friend to be a little patient, but I would say that if he had listened to my remarks, he would know that I was agreeing with those exact points.
I wish to move on to one of the major benefits of daylight savings. It is considered that moving to central European time would prevent many serious road accidents and fatalities, and I totally accept that good evidence is available. ROSPA produced a paper in support of the private Member’s Bill tabled by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) in 2008, which showed that 80 fatalities a year could be saved. Department for Transport figures corroborate that statistic. In Scotland, evidence from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory after the 1960s experiment showed that road casualties had declined by 17% in Scotland, compared with 11.7% across the whole of Great Britain.
Even in the matter of road safety, however, we should remember that other factors are at play. Our streets are becoming ever safer, and we have one of the lowest rates of road deaths and serious injuries in Europe. The 1968 experiment was conducted at the same time as the first drink-driving laws came into force, and they will have made a material difference. It is possible that other initiatives to improve road safety have had a far more beneficial impact on road safety than the time change would have done, and it would also have had a far greater impact on wider society. For example, improvements in driver behaviour, car safety, road designs and speed restrictions will have contributed to a fall in casualties.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
A Friday morning Bill on this matter came before the 1997 Government and was talked out, and I believe that the last Government talked one out. I hope that today, the Minister will vote with his Conservative colleagues in favour of the Bill.
Mr Davey
I do hope to be able to get to my concluding remarks. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It will make me very popular with my hon. Friends.
Another issue that has been raised in the debate is the leisure and tourism industry. The Lighter Later campaign’s report makes much of the fact that tourism and leisure would be boosted by £2.5 billion to £3.5 billion, and that an extra 60,000 to 80,000 jobs would be created. I am not yet entirely persuaded by the evidence that has been presented. Many overseas tourists come to the UK for our wonderful cultural attractions and history, which of course can be appreciated at any time of the day. When people are on holiday, they can choose exactly how to plan their day to make best use of the daylight hours.
I understand that evidence is available showing that, particularly in the so-called shoulder seasons of spring and autumn, more people would be tempted to go out and visit leisure attractions if it were lighter longer, and that jobs would probably be created. The research shows that that would particularly benefit certain towns. More robust research is therefore needed. We need to understand whether the change would lead to a net creation of jobs or whether there would be any displacement of employment in other areas.
Brandon Lewis
I do not mean to protract the debate, but does the Minister agree that one benefit in those shoulder seasons for an area such as Great Yarmouth, where tourism is important, would be that we could move away from the 16% to 18% unemployment in some areas that is caused by the closed season? It might just help employment and back up the figures that he is talking about.
Mr Davey
That is why I am keen to see extra research on the matter. At the moment, the evidence is not absolutely clear.
I wish to discuss Scotland, which is a key issue in the debate. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we need consensus, and that has clearly not been the case in the House tonight. [Interruption.] I have obviously got the wrong time zone.
As we all know, altering our clocks cannot have an effect on the amount of daylight, and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made that point very well. The issue is how we distribute the hours of daylight that we have. Hon. Members have discussed different sunset times in the debate. Under the proposals, sunset in Edinburgh in mid-October would move from 6.15 pm to 7.15 pm, but sunrise would not be until 8.45 am, and on new year’s eve, it would not get light in Lerwick until after 10 am, as I said earlier. It is therefore unsurprising that the Scottish Government are nervous of such a change, and that they have said that they would not want it imposed on their population.
We should remember that Scotland is not only further north than the rest of the United Kingdom, but quite far west too—surprisingly, Edinburgh is west of Bristol—which means that, come winter, it has relatively little daylight, in fact about eight hours, and that that light comes later. It is possible in principle to have two UK time zones—one for Scotland, which could perhaps include Northern Ireland, and one for England and Wales—but we should rule out that option on such a relatively small island as ours. We should remain a United Kingdom.
I have heard what the hon. Member for Castle Point and others have said about the evidence of changing opinion in Scotland, but that evidence is far from definitive. Although the Scottish Government and many Scottish MPs and MSPs from all parties remain opposed to the change, the matter is being debated in the Scottish Parliament. A recent motion in the Scottish Parliament, which was signed by MSPs from all parties, stated:
“That the Parliament notes that consideration is to be given by the UK Government to move Britain’s clocks forward by one hour; believes that such a move would be detrimental to Scotland, in particular raising concerns over road safety in the early morning and the safety of children walking to school, and could have a negative effect on Scottish businesses, including the construction and agricultural sectors, and urges UK ministers to retain GMT in the winter and BST in the summer.”
Of course, if the Scottish people clearly decide that the evidence shows that there would be many benefits for them as well as those living further south, the position could change, but we must have the consensus that the Prime Minister demands.
In conclusion, the Government see many arguments in favour of the change that the hon. Lady is promoting. We would all appreciate the chance to make the most of lighter evenings and welcome the benefits to energy saving and road safety that the change might bring, but unless and until we can extend the hours of daylight—I doubt that we could do that—lighter evenings mean darker mornings. A responsible Government must take careful account of the disadvantages that that would bring to certain communities.
The Prime Minister was therefore quite right to make it clear that any change would need the support of all parts of the UK. As things stand, despite some of the arguments we have heard today, it remains clear that there are a number of significant issues in respect of such a change for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I believe that we cannot go forward with the consent of all three devolved Administrations.
In addition, the subject of the Bill is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, so any UK-wide legislation would require the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Until we have clear evidence of the necessary consensus across the UK and the necessary consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government’s clear view is that it would be inappropriate for this Parliament to pass the hon. Lady’s Bill or any other legislation on this matter.
That point applies to the hon. Lady’s Bill even though it does not directly propose a move to central European time or an immediate trial. After all, the Bill includes a provision that would automatically trigger a trial if the proposed analysis reached a positive conclusion. As such, passage of the Bill would still risk being perceived by many in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and by the devolved Administrations, as an attempt by Westminster to impose unwelcome change. I acknowledge, however, that the Lighter Later campaign has made some good points about the potential benefits of change to the UK as a whole, and I again pay tribute to her efforts.
The Government agree that this is an important issue that must be taken seriously. As a result, although we cannot support the hon. Lady’s Bill—and I would urge the House not to give it a Second Reading—I can announce that we intend to consider the question further. Specifically, if the Bill does not progress today, we intend to do two things. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will write to the First Ministers in Scotland and Wales, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, not just to draw attention to this debate and the arguments made in favour of change, but to invite them to consider entering into a dialogue with us on this matter. That is the way to achieve the consensus that the Prime Minister believes is necessary.
Secondly, the Government would intend to publish a review of the available evidence concerning the likely effects of moving to central European time in the UK. This review would be a cross-departmental effort, drawing on relevant unpublished data held by Departments, and include consideration of the coverage of the evidence base, identifying any gaps and providing views on its validity. That might not be as comprehensive a consideration of the matter as the hon. Lady’s proposed commission might achieve, but it would be a significant step forward in the analysis of the arguments for and against change on this important issue. As such, I hope it would also facilitate a future dialogue on the matter into which the devolved Administrations might wish to enter.
I hope that the House will agree that our proposals provide a more appropriate way forward on this important subject, and that they can garner greater consensus across the UK than the Bill.
Rebecca Harris
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby. There seems to be another problem, perhaps with frozen pipes.
Gangmasters Licensing (Extension to Construction Industry) Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), who presented the Bill that became the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and other colleagues who did a power of work on that Bill.
The Bill proposes to extend the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which currently covers only the agriculture and food processing sectors, to the construction industry. Gangmasters in those sectors are required to hold licences and to pay the very small fee of £400, but if the authority is able to expand into the construction industry, the fee will be reduced in proportion to the number of people whom gangmasters employ.
In the agriculture industry, licences are not revoked for a small transgression. The GLA works with gangmasters to try to ensure that they meet the necessary requirements, and only in the event of serious and continued breaches will the GLA use its power to revoke a licence. Since the Act came into operation, 110 of the 1,200 licensed gangmasters have had their licences revoked. The gangmasters’ organisation supported all those revocations.
Given the shortage of time, I shall have to abbreviate my remarks and not list all the case studies.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Act was successful because it engaged everyone, from the National Farmers Union to the Transport and General Workers Union, and that it has been a quiet success because it has dealt adequately with the areas of responsibility? When it was first introduced, I had ministerial responsibility. The Government said, “Let us see if it works in this area of endeavour, and if it does perhaps it can be extended elsewhere.” Would it not be a terrible shame if the opportunity to explore that expansion were not taken today?
Mr Hamilton
It certainly would. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tremendous work that he did as a Minister at the time. As he says, the Act has been a success story that has not reached the press. The GLA has kept its head down and worked hard with the industry, and we now want that work to be extended.
The Bill does not create any new workplace regulations; it merely changes the enforcement of the existing regulations. That will raise more revenue in increased tax take than it costs. The current net cost of the GLA is £4 million a year, but according to the Treasury’s own figures, false statements of employment in the construction industry cost £350 million a year. There are other ways in which the Bill will create efficiencies on the front line. It will reduce the number of duplicate back-office roles between the GLA and the employment agency standards inspectorate, and will help to deal with issues such as trafficking. In the last few years, some Conservative Members have drawn attention to the amount of trafficking that is taking place, with the support of Oxfam, Anti-Slavery International and the Home Affairs Committee.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I supported the introduction of the 2004 Act, but does he agree that there have been problems in the way in which the GLA has operated since then? Some parts of it have become bureaucratic and interventionist, and some parts are expensive. Some legitimate gangmasters have encountered difficulties in their legitimate operations as a result. If the hon. Gentleman’s Bill becomes law, will he ensure that the GLA’s application to the building industry is slightly different from its application to the agriculture and food industries?
Mr Hamilton
That is not the information that I have received. Many people say that, by and large, the arrangements have worked very well. However, we will certainly need to tweak the system to ensure that it applies properly in the construction industry, and that the beneficial developments in the agriculture industry are transferred. It is not a question of increasing bureaucracy.
Construction is a dangerous industry, with a bad record on health and safety and employment rights and a record of avoidance of employment taxation. The Bill will tackle those problems. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority works; it does a good job and is supported by a wide range of groups including unions, employers and industry groups, as well as non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam and Anti-Slavery International. The GLA has forced rogue gangmasters out of the relevant sectors, but not out of the economy. Our aim is to the extend the GLA’s powers, and to transfer powers away from the employment agency standards inspectorate, a failing body that does nothing to support or protect honest employers.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
For the benefit of new Members such as myself, can the hon. Gentleman explain what has changed in the six years since the original legislation was passed in 2004? Why is it now felt to be necessary to add construction workers, when they were not included in the original measures?
Mr Hamilton
We have just sat through three hours of debate on another Bill, so I cannot go into all the details of such arguments as the time available to me has been cut right down to the bone. It is right that we discussed that earlier topic of course, and in that debate it was said that we should have an experiment and review things. Similarly, we said at the time of the original Bill that we would review how the GLA worked, and at some point we might come back with further proposals. We are doing that now. We have looked at the legislation and how it is working, and we now feel it is appropriate to transfer powers into this new area.
Mr Hamilton
I have not got much time, so I am trying not to take too many interventions.
Members come to this House for a range of different reasons. When I was a young delegate at a colliery, I had to do one the saddest things I have ever had to do in my life. A young lad in his 20s had been killed in an accident. Along with a colleague, I had to go to see his mum and dad the following day to explain what had happened in the accident. I therefore have a vested interest. I have a lot of friends who work in the construction industry, and I worked in a dangerous industry. I know what things are like. The saddest thing anyone could ever have to do is go to a household who have just lost a beloved one who had their whole future ahead of them. The effect of such an event on a family is terrible. That is why I am passionate about making sure that, where appropriate, health and safety legislation is put into operation. That is important.
I also believe the Government should look seriously at creating a single employment inspectorate and enforcement agency. The point has been made in the past that there are too many organisations working in silos; there are too many organisations working independently of each other and fighting over different issues. I know that many friends—indeed comrades—in the trade union movement do not want the role or structure of the Health and Safety Executive to be altered, but I think there is a strong case for merging the GLA, the employment agency standards inspectorate, the HSE and the minimum wage enforcement responsibilities of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs into a single body that could also work closely with the UK Border Agency. One such organisation or inspectorate covering all these bases would reduce the massive amount of administration involved in many cases and would mean the various agencies were working not independently, but with each other. That, in turn, would reduce the costs of each of these organisations while at the same time enabling them to be more effective in what they do.
Mr Gray
The hon. Gentleman seems to be moving away from what I understand to be the central purpose of his Bill. He is talking now about amalgamating the UK Border Agency, HMRC and other organisations, and creating one large organisation, which I fear would be particularly bureaucratic and difficult to control. Will he explain why he is seeking that very considerable bureaucratic change, when the purpose of the Bill seems to me to be reasonably simple and straightforward?
Mr Hamilton
The hon. Gentleman raises a correct point. If I had been able to read my entire 31-page speech, I would have answered all such points, but I have had to limit my remarks in order to allow the Minister to respond. This is an ambition. The GLA does good work in agriculture and we are seeking to extend its good work to the construction industry. That is what the Bill would do; it is as simple as that.
In my discussions with the Minister, I have suggested that other measures could be looked at in future to reduce the bureaucratic structure of many of the current organisations. My only interest in this topic is to help honest companies, who are competing against dishonest companies, and to protect employees. That is the key to the whole thing. I shall finish on that note, and I wish to thank everybody for being here for the debate. All I ask of the Minister is that in the interests of fairness, which was displayed in the previous debate, this Bill should go into Committee so that we can iron out a number of these issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) on securing parliamentary time for his Bill. I recognise the depth of his interest in health and safety matters and in securing decent working conditions. Obviously he had a track record in this area before he came to this House, and it was a pleasure to meet him to discuss his Bill prior to today. I hope that I have a few things to say to him in the time that is left to me—
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to sit down, but I will not be doing so quite yet because it is important to put the Government’s position on the record. I wish to say a few things that I think will have made his efforts worth while.
This Government, too, are committed to improving health and safety, particularly in construction, to ensuring fairness in the workplace and to encouraging and raising levels of compliance with workplace rights, in the construction sector and elsewhere. Where we differ with the hon. Gentleman is on whether licensing would be an effective solution to problems in the construction sector. Of course, licensing has its place as a tool in the regulatory arsenal. It is used in relation to labour providers in agriculture and food processing, as he said, and there are other examples too. However, licensing is an expensive and untargeted system of regulation. It burdens all with fees and inspections—the good and the bad alike—and with the risk that the worst businesses evade licensing altogether. Licensing can be an appropriate response to particular problems in particular sectors, but that does not mean it is appropriate in all cases.
Andrew Bridgen
I declare an interest, as I am a major shareholder in a food processing business in my constituency. North West Leicestershire is a major provider of building materials and is the base for many large construction companies, as hon. Members are perhaps aware. There is a huge difference between the agricultural and food processing industry and the construction industry, and therefore in the regulatory burden that those industries can carry. The food and food processing industry is a non-cyclical business—parts of it can even be counter-cyclical—and has been almost unaffected by the economic downtown, whereas we know that we cannot say that of the construction industry. I am very worried that any further burdens on the construction industry at this particular time, when it is struggling to deal with the effects of the last recession, could be particularly burdensome. It is not fair to compare the construction industry now with the more resilient food processing industry.
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is exactly right in his analysis of the construction industry and of how we use licensing as one of the tools to deal with everything from health and safety to fairness in the workplace. We need to consider the conditions that need to be met before something such as licensing is appropriate. We need to consider whether existing enforcement arrangements are inadequate; whether there is hard evidence of illegal activity; where a licensing system would be a proportionate and effective way of tackling the problems that are seen; and where licensing would be practicable, enforceable and, finally, affordable. The Government do not consider that those tests have been met for the construction sector.
There is a misapprehension in some quarters that employment agencies that supply labour to the construction sector are unregulated, and that workers are unprotected. In fact, regulatory safeguards are already in place for all agency workers, whichever sector they work in. For example, employment agencies operating outside the Gangmasters Licensing Authority’s sectors have to comply with health and safety and working time legislation enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. They must also comply with the national minimum wage regulations enforced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In addition, they must adhere to special employment agency regulations enforced by my Department’s employment agency standards inspectorate—the EAS—which responds to complaints from agency workers, and carries out an additional programme of proactive, risk-assessed inspections each year.
On health and safety legislation and the work of the HSE in the construction sector, the hon. Member for Midlothian is rightly worried about health and safety, which is a big concern for the sector, but I am not convinced that a licensing system would improve the sector’s health and safety record. The GLA applies a range of licensing standards. The conditions for health and safety are intended to ensure agreement between the labour supplier and the hirer about who will have responsibility for managing day-to-day health and safety, including the preparation of risk assessments, but that is already clear in construction.
Under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, the principal contractor has responsibilities for ensuring the health and safety of all individuals who work on a construction site regardless of their employment status. This includes directly employed workers, labour-only sub-contractors and the self-employed. In addition, each contractor working under the principal contractor has duties to every individual working under their control. Those duties are on top of the requirements that individual employers have to their employees. Duties of the principal contractor include the requirement to consult all workers involved in a project to ensure that the measures taken to protect their health and safety are effective.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
I am listening to the Minister’s remarks with great interest. He has explained his position on why the GLA is not relevant to the construction industry, but will he expand on why he has changed his mind since signing early-day motion 1366 in 2009?
Mr Davey
I have considered all the issues that would have to be taken into account, such as whether it would be appropriate, proportionate and justifiable, and it is clear that the EAS does an extremely good job and that it deals with all the problems. Let me quote some of the statistics, which are worth bearing in mind. In 2009-10, there were 42 fatal injuries to workers in construction, with a fatal injury incidence rate of 2.2 per 100,000 workers per year. That compares with 105 deaths and a rate of 5.9 per 100,000 per year in 2000-01. Injury rates are also at an all-time low since the reporting regulations changed in 1995. That is done under the existing system. There has been some success and the previous Government should take credit for that.
It is clear that an extension of gangmaster licensing is not the way forward, but there is a case for taking a fresh look at our compliance and enforcement arrangements. As the hon. Member for Midlothian said, existing enforcement functions are undertaken by a number of bodies, including the EAS, HMRC, the GLA and the HSE. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also has a role, in enforcing the agricultural minimum wage, but that will disappear with the proposed abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board as part of the public bodies review.
The single pay and work rights line has drawn those bodies closer together and has been a major step forward in creating a single port of call for workers who want advice or to report an abuse. It has also been a powerful spur to more joint working between the enforcement bodies, which are now carrying forward multi-issue cases together on a regular basis. However, the time is right to ask whether it is possible to build on the progress that has been made. I am therefore announcing today an intention to review the Government’s workplace rights compliance and enforcement arrangements to establish the scope for streamlining them and making them more effective. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that announcement. The review will be undertaken next year, when other priorities permit, and will be part of the wider rolling review of employment law being co-ordinated by my Department.
Mr David Hamilton
Who will undertake the review and who will be included in it?
Mr Davey
It will start in my Department and I envisage it looking at different ways of organising the Government’s compliance and enforcement work. It will consider whether incremental improvements can be made to encourage further co-ordination and joint working, such as better legal information sharing gateways and governance machinery, which would allow priorities to be discussed and set on a broader, cross-agency basis. I envisage it considering whether online and helpline employment law advice channels can be linked and streamlined. I also want it to look at the potential cost and operational benefits of enforcement models that would consolidate enforcement functions in a single body or fewer bodies.
The review will initially be carried out internally within the Government, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, but will involve meetings with key interested parties to solicit views and test thinking. My Department will publish a statement of initial findings and intended next steps next year in the context of progress reports on a wider employment law review—
Business without Debate
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December 2011.
secured lending reform Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2011.
Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it recorded in Hansard that it was a Government Whip who objected to the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have not the faintest idea. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will wait until Hansard is published. It is an accurate reflection of what is said in the House.
Adam Afriyie
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday the House resolved unanimously that, if needed, the Government would allow time to amend the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. If an amendment Bill does not come to Committee within the next few weeks, there will not be enough time even to leave that option open. Have you received information from the Leader of the House or news of a statement from the Leader of the House on this subject?
Mr Deputy Speaker
No, I have not received from the Leader of the House any statement or indication that a statement is to be made, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Turks and Caicos Islands
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Turks and Caicos Islands are a territory of the Crown for which we in Parliament have ultimate responsibility. During the past few months, I have spent considerable time dealing with the multitude of issues relating to the Turks and Caicos islands, in my capacity as chairman of both the Turks and Caicos Islands all-party parliamentary group and the British overseas territories all-party parliamentary group, as well as in my capacity as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am thus extremely grateful for the opportunity to address the House this afternoon on this most pressing of subjects.
The Turks and Caicos Islands are a territory of some 26,000 inhabitants situated just south of the Bahamas on the cusp on the Atlantic ocean. They have been British in one form or another for several hundred years and were a dependency of Jamaica until 1962, when they became a Crown colony or British overseas territory, as we now call them. The islands that encompass the territory are well known for their award-winning beaches, world-class hotels and spectacular climate. Indeed, the tagline of the islands, “beautiful by nature”, could not be more appropriate. These aesthetic factors, coupled with a prime location for tourism, an English-speaking populace and a British constitution and judicial system made the islands one of Britain’s most successful territories.
However, the Turks and Caicos Islands of the present set a far more sombre scene. Endemic corruption, economic turmoil and violent crime are rife. The people of the Turks and Caicos Islands are currently hard pressed for optimism. Sadly, these previously dynamic islands have been in more or less perpetual stagnation for the past 18 months. The questions we all have to ask are: how has that been allowed to happen under the British standard, and why is so little being done to rectify that unacceptable situation?
The issues stem from the previous Administration, who presided over systematic corruption, selling off vast swathes of Crown land and running the islands as a personal fiefdom, despite the protestations of the resident populace, who fruitlessly whistle-blew to the UK Government. Finally, on 18 March 2009, after almost seven years of systemic corruption and on the advice of her UK Ministers, Her Majesty the Queen issued an Order in Council, giving the Governor the power to suspend the constitution. In August that year, the order was enacted.
Many saw the UK Government’s intervention as a necessity, and on the day of the suspension people walked down the street waving Union Jacks, with every faith that, in true British spirit, Her Majesty’s Government would restore the territory to its former glory. So, where has it all gone wrong? How has this proud and loyal British territory found itself in an arguably worse position than before the UK Government took direct control? I am sure the Minister will tell us shortly.
I intend to outline the issues facing Turks and Caicos, the root causes of those problems and how I feel Her Majesty’s Government can address the urgent matters at hand. Let me preface that by paying tribute to the current governor, His Excellency Gordon Wetherell, and his team. I have seen at first hand the terrific challenges that they face, and I do not envy their task. They do a sterling job, and given the conditions we could not expect more of them.
There are, however, failures, and they are the fault not of the interim Government but of the completely insufficient support that they have been afforded by Her Majesty’s Government and, moreover, the previous Labour Government, in particular, who grossly under-resourced the Administration and expected the impossible.
In August, I was fortunate enough to visit the Turks and Caicos Islands, where I met hundreds of local people, businessmen, politicians, Government officials, community workers and church leaders. All of them were desperate to have their voice heard, frustrated by the lack of action and deeply concerned about what the future might hold for them. The islands are truly in crisis.
On one afternoon during my stay at the Governor’s residence, “Waterloo”, on Grand Turk, there was an armed robbery only a stone’s throw from the property. Violent crime has completely spiralled out of control; guns and illicit substances are being smuggled over on sloops from Haiti, and there is no way to enforce the borders or territorial waters. There is, however, a $2.5 million radar system that would significantly alleviate the problem, but for more than 18 months it has sat in a crate deteriorating, while sheer bureaucracy prevents its installation. Already, the storage fees exceed $50,000, and that is a disgrace.
Meanwhile, the once sound infrastructure of the islands is crumbling, education is declining and illiteracy is rampant. Schools and teachers have their limited resources stretched to capacity, and there is no meaningful approach to vocational training, with only 2% of students going on to college.
The prison on Grand Turk is desperately overcrowded, with minors and adults sharing cells, and it was called little more than a “training college to harden criminals” by some of the community leaders I met. That problem is compounded by a severe backlog in the justice Department, with courtrooms in meltdown and the local magistrates simply unable to deal with the backlog. I believe that many problems can be attributed to the civil service of Turks and Caicos, which needs to be completely rebuilt. There have been no audited financial records since 2006, and there are an untenable 2,300 people on the payroll. A large proportion of the civil service has been compromised by corruption, yet there is little attempt at reformation. It currently takes about six months to process a driving licence and 11 months for a work permit. The level of “pay to play” bureaucracy is utterly unbelievable. At the same time, the islands are, as one resident put it, “being micro-managed into oblivion”. Layer upon layer of legislation is bottlenecking the last vestiges of enterprise. Until the civil service is reformed, the work of the interim Administration will continue to be undermined. That must be a priority.
Even with all those problems, the islands are primed for investors. I have it on good authority that there are businesses and individuals waiting in the wings to plough investment back into TCI. Turks and Caicos desperately needs to bring that business back. Business built the islands and it has been their lifeblood over the past three decades. To put it simply, if the Government continue to allow an unfavourable climate for private enterprise, the islands will not recover.
The people of Turks and Caicos have not given up; they will do everything possible to put their islands back on track and we have a duty to help them. The overwhelming majority of people want to create a climate of genuine partnership. The interim Administration and the Governor’s office can depend on assistance from the private sector in almost every aspect of restructuring. Those in the private sector have offered office accommodation, professional services and even their own money to assist, but they are continually met with barrier after barrier. Their frustration is completely understandable. They appreciate that finances and resources are tight, and that we live in a climate of austerity. They are looking not for handouts or bail-outs, but for stability and economic security. Her Majesty’s Government have a duty to provide that.
Hanging over all these matters is the remorseless task of discovery by Helen Garlick and her officers, who compose the special investigation and prosecution team that has spent the past 18 months uncovering the web of scandal, fraud, bribery and corruption that silently choked the islands into their current condition. Although I appreciate that their task is complex, there have been no prosecutions. Given that the cost of the investigation is about $500,000 a month and that it is funded exclusively by the Turks and Caicos interim Government, people on the islands are understandably in uproar. It is in everyone’s interest that there should be prosecutions imminently, that the uncertainty is cleared up and that a line is drawn so that the territory can move forward. Clear and concise parameters must be set. The people of Turks and Caicos cannot be expected to entertain open-ended speculation about when the problems will be resolved.
Finally, the constitutional reform process is one of the more emotive problems. It has been met with fierce hostility by the “belonger” population and the political parties, which have conducted their own review. All I will say is that the Government need to remember that a political system cannot and should not be imposed on an unwilling population. Such reforms must be conducted in conjunction with the people—there is no other way to go about it in a modern democracy. The next election in the Turks and Caicos Islands has been announced for 2012. That deadline must be met so that democracy is restored to the people of the islands by that time at the very latest.
The perpetuation of the current situation is unthinkable. Turks and Caicos is in crisis and if immediate action is not taken by Her Majesty’s Government, the territory will continue to deteriorate. A letter dated 4 February 2010 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to a resident on Grand Turk stated:
“Whilst UK Ministers are keenly aware that the TCI Government has severe difficulties in meeting the liabilities it has inherited from the previous administration and that significant challenges remain, they are of the view that it would be inappropriate for UK taxpayers money to be used to fill a deficit created by the financial mismanagement of the previous administration.”
That is an appalling and inexcusable stance. The people of the Turks and Caicos are British, too, and they deserve our support. The previous Government should be ashamed of how they handled the situation there, and of the relationship that they fostered with the overseas territories in general.
I can assure the House with certainty that the bill for the UK taxpayer will be far greater in the long run if urgent action is not taken now. I have every faith that our new Conservative-led government will do everything in their power to ensure that the current wrongs are righted and that the failings of the past are corrected. We need to deploy more civil servants from the UK to reform the TCI civil service and more police to crack down on crime, and we need to draw a line under prosecutions to ensure that the full weight of the law is brought down on those who were deceitful. We also need to ensure that more funds are made available to the TCI, and not simply to tide the islands over for a few more months. It must be enough to stimulate the economy back into action radically.
I speak frankly when I say that there is no use in a package of support that is aimed merely at maintaining the status quo. I recognise that in the current climate of austerity no decision on finance is taken lightly, but I put it to the Government that they have committed to giving millions of pounds in aid to foreign countries, and yet let poverty and despair be fostered on our very own soil. Her Majesty’s Government now have an ideal opportunity to change that in the Turks and Caicos, and with the right attitude and approach we can show our citizens overseas that they are not on the periphery of government and that no matter where one is in the world, British is British is British.
The Government need to show the global community that just because someone happens to live in a different time zone from London, it does not make them any less British. With that in mind, the people of the Turks and Caicos should be afforded the full support of the Government to ensure that they realise a secure and prosperous future. They will not be impressed by more rhetoric.
At this point, I wish to commend Her Majesty’s Government in Canada, who, despite having no responsibility for the Turks and Caicos, are sending over members of the Royal Canadian mounted police to help us rescue the situation. Should that not be our responsibility? It is, after all, a British territory, not a Canadian territory.
The people of the Turks and Caicos islands want to see fast and radical action from Her Majesty’s Government here in London to restore to their homeland the governance that one would expect for a British overseas territory, a territory of the Crown.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (James Duddridge)
It is a particular privilege to speak at the Dispatch Box on this important issue, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing the debate. He has a long history of support not only for the proud and loyal Turks and Caicos Islands but for other overseas territories, an advocacy that I am sure he will continue not only as chairman of his all-party groups but as a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Following his visit in August, he produced an interesting report on the Turks and Caicos Islands, which I have read in detail and reviewed with civil servants. I hope to address a number of points raised in that report as well as in the debate.
As my hon. Friend knows, this Government’s approach to the overseas territories is very different from that of our predecessors. We are proud of our shared history and value the territories as part of the wider British family. We want our relationship to be mutually beneficial and successful. We know there are many challenges, but our relationship is strong enough to tackle them as they arise. Our support for the islands is a good example of our new approach.
My hon. Friend referred to the islands as being our very own soil. We are committed to the principle that the overseas territories should have the first call on the UK’s aid budget. However, that cannot be in the form of unconditional handouts of UK taxpayers’ money. We are providing support in the Turks and Caicos Islands where it will have the most lasting benefit by, for example, funding advisers to develop the wide-ranging reforms that are needed, giving temporary financial support to help protect the islands from financial collapse, and funding the deployment of UK police officers. We are doing what we can to support the territory despite the financial crisis here in the UK. In exchange, we want the territory to manage its affairs as successfully and effectively as possible. In today’s world, that means sound public finances, with high-quality and accountable government and public services.
The Government will change how we handle overseas territories business. We plan to involve other relevant Departments in our new strategy. The FCO will continue to lead and co-ordinate the work of Her Majesty’s UK Government on the overseas territories, but there is a role for much wider and deeper engagement and commitment by other Government Departments and bodies in the UK. We have already adopted such an approach in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
We want to open doors between the territories and the UK. We want to see more co-operation between central and local government, and the public and private sectors, which my hon. Friend mentioned. We want to do more to support economic and commercial development in the territories. My hon. Friend is right to say that fostering such development is essential. However, we cannot ignore the importance of good governance and a strong, independent public service. That is in everybody’s interests and is crucial in returning the islands to prosperity. A very important part of that is public financial management, but there are other weaknesses, such as a lack of transparency, a failure to follow due process, and—frankly—poor performance by some public officials, which must be addressed.
An enormous amount of work has gone into the islands since the constitution was suspended in August 2009. Much progress has been made on tackling the considerable financial, economic and governance challenges that the Governor and the interim Government inherited. A team of UK-funded technical experts is working hard with the Turks and Caicos Islands public service. Together, they are making improvements across a wide range of areas for the benefit of the islands. The FCO has funded experts in fields such as immigration, Crown land, good governance, revenue and customs, constitutional and electoral reform, and very importantly, economic development, to which my hon. Friend referred. The Department for International Development has funded experts in public financial management, including a chief financial officer, who arrived in September.
However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, much remains to be done. The UK Government have monitored the work of the current Turks and Caicos Islands Government since the suspension of parts of the constitution in August 2009 and considered carefully the challenges that lie ahead. Taking those factors into account, in September, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), announced during his visit to the Turks and Caicos Islands that the UK Government did not want to postpone elections any longer than absolutely necessary, but that they could not, alas, be held in 2011. He said that before the end of this year, he would set out milestones that would need to be met before elections could take place, ensuring clarity for everyone involved, both here and on the islands. I expect him to come forward with those in the coming weeks.
The Under-Secretary made many recommendations in his recent report, and I should like to address those in the seven minutes remaining. The UK’s support for the Turks and Caicos Islands cannot take the form of unconditional handouts of UK public money. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford will agree that ultimately, we want the Turks and Caicos Islands to stand on their own two feet, but within the broader family.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said in a written ministerial statement in July that DFID had decided to propose a temporary package of financial support to the islands. That support is conditional on the Government strengthening their capacity and systems to manage their public finances and balance their budget within the next three years, which is a very tough challenge, as we know from the ones that we face on the mainland.
The DFID-funded chief financial officer is heading this difficult work, and to address the immediate shortfall, the Department has provided short-term loans to the islands. That will help. Our aim remains to restore and firmly embed the principles of sound financial management, sustainable development and good governance, which will help to rebuild confidence in the Turks and Caicos Islands and their ability to manage their own affairs. A public sector reform adviser has been funded by DFID, but only arrived in the Turks and Caicos Islands this week. I am sure that that person will have a big impact. Also an immigration adviser has been seconded from the UK Border Agency, and is already making an impact. That secondment was funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UKBA adviser has been there since September and is doing well.
The constitutional and electoral reform adviser published her latest recommendations on the Turks and Caicos Islands in mid-November, and the people of the islands have until 14 January next year to submit further comments on those recommendations. The political parties on the islands have been encouraged to participate in the consultation process, and I encourage them further in that, because it is incredibly important that all parties engage during these difficult times to produce the right solution, not just for the UK Government but for the people of those islands. Importantly, that consultation process will include an invitation from the Turks and Caicos Islands advisory council and the consultative forum to discuss their recommendations and those of the adviser.
In the light of the commission of inquiry’s recommendations, improvements will be made to a number of areas of the islands’ constitution. Some of the issues under consideration are more sensitive than others. For example, there will be a need for increased oversight by the Governor, whom my hon. Friend met—I am glad that the visit went well. He holds the Governor, who is doing a very good job, in high regard. However, there might be a need for increased oversight by the Governor in a new constitution. There is also the sticky issue of who will be able to vote in a forthcoming election, so we will have to consider the franchise in a lot more detail. There are a number of difficult issues, but there is no reason to duck them. The future stability and good governance of the Turks and Caicos Islands is at stake.
It is critical that we get the investigations right. The UK Government have agreed to provide the initial funding needed to set up a special investigation and prosecution team. The FCO funded the team from its creation in August 2009 until February 2010, at the significant cost of approximately £600,000. The cost of the team has now transferred, as my hon. Friend is aware, to the Turks and Caicos Islands Government, and the DFID-funded chief financial officer has included the cost of the team in her budget calculations.
My hon. Friend talked about the speed of prosecutions. That, quite properly, will be a matter for Helen Garlick and the Attorney-General, rather than the UK Government. I agree with my hon. Friend that there has been a worrying increase in violent crime on the islands—he witnessed it himself. Steps have been taken to increase the penalties for gun crime and increase the police presence on the islands, particularly on the main island of Providenciales. I am pleased to say that the FCO has funded the deployment of five Metropolitan police officers, in addition to the Canadian officers whom he has already mentioned. The Metropolitan police officers arrived last month and are working well with the Royal Turks and Caicos Islands police to review current unsolved cases of violent crime, including murder and armed robbery. The officers are also providing guidance and advice on lines of inquiry for intelligence and investigations.
My hon. Friend asked about prisons and radar. I will write to him on those subjects.
As I said at the start of my speech, the Government are taking a new approach to the overseas territories—an approach exemplified by the support that we are giving to the Turks and Caicos Islands. Much work has been done and much progress made, but I acknowledge that much more remains to be done. We will work with the Governor and all the other bodies to ensure that this happens. The UK Government and the current Turks and Caicos Islands Government, led by the Governor, will continue to work hard to ensure that the principles of good governance, sound financial management and sustainable development are firmly embedded across the public service and the wider society.
I commend my hon. Friend for his interest and support, which I am sure will continue, and which stands the Turks and Caicos Islands Government in very good stead. I promise to write to him with a full and proper reply on prisons, rather than rush one in the remaining time available to me at the Dispatch Box today.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 17 November 2010. The following items were discussed:
Directive and Regulation on VAT treatment of insurance and financial services
ECOFIN held an orientation debate on proposals to modernise the VAT exemption for financial services, reflecting market developments over the last 30 years. The Council agreed that discussions would continue at working group level, taking account of the views expressed by delegations.
Administrative Co-operation in the field of taxation
The presidency gave an update on negotiations on this directive, which aims to improve arrangements for exchange of information and bring the EU into line with OECD standards. The Council agreed that they would aim to reach political agreement on this issue at their December meeting.
Implementation of the 2009 budget
ECOFIN took note of the presentation by the Court of Auditors on its annual report on the management of the EU’s general budget. The Council called on all parties involved in the management of the EU budget to persist in their efforts to improve controls and to reduce margins of error in budgetary payments. The Government continued to press the case for value for money in the EU budget. The Council is expected to adopt the recommendation to discharge the budget at its meeting in February.
Follow-up to October European Council
The Council took note of the deliberations of the European Council. Ahead of the December ECOFIN, officials will prepare a report on the work of the economic taskforce. They will also take forward work on bank levies and on the how the impact of pension reforms should be accounted for in the implementation of the EU’s stability and growth pact.
Follow-up to the G20 Seoul Summit on 11-12 November
The Council discussed the follow-up to the G20 summit, including as regards the issues of macroeconomic imbalances and the reform of financial regulations.
Financing of measures against climate change
ECOFIN had a high-level discussion on the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Finance report, fast-start finance, and the green fund. The Council will further consider this issue at the December ECOFIN.
Pensions
The Council adopted conclusions on a report on pensions. The Government support this report, which emphasises the importance of fiscal sustainability and extending working lives.
EU statistics
The Council adopted conclusions on the annual report on EU statistics, which reviewed the progress made on statistical governance.
Other business
a) Baltic Sea Strategy
The Council took note of a presentation by the President of the European Investment Bank regarding the EIB’s contribution to the EU’s strategy for the Baltic sea region. The Government welcome the EIB’s work in the region, and support its intentions to extend the programme to the Danube region.
b) Representation of the Council at the G20 ministerial meetings
The Council discussed EU representation at G20 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.
c) Credit Rating Agencies
At the UK’s request, a statement was laid in the minutes of the Council outlining remaining concerns with an amending regulation for credit rating agencies. The Council took note of concerns expressed.
Meeting of the EU and EFTA Ministers of Finance and Economy
Ministers held a meeting with their European Free Trade Area counterparts. The meeting focused on the consolidation of Government budgets as well as on financial market regulation and supervision.
An extra Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 28 November 2010.
Ministers unanimously agreed to grant financial assistance, in principle, in response to the Irish authorities’ request, in order to safeguard financial stability in the euro area and the EU as a whole.
Euro-area and EU financial support will be provided on the basis of a programme which has been negotiated with the Irish authorities by the Commission and the International Monetary Fund, in liaison with the European Central Bank.
The financial package of the programme will cover financing needs up to €85 billion, including €10 billion for immediate recapitalisation measures, €25 billion on a contingency basis for banking system supports, and €50 billion covering budget financing needs. Half of the banking support measures (€17½ billion) will be financed by an Irish contribution through the Treasury cash buffer and investments of the National Pension Reserve Fund. The remainder of the overall package should be shared equally (€ 22½ billion each) among:
the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM);
the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) together with bilateral loans from the UK, Denmark and Sweden; and
the IMF.
In principle, the UK’s bilateral loan is for £3¼ billion, and the rate of interest on the loan will be similar to the rates levied by the IMF and the euro area.
The main elements of policy conditionality will be enshrined in Council decisions to be formally adopted at the ECOFIN Council on 7 December.
The president of the Eurogroup made it clear that the UK will not be part of the permanent bail-out mechanism, and that the European financial stability mechanism, agreed under the previous Government in May, and of which we are part, will cease to exist when that permanent eurozone mechanism is put in place.
Yorkshire Forward
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I have decided to appoint Julie Kenny as the chair of Yorkshire Forward.
Julie will commence as chair designate, to ensure continuity of leadership from 6 December 2010 and take up post as chair from 14 December 2010.
The appointment will be until the close of Yorkshire Forward.
The appointment has been made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice.
Competitiveness Council
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The EU Competitiveness Council took place in Brussels on 25 and 26 November 2010. The Minister of State for Universities and Science represented the UK on research and innovation items and Andy Lebrecht, the UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU represented the UK on industry, internal market and space items when a Minister was not in attendance. A summary of the discussions follows.
Industrial, Internal Market and AOB Items
There was a ministerial debate on the recent Commission communication setting out its new integrated EU industrial policy ahead of the adoption of Council conclusions at the December Competitiveness Council. The document received broad support and the majority of member states, including the UK, mentioned the importance of SMEs. The UK emphasised the need for a strong single market, smart regulation, keeping open markets, ensuring sectoral initiatives focus on areas where the EU can add value and the importance of the whole supply chain.
On green vehicles, the Commission presented their report on implementation of the clean and energy efficient vehicles strategy, and the presidency introduced a joint declaration on electro mobility. Nine member state signatories felt this should be given priority in research and development. On the EU patent some member states felt the enhanced co-operation procedure under the Lisbon treaty should be pursued to make further progress as member states were unable unanimously to agree to a language regime. The presidency said the issue would be discussed again as a full agenda item at the December Competitiveness Council.
Space
A resolution was agreed setting out priorities for future European work on space policy. There was broad agreement that the space sector could offer significant economic benefits. Ministers noted the importance of the global monitoring for environment and security (GMES) initiative and Galileo as two priority European space programmes. A number of member states expressed concern with Galileo’s budgetary situation. The UK also insisted the Commission should improve its management of the Galileo programme and emphasised the importance of completing the Galileo mid-term review without delay.
The role of space in Europe and the balance of responsibilities between the EU and the European Space Agency (ESA) were discussed. ESA said that this was an issue they and the Commission were currently reflecting on. Hungary said it would discuss the EU-ESA relationship under its EU presidency in the first half of 2011.
Innovation
The Competitiveness Council agreed conclusions reacting to the Commission’s EU2020 flagship communication, Innovation Union (the Commission’s recent strategy for improving Europe’s capacity to innovate).
Ministers debated how to overcome barriers to innovation in Europe. The UK offered strong support for the Commission’s European innovation partnerships concept, but felt access to finance for innovation was a problem. It believed EU funding could be used to augment existing national pre-commercial procurement schemes. The UK also pointed to problems relating to the implementation of the EU clinical trials directive which it saw as hampering innovation in the pharmaceuticals sector.
European Research Area
The Competitiveness Council adopted conclusions on joint programming (the voluntary process of co-ordinating national research programmes in certain scientific fields). The conclusions welcomed a biennial report on joint programming and endorsed voluntary guidelines for the process. One change was made to the draft and sent to Council at the request of the presidency—a reference to the importance of work on biomarkers in the pilot joint programming initiative on neurodegenerative diseases was weakened. The presidency updated the Council on recent efforts to strengthen the European research area and on the work of the strategic forum for international science and technology co-operation.
7th Framework Programme (FP7)
Ministers discussed a presentation on the interim evaluation of the EU’s current R&D funding programme over lunch. Areas considered for improvement in the review included low female participation rates, underperformance of many newer EU member states and low business participation rates. The interim review recommended that the framework programme should: be amended to help develop Europe’s innovation capacity and the research base; enhance large-scale research facilities; maintain its current level of funding for future programmes; be radically simplified; not include any new types of funding instrument; be linked better to the structural funds; and be opened up more strategically to non-EU countries.
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
The Commission set out its proposals for reforming the governance of the ITER programme, and called for voting in the governing board to be amended so that vote weights were linked directly to financial contribution. The Commission also noted the failure of the Council and European Parliament to reach an agreement on meeting the ITER funding shortfall in 2012-13. The Commissioner hoped agreement would be reached shortly. The UK argued in its intervention on Innovation Union that ITER procurement contracts needed to be more accessible for SMEs.
Council Tax
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
The coalition Government are clear that there should be no unexpected council tax revaluation rises in the next five years. We recently announced that we would therefore cancel council tax revaluation due in England in 2015 and confirmed the Government would not carry out revaluation in England during the lifetime of this Parliament. It is right that Welsh taxpayers have the same protection.
I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government intend to include in the forthcoming localism Bill the necessary provisions to:
cancel the legal requirement for a council tax revaluation in Wales that was due to take place in 2015;
devolve the power to Welsh Assembly Government Ministers to decide the timing of council tax revaluations in Wales, rather than being bound to the timetable set out in legislation passed following the Local Government Act 2003.
As a result of the last council tax revaluation in Wales in 2005, four times as many homes moved up one or more council tax bands than moved down. Two-thirds of the net rises were amongst homes originally in bands A to C. We believe this hit the less well-off households the hardest.
This Government want to see Welsh taxpayers get the same certainty about revaluation as English taxpayers. It will be a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government to decide whether they will now issue the same reassurances to Welsh taxpayers as have been given to English taxpayers. No revaluation will now take place unless the Welsh Assembly Government Minister determines otherwise.
Operational Logistics Information Capability (Improvements)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has signed an 11-year contract with Boeing Defence UK (BDUK) for the future delivery of operationally essential logistics information across defence.
The new contractual arrangement has been developed under the umbrella of the Future Logistics Information Services (FLIS) project, and represents a step-change improvement to the quality of logistics information available to the armed forces. Logistic support is vital across the full range of military tasks, including those in support of military operations in Afghanistan.
At present, logistics information is delivered by a complex set of contractual arrangements, supported by an MOD in-house team. Those posts will transfer to BDUK under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. Under FLIS, BDUK have been appointed as the single incentivised contractor, at a cost of £800 million over 11 years, to deliver MOD’s logistics information capability. FLIS is a modern commercial arrangement with BDUK as the single supplier responsible for delivery of current systems in a more effective and financially efficient manner. BDUK will manage a number of sub-contractors, many of whom are currently prime suppliers to MOD.
The new arrangement will ensure the long-term delivery of operationally essential logistics information to both MOD and industry and the significant financial efficiencies will contribute to the Government’s strategic deficit reduction programme, without reducing operational capability.
This new contract with BDUK provides an effective framework which will improve the delivery of today’s logistics information needs, and enable future changes to be made as a result of the strategic defence and security review to reflect the changing needs of defence.
Forced Marriage and Learning Disabilities (Practice Guidelines)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)
To mark the International Day of Disabled Persons today, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, the Forced Marriage Unit (a joint Home Office/Foreign and Commonwealth Office unit) launches multi-agency practice guidelines for supporting people with learning disabilities.
The guidelines have been developed to assist frontline professionals, such as the police, children and adults social care services, education and health professionals, care workers, charities and volunteers handling cases of forced marriage involving people with learning disabilities. It covers issues relating to a person’s capacity to consent and the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to establish this.
The document draws on research carried out by the Ann Craft Trust in partnership with the Judith Trust, and statistics on reports to the Forced Marriage Unit’s helpline. It complements the “Multi-Agency Practice Guidelines: Handling cases of forced marriage” published by the FMU last year and should be read in conjunction with these.
The guidelines can be downloaded from on the Forced Marriage Unit’s webpage at: www.fco.gov.uk/forcedmarriage and hard copies will be placed in House Libraries.
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (Agenda)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will be held on 6 December 2010 in Brussels. I will represent the UK, except for the agenda item on the pregnant workers directive where the UK will be represented by the Minister responsible for employment relations, consumer and postal affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey).
There will be two orientation debates. The first is on the pregnant workers directive, which is being renegotiated in a co-decision procedure between the Council and the European Parliament. As the European Parliament’s position goes much further than the Commission’s original proposal, and would require 20 weeks’ fully paid maternity leave, two weeks’ paternity leave and 20 weeks’ adoption leave, the UK will not agree to these changes.
The second is on retirement pensions, in particular maintaining a “living standard to a reasonable degree” and our reaction to the Commission’s Green Paper. This will include the presentation of a joint report from the Social Protection (SPC) and Economic Policy Committee (EPC) on pensions. The UK will stress the need to ensure that pensioners have the income to live with dignity in retirement and that each member state should find its own balance for public pensions.
There will be an exchange of views on the Employment Policies in Europe 2020 and the European Semester. This will include information from the Commission and presidency on the EU 2020 flagship projects “New Skills and Jobs” and “Youth on the Move”, approval of two Employment Committee (EMCO) opinions, on employment and climate change and an initial country analysis of the draft national reform programmes, and approval of a joint EMCO-SPC opinion on the Joint Assessment Framework and the Employment Monitor. The UK will stress how important it is that employment is at the heart of the Europe2020 strategy and that there must be a robust methodology for assessments, but it is important to recognise that this should not lead to policy prescriptions in an area that is primarily member state competence.
There will be a discussion of the general approach to the European Year of Active Ageing 2012 which proposes to promote active ageing and to do more to mobilise the potential of the rapidly growing population in their late 50s and above.
There will be a progress report on the directive on equal treatment where some progress has been made under the Belgian presidency. The Commission will also present its joint report with the SPC on the social dimension of the crisis.
The Commission will present the biannual report on social services of general interest which annexes a voluntary framework that was developed collaboratively with member states and stakeholders. The report is an overview of the initiatives implemented to guarantee and assess the quality of social services.
Ministers will consider a number of Council conclusions. There are two sets on gender; one on the implementation of the strategy on equality between women and men, and one on the fight against inequalities in salaries between women and men. There are also conclusions on the fight against poverty and social exclusion, employment policy for the low carbon economy, the impact of the ageing workforce, adequate and sustainable pensions, the social dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy and social services of general interest.
Under any other business, there will be information from the Commission on the New Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and the presidency will provide information on the second Euromed conference, the third conference of Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM), conclusions of the 5th Report on Economic, Social and Territorial cohesion, and the Equality summit. There will also be information on various conferences under the Belgian presidency and the Hungarian delegation will outline the programme and events for their forthcoming presidency.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is a firm convention that the House rises by about 3 pm on sitting Fridays. If Back-Bench contributions are kept within seven minutes on both of the Second Readings, the House should be able to rise shortly after 3 pm.
Re-Export Controls Bill [HL]
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, at the outset of my remarks, I pay tribute to Hannah Wright and Tom Donnelly of Saferworld, who have worked tirelessly to prepare background and briefing material for the Re-Export Controls Bill. Two weeks ago, they accompanied me to a meeting with the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox—and her officials, to whom I am grateful for their courtesy and willingness to engage in the issues raised by the Bill. We were accompanied by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who is a supporter of the Bill who had hoped to speak today but is a casualty of the Arctic weather conditions in Somerset.
Perhaps I should also put on the record the names of some other noble Lords who are supporters of the Bill. The list, which reveals approval from all parts of your Lordships’ House, includes: my noble friend Lord Hylton; the noble Lord, Lord Judd; the noble Baronesses, Lady Kinnock and Lady Falkner; the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey; my noble friend the Earl of Sandwich; the noble Lord, Lord Steel; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells; the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton; the noble Lord, Lord Razzall; my noble friend Lady Cox; the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk; the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge; the noble Lords, Lord Morgan, Lord Lyell and Lord Bates; and, my noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will plead that the Bill is not necessary. She will doubtless argue that the Bill would create administrative burdens, that current end-user arrangements are satisfactory and that it would not add to what the United Kingdom is doing at present. I hope in my remarks to do two things: first, to set the scene and to show why this country needs to do all that it can, within its powers, to try to end the flow of arms into areas of conflict; and, secondly, to describe the purpose of the Bill.
Civil servants invariably prepare briefs that argue against change and for the status quo, but I hope to convince your Lordships that this Bill would not only close a legislative lacuna but enhance our authority in the international arena as more comprehensive measures on arms control are considered. All the arguments for no change that will inevitably be advanced today can be countered by one decisive point: that re-export controls are used in many other jurisdictions, including—as the Minister confirmed yesterday in Answers to Written Questions that I tabled—other European Union countries, such as France and Germany, and in the United States, China and Russia. As supporters of the Bill have recognised, if such provision was deemed necessary by legislators in all of those other jurisdictions, what evidence has led the United Kingdom to a different conclusion? Also, if those provisions have not crippled their Civil Services with extra administrative burdens, why should similar provisions have that effect here?
Private Members’ Bills are promoted in the hope of securing legislative change, but they have another important function, too. They create debate, challenge attitudes and influence policy-making. The Bill needs to be set in the context of the flow of arms into areas of conflict and against the backdrop of militias, genocidaires, child soldiers, warlords and whole regions, especially in Africa, that are awash with weapons. You do not need a weapons inspectorate to know what the weapons of mass destruction are in Africa; they are the small arms that you see everywhere.
In September, I was in Southern Sudan, southern Ethiopia and the Turkana region of Kenya. In an Ethiopian village called Omorate I talked to Joseph Amukoo, who is now aged 14. He was shot on Christmas Day last year in Salan village where he was sleeping alongside three men. Joseph’s father is dead and his mother and brother had encouraged him to work with the men, to earn some money to support the family, in building a house. He comes from the Merille tribe. As they slept, they were set upon by Turkana warriors, who burst in just after midnight. Joseph’s companions were killed and Joseph, badly wounded with a bullet through his chest, was left for dead. The following day, he was airlifted to Kenya’s Kakuma hospital. Surgeons immediately operated and removed a bullet just centimetres from the boy’s heart.
Still clearly traumatised by that terrifying experience, Joseph told me, “At midnight I saw their shadows and as they entered I pretended to be asleep. After they shot me in the chest, thinking I was dead, they ran away. I was left alone. In the morning the police vehicle came and after the bodies were removed the police collected ammunition and began inquiries”. I asked Joseph what happened next. He said, “They never found the men who shot me. This is normal”. What was their motive? “They killed for revenge. Their family had also been killed, one month earlier in the village of Kokuro, so they came for revenge, simply revenge”. Joseph described the killers as, “powerful warriors. They killed to show that they are powerful men”.
Joseph’s story could be replicated countless times: a decade ago, in Southern Sudan, 2 million people died during the civil war there; 200,000 people have died in Darfur; the so-called Lord’s Resistance Army in northern Uganda was responsible for the deaths of more than 1 million people; another 1 million people died in the Rwandan genocide; and 6 million have died in the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. These deaths happen because weapons manufactured outside Africa are exported to the continent by unscrupulous quartermasters who care little about the suffering or misery caused by their trade.
I was struck by some words from Hillary Clinton on 16 November, when the US Secretary of State made the point that this is not a historic problem but a contemporary one, even as we meet today. She said:
“We remain deeply concerned about Darfur. Violence is intensifying, human rights violations continue, arms flow despite the embargo, journalists and activists are arrested—some merely for speaking to members of this Security Council—UN peacekeepers are kidnapped. This is all unacceptable”.
Those remarks followed reports in October that more than 50,000 weapons had been shipped into north and south Kordofan, elsewhere in Sudan, to supporters of President Omar al-Bashir. Bashir has, of course, been indicted as a war criminal for genocide by the International Criminal Court, yet the flow of arms into areas immediately in advance of January’s forthcoming referendum is continuing to destabilise the situation there.
These small arms—man-portable weapons such as assault rifles, mortars, and grenades—are light and cheap tools that take a fraction of a second to fire, but their effects can be felt for a lifetime within families, communities and nations. Small arms have been a staple of all recent armed conflicts. They are available in abundance; no one knows how many of these weapons are currently deployed with armies, criminals and private security forces around the world, but estimates are in the hundreds of millions. In virtually all the armed conflicts currently dealt with by the United Nations, small arms and light weapons are the primary or sole tools of violence. Analysts estimate that around 2 million small arms and light weapons are still circulating in central America, 7 million in west Africa, an estimated 10 million in Afghanistan and millions in the Great Lakes region of Africa, where in the past 12 years an estimated 7 million people have been killed in the ongoing wars and humanitarian crises.
With few exceptions, none of the countries where these weapons were used in recent armed conflicts actually manufactures them. In many cases, neither the manufacturer nor the exporter, nor even the buyer, really knows the purposes for which the weapons will be ultimately used because, unlike the trade in other categories of weapons, nearly 40 per cent of the trade in small arms is carried out through illicit means. The weaponising of communities, the growing use of children as soldiers, illicit mining and the use of rape as a weapon of war in places such as Congo, across the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa are just a few examples of what is happening, but among other things these crises are sustained by the continued proliferation of small arms and light weapons.
In modern conflicts, more than 80 per cent of all casualties have been civilian casualties, 90 per cent of which are caused by small arms. Stories such as Joseph Amukoo’s, which I have mentioned, and accounts of those who have witnessed or lived through these crises are shocking enough to melt a stone heart. As the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in his report on small arms,
“At least 500,000 people die every year as a result of the use of small arms and light weapons. Of the estimated 4 million war-related deaths during the 1990’s, 90 per cent of those killed were civilians, and 80 per cent of those were women and children, mostly victims of the misuse of small arms and light weapons”.
The 2008 report, Global Burden of Armed Violence, commissioned by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, says that between 1990 and 2007 $300 billion was lost by 23 African countries as a result of violent conflict. That sum is roughly equivalent to the international aid that Africa received in the same period. If that money had not been lost due to armed conflict, it could have been used to solve the problems of HIV and AIDS in Africa or to address the many needs in education, clean water and sanitation and prevent tuberculosis and malaria. On average, armed conflict shrinks an African economy by 15 per cent, but that is probably a conservative estimate.
A crucial point in the report is that around 95 per cent of the weapons used in those conflicts came from outside Africa. Although those were not all from re-exporting countries, or indeed from the UK, that figure highlights the fact that getting a handle on the irresponsible, illicit transfer of arms more broadly is essential. The same report says that more than 740,000 people die around the world each year as a result of armed violence. According to the World Health Organisation, as many as 10 times more people are injured. That includes an average of 52,000 violent deaths per year in armed conflicts and 200,000 a year who have died in conflict zones from non-violent causes such as malnutrition, dysentery or other easily preventable diseases that resulted from the effects of war on populations.
Words cannot do justice to the detrimental effects that small arms and light weapons have on fragile and unstable societies. They have ruptured social cohesion; they divide families and people; they corrupt institutions and destabilise and eventually destroy societies and Governments. In doing so, small arms undermine the very social and economic fabric of our societies as well as damage the democratic functioning and constitutional arrangements of those places.
I am of course not suggesting that all such arms originate in this country; equally, though, Britain’s trade in arms is truly global in scope and impact. Analysts claim that Britain and the other four permanent members of the UNSC, along with Germany and Italy, accounted for around 85 per cent of the arms sold between 2002 and 2009. This is roughly a $45 billion to $60 billion business. As a huge and major producer of arms, we have a special responsibility to do everything that we possibly can to regulate and control the flow of arms.
Over a decade ago, Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State, said:
“All of us whose nations sell such weapons, or through whose nations the traffic flows, bear some responsibility for turning a blind eye to the destruction they cause. And all of us have it in our power to do something in response”.
The Bill is an opportunity to do something in response and is our opportunity to build on what has been done so far, to fill the current gaps and to match our well thought-out intentions with practical mechanisms that match our words. We are all acutely aware—let no one doubt—that through circuitous routes, and after changing hands many times, sometimes in collusion with traders in other contraband goods, small arms have been used in places far removed from their original places of regular supply.
What would the Bill do? In many respects, I happily concede that the UK arms transfer control regime is among the most sophisticated in the world and that, as a country, we have led the international community in its progress towards establishing a global set of norms on the responsible transfer of military equipment. The Export Control Act 2002 and the subsequent Export Control Order 2008 were both significant steps in controlling the way in which our defence exports are controlled. Detailed risk assessments are undertaken for every licensing application to ensure compliance with the EU common position and the consolidated criteria. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills publishes quarterly and annual reports on strategic export controls. I also welcome the publication of a new searchable database on UK arms licensing decisions.
The UK is clearly among the leaders on transparency in arms transfers. The committee on export controls does an excellent job of scrutinising the Government’s decisions, but the one area in which the UK falls behind the other major arms exporters is the controls that we place on the re-export of our defence equipment. When countries decide to upgrade their defence systems and make major new purchases, they are faced with the question of what to do with their old equipment. Not surprisingly, one obvious option is to re-export those arms on to another buyer. The buyer is unlikely to be any of the world's great military powers, or those who seek to maintain a technological advantage by buying the newest, cutting-edge equipment or technology. Frequently, the prospective customers will be looking for relatively cheap equipment. Virtually by definition, they are in the market for second-hand goods.
The US, France, China and Russia—all of the other permanent members of the Security Council—require any state that purchases their defence exports to seek permission from them before re-exporting those goods; that is what the Bill seeks to do for the UK as well. Including such a clause in export licences is a simple but effective way of reducing the risk of arms exports ending up in the wrong hands. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Export Control Act 2002 to introduce such a requirement, which would bring the UK into line with all other major arms exporters on this issue. The Bill would insert a clause into UK export licences stating that the buyer of UK arms will not re-export them to any third party without seeking prior permission from the UK Government.
The Government already place limited controls on the re-export of UK arms. The end-use declarations that buyers of our defence exports are required to sign include a clause that requires the buyer not to re-export to any state that is under embargo. This is clearly welcome, but altogether far too limited. There are many states that are not under embargo that the UK would have serious concerns about the re-export of arms to. Under the UK’s consolidated criteria, licences may be refused for many reasons: because the arms may provoke or prolong armed conflict; because they may be used for torture or other human rights abuses; or because they may threaten regional peace and stability, undermine development or threaten our national security. There is a long list of countries to which the UK has refused to license defence exports. In the last period for which licensing decisions have been published—April to June 2010—the UK refused licences for exports to, for example, Bangladesh, Chad, Indonesia, Israel, Nepal and Pakistan, none of which is under embargo. Indeed, licences were refused for exports to 41 different countries, of which only five are subject to either EU or UN embargo.
Surely if we accept the principle, as the Government do, that the Government have good reason to forbid the re-export of arms to destinations of concern, we should apply that in all cases and not just some. In fact, a “no re-export” clause is all the more important where no embargo is in place. Where there is an embargo, states are already obliged under international law not to re-export. If states are willing to export despite an embargo being in place, it would seem highly unlikely that UK re-export provisions would constrain them. However, where no embargo is in place, the “no re-export” clause could make a real difference.
I am aware that the coalition Government have made a commitment to promote UK defence exports as a key priority, so I want to make it absolutely clear that the Bill is not designed to restrict the UK’s ability to export. The Bill is concerned purely with the re-export of UK arms from which the UK receives no remuneration and no economic advantage. Therefore, I know of no reason why the Bill should pose a threat to British business. In fact, in the long run, having more robust measures to ensure that our exports do not end up in the wrong hands would help strengthen UK exporters’ reputation as responsible sources of military equipment. Nor would the Bill introduce any extra red tape for UK firms, as foreign buyers would come directly to the Government for permission to re-export. When the Government received such a request, they would need to assess the risk that re-export would pose. Although that would involve additional licensing activity, I understand from non-governmental organisations that have had discussions with officials in other European Union states—I have recently raised this issue with the noble Baroness—that the number of requests received is relatively few and the additional administrative burden therefore low, although those Governments have greatly appreciated having control over those that they have received.
As I mentioned earlier, the UK has a thorough risk assessment process for such export licensing decisions. Among other things, the process includes an assessment of whether the buyer is likely to re-export the goods to a third party. Although that may suffice for detecting any immediate risk of re-export, in actual fact the buyer may not decide to re-export until years or even decades later, by which time circumstances may have changed in ways that could not have been anticipated at the time that the risk assessment was carried out—that is, before the items were originally exported. I gave the noble Baroness the example of four BN-2 Islander maritime surveillance aircraft that were exported from the UK to India in the 1970s. It was not until 2006 that the Indian Government decided to re-export the aircraft to Burma, an act which could not possibly have been predicted 30 years earlier. When the UK Government requested that India not proceed with the re-export, India felt able to ignore the UK request precisely because there was no contractual restriction on re-export. According to Sandeep Dikshit, writing in the highly regarded Indian broadsheet newspaper the Hindu on 4 February 2006, a senior Indian naval official was reported as saying:
“We should tell them where to get off”.
This demonstrates two points. First, the possibility of future re-export cannot always be foreseen when a pre-licensing risk assessment is carried out. Secondly, if buyers have not signed a contract agreeing to seek UK permission before re-exporting, they have no reason to consider doing so.
The other issue, of course, is enforcement. I understand that the Government's primary reservation about introducing re-export controls has been that they are difficult to enforce. Indeed, if a state decided that it was determined to re-export UK arms against the UK's wishes, there would be little that we could do to put a stop to it. However, re-export controls are not about forcing the bad guys to submit to British will but about working with legitimate, reasonable importers. I assume that importers of military equipment from the UK want to be seen not as irresponsible trading partners but as people who keep to the terms of their agreements. If they do not, one would hope that we would not export arms to them in the first place. Having said that re-export controls are not about enforcement, I should say that, if recipients decided to re-export against the wishes of, or without alerting, the UK Government, we would have many partners with whom we could share that information and who could subsequently factor that illegitimate behaviour into future licence decision-making processes.
To sum up, there is a developing international norm supporting re-export controls as an important component of arms transfer control. Bringing the United Kingdom into line with that norm would strengthen the United Kingdom’s legitimacy in persuading states with weak transfer controls to improve their regimes. It would be unfortunate—indeed, verging on the inexplicable—if the United Kingdom, which has so often led the way on arms transfer controls, were to stand against this wholly favourable tide. The Bill enjoys widespread support in your Lordships’ House and in another place, right across the political divide. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell
My Lords, it is a pleasure and an honour to follow the noble Lord. I call him the marathon man because he had an enormous responsibility yesterday, when he also led the debate. He has made a masterly speech today. I thank and congratulate him on behalf of all of us who are going to speak in the debate. He has given us a top-class presentation. It was detailed and competent, and I hope he will forgive me for calling it passionate. In line with the motto of the great city that he lived in and with which I have some connection, I say nil satis nisi optimum—only the best will do. That is what the noble Lord is driving at.
I warned my noble friend Lady Wilcox that in as august a list of speakers as there is today, I am very much the mouse that roared. We have an instruction that it will help if speeches are short, so I hope I will help the debate and those who follow me since my remarks will only support, in the strongest possible terms, what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is trying to do.
I read the Bill with great care. The licensing and transparency aspects certainly seem particularly important. Could the noble Lord and your Lordships just glance at new Clause 1A(3)(b) and (4)? These provisions seem to encapsulate everything, including all the difficulties that the noble Lord set out in his speech. It was implementation of these two particularly small points in new Clause 1A that caused me to take considerable interest in what the noble Lord pointed out today. In the back-up notes that he has so kindly given us, and as he has pointed out, the European Union code—which is, I think, known as the common position—was United Kingdom-led. What the noble Lord proposes in the Bill will encourage the United Kingdom Government to continue in that leading position.
However, proper and full implementation of these codes of conduct and a way of controlling re-export and re-re-export of arms could be appallingly difficult. The noble Lord has pointed out in his briefing that there was some concern over the United States, which tries to comply and is very helpful in the lead on this aspect. It exported some goods to Israel, which found their way on to China. Quite how one can make the provisions in the Bill bite worldwide is a difficult matter. In most cases, one will find that nations tend to comply with the rules, regulations and demands. However, it certainly worries me considerably that honest efforts could be made but—to put it tactfully—bullying by other nations or combinations of nations could follow. That is something that I hope the Bill will look at.
The most important point is to enlist the diplomatic world in what the noble Lord seeks to do. It is fine for us in your Lordships’ House or elsewhere in the United Kingdom to say, “This should be done”. Unless we have friends in the diplomatic world who can bring this policy and the wishes of the noble Lord to fruition, we will not get very far. However, what the noble Lord has presented to us this morning is worthy of enormous support. From the Back Benches, I am delighted to support the excellent Bill of—I was going to say “my noble friend”, thanks to the Liverpool aspect—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on which I congratulate him.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the Bill, which has the potential to bring the UK’s export controls into line with those of all the other major arms exporters in the world. Clearly, that should be a priority for all of us.
Some years ago in Kisangani, Amnesty found ammunition cartridges from North Korea, Chinese and Russian heavy machine guns, Russian revolvers, Chinese anti-aircraft weapons and Russian, Bulgarian and Slovak automatic launchers—this when the Democratic Republic of Congo was subject to an EU and United Nations embargo. The prevention of illicit and destabilising arms transfers requires urgent and active engagement. Action on landmines and cluster munitions has proved that if the political will is there, we can ensure that we have international systems capable of making peace and security efforts work effectively. We need rigorously enforced measures and efforts to close loopholes such as those we are discussing today.
Many of us here today have worked, and will continue to work, for an end to irresponsible arms trading, for the establishment of systems that are likely and able to end illicit international transfers, and to ensure maximum respect for the highest international standards. There is clearly a need for global co-operation by manufacturers, brokers and buyers, working with Governments. Another key element will be new or amended national legislation. Already, more than 90 countries have domestic laws in place governing the illicit manufacture and possession of, and trade in, weapons. Also, the UN has reported that an estimated half of the total of more than 4 million weapons collected and disposed of during the past 10 years have been taken over the past two years. There is reason for us to be encouraged but more needs to be done, certainly—as far as the UK is concerned—on post-export transfers.
Let us agree that there is no time for protracted diplomatic processes and that the UK must continue to offer clear leadership, in both the European Union and the United Nations. The very first member of the United Nations Security Council to support the arms trade treaty was the United Kingdom. We need reassurance today that the same commitment and enthusiasm exists, especially as a draft text on that treaty is being prepared. This week the UK Working Group on Arms expressed concerns that at the July Prep Comm in New York there was a clear perception that the UK was not providing the leadership that, in the past, has been so constructive. It has claimed that the United States, France and Australia took the baton. I ask the Minister: will the UK continue to argue for a comprehensive text? Will the UK engage with states likely to present opposition? Will the Government accept that licensing should carry an export contract that specifically prevents the re-export of arms, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, to a country subject to arms embargo?
The Government should go further and ensure that the UK is in line with others who refuse to re-export without prior authorisation. This occurs in Belgium, for instance, while in Germany a clause on non-export without the agreement of the German Government is imposed in an end-user certificate. In principle, a country that breaches a no re-export clause or fails to ensure that the clause was respected would be denied future exports. Similarly, France requires certification that goods will not be re-exported without the consent of the French Government. While acknowledging that a no-export clause in an end-use certification is not a guarantee, it without doubt puts additional contractual obligations on the intended recipient. A state supplying these measures also has the potential to apply sanctions to prevent the diversion of goods.
Many countries that lack a modern defence industry such as ours can still act as sources of surplus or second-hand goods, such as small arms and light weapons, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. Does the Minister agree that if the UK implemented a no re-export clause, it would surely increase the likelihood that the UK will achieve EU harmonisation on this issue?
NGOs also strongly support the need for controls, including re-export controls. They challenge the Government’s claims that checks before export are able to deal with the dangers posed by the situation. European Union officials from member states that use re-export clauses will argue strongly that the UK should also be in favour of them. Even if the arms trade treaty provides for an appropriate standard of control, it will take until 2012 for it to be put in place. Even then it will need to be ratified and come into force. Of course, some states may choose to remain outside the agreement. They will, in all probability, be the very same states that will need to have those post-export controls. In the mean time, why does the UK not tighten up its own export controls in this way? We could then strengthen the argument that the UK will need to make as part of a stronger European Union and UN lobby.
Every step of the way of improving arms trade controls has met with a repetition of the same old arguments: “It will cost too much”; “It cannot be enforced”; “Existing controls are enough”; “It is happening anyway”; and so on. Disappointingly, as I have said, on post-export controls the UK trails behind other major arms-exporting states. I trust that today we shall see a willingness to adapt the current UK position. That is surely justified because controls on arms trading contribute to cutting that umbilical link between conflict and systemic insecurity and poverty.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on bringing forward this Bill and on making such a compelling case for why its time has now come.
We know that the arms export business is one of the least transparent and most globalised businesses around. It is replete with brokers, middlemen, cover companies and offshore financial dealings. The line between it and the security services or military in many countries is extremely blurred. Above all, its business is death, injury and torture. Of the many millions who have died in armed conflict, many have died from the use of arms and related products that were not intended to be used in that manner or against those people.
We in the UK have much to be proud of. We have developed one of the most rigorous regimes for the export of arms and related weapons and goods since Sir Richard Scott's report on the arms to Iraq inquiry of 1996. We have built on the Export Control Act 2002 and we have had the legally binding EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports since 2008. Yet, and despite a rigorous regime, we have story after story of how the controls have proved ineffective in preventing misuse of the exports or, even worse, we appear to have colluded in side-stepping our own controls, as this week’s leaks have shown in the case of cluster munitions.
Another example of misuse was seen in the Committees on Arms Export Controls report of March this year, which found that British arms exports to Israel were almost certainly used in Operation Cast Lead—the attack on Gaza. Its report states:
“This is in direct contravention to the UK government’s policy that UK arms exports to Israel should not be used in the occupied territories”.
CAEC went on to say that export licences to Sri Lanka were revoked after the arms delivered were used by the Sri Lankan military against the Tamil Tigers. These may have been used in some of the many thousands of deaths that occurred among the civilian population. I cite this just to illustrate that things can slip through even a relatively good export control regime.
But let me turn to the examples of where re-export controls would have had an effect. In 2009, we had the investigation ordered by the then Foreign Secretary when it became apparent that UK arms dealers had been buying Soviet weapons, including AK-47s, in Ukraine and then selling them to countries which are on the banned list. These arms were re-exported to Equatorial Guinea. That country regularly suppresses its population and has one of the worst human rights records in west Africa.
We know that the previous Government were reluctant, despite significant evidence, to introduce re-export controls. It is a modest step in the right direction if this Government go down this road. We know that they wish to increase arms sales as part of their strategy to increase the UK’s overall trade balance. While I broadly agree that we cannot prevent the arms trade unilaterally, as other countries would simply step in, I believe that we can improve the existing regime by unilaterally tightening our own rules. This Bill is not about tightening controls on where and when we export; it is about making sure that our arms exports do not end up in places where we do not want them to, where they may inflame conflict or even be used against our own troops abroad.
One of the arguments that has been made against introducing re-export controls is that it would be inappropriate for the United Kingdom to impose these restrictions on other countries, which the United Kingdom would not accept if they were imposed on us. However, this should not be seen as an imposition of our will on other countries; a licensing agreement is a contract which is entered into voluntarily. Furthermore, the UK already restricts what buyers are able to do with our exports once they have bought them by including a “no re-export to embargoed states” clause in end-user agreements. Therefore, the Government have already implicitly acknowledged that it is legitimate to use such controls.
It has also been argued that introducing re-export controls would create extra bureaucracy for government at a time when there is a move towards reducing bureaucracy. In order to reduce the amount of bureaucracy created for the Government in processing requests for permission to re-export, they could draw up a list of so-called safe countries. For example, a rule could be instituted whereby permission to re-export to other EU countries, plus selected other “safe” destinations, is granted without carrying out a risk assessment. This list would, of course, need to be kept under review and updated according to any relevant changes in circumstances . However, we do so in any event, in the case of embargoed countries, through the consolidated list. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with this point when she sums up.
There is real concern internationally about what happens to old equipment once a state no longer needs it. There is also international and EU concern that when Governments upgrade their defence systems they may sell their old equipment to countries where it might be used to fuel conflict and undermine peace and stability. Germany is so concerned about this that, since 2003, it has instituted a policy of requiring states which import new small and light weapons from Germany to destroy or put beyond use an equivalent amount of their old equipment. This is not only to prevent re-export per se, as the Germans are asking for old stock to be destroyed regardless of whether it was originally supplied by Germany or any other country, or even domestically manufactured. However, it illustrates the seriousness with which other states regard the threat posed by arms which are no longer wanted being sold on to countries of concern.
In the brief time allocated to me, I conclude by noting that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about the emerging international norm of moving towards re-export controls. It would be unworthy of this Government to resist this small step towards entrenching that norm. I sincerely hope that they will move positively in this direction.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I support this modest Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. When he first sent me a copy of it, my immediate reaction was to ask myself why we would not want to know when arms are re-exported somewhere else. From a security and intelligence point of view, I should have thought it would make absolute sense to say that permission needs to be sought to do this so that we know what is going on. That seems to me entirely consistent with the national security policy embodied in the security and defence review. Of course, we need to know about this matter. We need to have as much information as possible about where these arms are ending up in case they fuel conflict. When they introduced the Export Control Bill in 2002, I am amazed that the previous Government did not include such a provision in that worthy piece of legislation. Therefore, this Bill constitutes a necessary tidying-up.
I argue that supporting this measure would go with the grain of the coalition Government’s declared “foreign policy with a conscience” that we debated yesterday. I want to use some quotes in support of that proposition. Most obviously, the national security strategy states that the number two priority is tackling the root causes of instability. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 19 October, when presenting the strategic defence review,
“we must get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences. When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/10; col. 798.]
That is entirely consistent with what has been put forward here. The strategic defence and security review repeats that exact sentiment. The re-exporting of small arms to fragile states is certainly one of those causes of instability that we should track down.
Moreover, my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell, the Secretary of State at the Department for International Development, said in an excellent speech to the Royal College of Defence Studies on 16 September:
“Britain has a proud tradition of standing up for a more equal world where people live in dignity and where they are protected from those who would harm them. As the Foreign Secretary said some time ago: ‘it is not in our character to have a foreign policy without a conscience: to be idle or uninterested while others starve or murder each other’”.
Those are profound statements.
This leads me on to another point and one of the reasons why all Governments often get in a tangle over defence exports, because responsibility for defence exports lies within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. There is a significant departmental team numbering approximately 180—larger than all the other departments put together in terms of export sales. They promote British exports, and we are all in favour of that. I am concerned that that effort should be joined up with other departments which have an interest in this matter—the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development. A lot of good work has been done by this coalition Government in trying to increase the level of co-ordination. I am very proud of that.
When one looks at the way in which money in the strategic defence review has been diverted from defence into a pool shared between DfID and the Ministry of Defence to deal with conflict prevention, and the sums increased from £210 million to £300 million, that is a clear statement that resources are being put behind the effort to tackle the causes of instability. I return to my first point. Why would we not want to know where weapons go which may be used to fuel a conflict and cause instability, when it is our national security policy to prevent that? Why would we not want to deal with it?
In conclusion, I shall refer to an excellent and helpful report, House of Commons Paper 178. It was a joint report by the Business and Enterprise, Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees, Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2009). It was a very good and well researched document. A chairman of one of those Select Committees, Peter Luff, is now an excellent Minister at the Ministry of Defence. The report came to some interesting conclusions regarding re-exports. It states on page 4, paragraph 9:
“We conclude that, despite the Government’s view”—
the then Government’s view—
“that non re-export clauses would be an unnecessary burden as they would be difficult to enforce, the requirement to have a non re-export clause in contracts for the supply of controlled goods would send a clear message to both parties to the contract that re-export to certain countries is unacceptable. We recommend that the Government gives further consideration to blocking this demonstrable loophole in its arms export controls regime”.
That was in 2009. The report continues in paragraph 10:
“We conclude that we do not agree with the Government’s decision not to enhance controls on the exports of UK controlled goods produced under licence overseas and we recommend that the Government should explain in its Response why it came to this decision and whether it will reconsider its policy”.
I looked further through the report in vain for such a response. There was none then, and I guess that it is because the case is unanswerable.
My noble friend Lord Lyell, in his excellent contribution, described himself as the mouse that roared—and we all enjoyed that. The time has come for the Government to demonstrate that they are not the lion that squeaked.
Lord Rowlands
The noble Lord has been quoting from what is known as a quadripartite report. I was the founder chairman of that committee some years ago. The other important point about such a report, which is curious from a House of Commons point of view, is that it has to be unanimous, because it is the combination of four Select Committees.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, after those contributions—I do not know about the mouse—I am trying to think of the right metaphor. Certainly, as someone who is new to this subject, my first observation is that while everyone can support the objectives, how to achieve them in a highly competitive global marketplace is a complex challenge. However, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the Bill and on the tour de force and tour d’horizon of his contribution. We can see from this debate that there is unanimous support for what the noble Lord, Lord Bates, described as a modest proposal.
We have to recognise that we have a highly developed defence and armaments industry which makes a significant contribution to our manufacturing industry and to the economy as a whole. It was the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who demonstrated what could be achieved if we could turn all those swords into ploughshares. We recognise that that will not happen in the current environment. His speech reminded us of how much of the world’s economy goes into armaments.
I would defend the record of the previous Government because they played a significant role in developing international and national policy on this issue, arising from our manifesto commitment in 1997, which stated:
“Labour will not permit the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or internal aggression. We will increase the transparency and accountability of decisions on export licences for arms. And we will support an EU code of conduct governing arms sales”.
That was a positive and constructive commitment and we honoured it. It culminated in the Export Control Act 2002. In 2007, we conducted a review of that Act to examine the effectiveness of the controls introduced under the Act, particularly with respect to brokering, trafficking and licensed production, and determine whether further changes needed to be made to the legislation without imposing a disproportionate burden on business. The review led to a series of changes to the UK’s legal and regulatory framework for arms exports. The extra-territorial provisions of export control legislation were extended by the introduction of a new three-tier system of trade controls.
Following requests from the Committee on Arms Export Controls in 2009, the previous Government commissioned an independent survey of compliance levels in the dual-use sector. The survey concluded that levels of non-compliance were low. However, it is interesting to note that NGO and industry stakeholders questioned aspects of the survey, including its main conclusion.
When researching for this debate, I looked at the scale of the problem, examined in a report, Biting the Bullet. It says:
“In most countries, substantial quantities of SALW”—
small arms and light weapons—
“and ammunition are legally held by the armed forces, police, other various government agencies or contractors, manufacturers, wholesalers, shops, clubs and private security companies. Each year, large amounts of SALW and ammunition in authorised holdings are diverted to unauthorised users and uses, contributing to all of the problems associated with uncontrolled SALW proliferation and misuse”.
We have heard a number of examples today of the terrible effects of such diversions. The report continues:
“Moreover, of the estimated 600 million SALW in global circulation approximately two-thirds are held by civilians. Firearms and ammunition held by individual citizens are mostly stored at home, often with minimal security and large numbers of firearms are stolen from homes each year. Most countries’ systems for licensing and controlling firearms possessions by individual civilians have major weaknesses that can be exploited by irresponsible or criminal gun-shops or individual licence-holders”.
Therefore, there is a huge problem around the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already talked about the size of the market but it is a point that bears repetition. I quote from a paper on recent trends in the arms trade:
“One of the most marked aspects of major arms transfers over time is the stable composition of the list of the five biggest suppliers, with only slight changes in the ordering. For the period 1980-1984, when global arms transfers were at the highest, the Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Germany accounted for 84 per cent of all exports. The five largest suppliers of major conventional weapons for the period 2004-2008 were the USA, Russia, Germany, France and the UK. Those suppliers accounted for 78 per cent of world exports for this period, compared with 81 per cent for the period 1999-2003”.
Therefore, as we can see, this is a huge global industry in which we play a significant part, and I think that at this point it is legitimate to question whether, although the controls have been improved, we have made sufficient progress.
As a number of speakers have said, we have been at the forefront of conventional arms transfer controls internationally. However, in one area—re-export controls—it is fair to say that we are now seen as lagging behind. As has already been noted, the UK Government have so far been reluctant to apply re-export controls as a matter of routine. However, as a number of contributors to the debate have said, this is not about tightening controls on where and when the UK is willing to export; it is about making sure that UK arms exports do not end up in places where the UK Government do not want them to be—where they may inflame a conflict or even be used against UK troops abroad.
The UK Government have acknowledged the principle of controlling re-exports by introducing a clause on end-use declarations, stating that the buyer will not re-export to any destination which is under embargo. As has been noted by a number of speakers today, that is a significant step in the right direction. However, there are states which are not under embargo but to which the UK would have serious concerns about its arms being re-exported. We feel that the Bill is a timely initiative that would extend the application of re-export controls and provide legislative protection. That is why we feel it is worthy of consideration. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the Bill is an attempt not to limit exports but to ensure that in the re-export market exports do not end up in destinations that would damage the interests of this country. There is of course a balance to be struck. I noticed that the Government have issued a further set of guidance to exporters, and another speaker has referred to the searchable database and other aspects that are of use to exporters.
I suppose that the question being posed here is: have we gone far enough? My noble friend Lady Kinnock pointed out that, in going down this road, we would align ourselves with other countries—not insignificantly, the US, Russia, Belgium, France and Germany. Although we are supporters of the potential arms trade treaty, it is, as has been pointed out, still in gestation and will not totally solve the problem. There was also a candid recognition that, whatever legislation is passed, there will be limitations to its enforcement. However, such legislation does position the United Kingdom in the right place in this industry, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, made the important comment that the Bill is a modest measure entirely consistent with national security policy.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bates, quote Peter Luff. Mr Luff also said that the new coalition Government have signalled that promoting arms exports will be a high priority. He said in June:
“There will be a very, very, very”—
he obviously likes emphasis—
“heavy ministerial commitment to the process. There’s a sense that in the past we were rather embarrassed about exporting defence products. There’s no such embarrassment in this Government”.
I do not think that anyone in this House was seeking to embarrass the Government; they were simply trying to ensure that we have a consistent policy—one that is in our own interests and in the interests of our national security.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Does the noble Lord accept that there is nothing inconsistent in the views of Mr Peter Luff in the report quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and this Government’s desire to balance and improve their record on exports? I think we have to be realistic and accept that increasing trade is a strategic objective that we sign up to, yet we might wish to improve the controls.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I thank the noble Baroness. I was pointing out the two sides of his statement. On the one hand, we have the quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and, on the other hand, this one. I recognise, as did the previous Government, that the defence and armaments industry is a key part of our manufacturing base. Will this Bill make a reasonable contribution to our national security and ensure that the re-exported arms and weapons do not end up in the hands of those who would use them in a way that would harm the interests of this country? Will it introduce a regime which does not bring in further red tape and which can be managed in a way that certainly does not damage exports?
We are prepared to support the Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House today. The current situation is as follows. Goods controlled for strategic reasons require a licence for export from the UK. We do not currently operate re-export controls which would require overseas entities to seek permission from us to re-export items that have already been exported from the United Kingdom, no matter how long ago.
The Government are not convinced that introducing controls of this kind is either necessary or feasible. Such a system could be onerous to operate and would be extremely difficult to enforce outside the UK’s legal jurisdiction. Once a good has left the UK, it is, in practice, under the jurisdiction of the destination country. We would, in effect, be claiming that UK export controls applied, whereas in reality we would have no powers to enforce them.
The noble Lord’s Bill is presumably driven by a concern to prevent UK goods, once exported from being re-exported for undesirable uses. We already tackle this issue through our existing export licensing system, which the noble Lord has rightly praised as being among the most thorough in the world. Furthermore, we already take account of the risk of diversion—in other words, the re-exporting of goods to undesirable end-users—in our risk assessment of the licence application. No licence would be issued unless it was consistent with the consolidated criteria. Where licences have already been issued and information subsequently comes to light of an undesirable re-export, we have a power to revoke the licence in our secondary legislation. The impact of doing so would obviously be limited if the goods had already been re-exported, but we would always factor that information into subsequent licensing decisions. Even if we had full re-export controls in place, it would be unlikely that we would know that a re-export had occurred because we could not force a foreign entity to provide that information. In all likelihood we would only find out after the fact, by which point it would be too late to try to take any meaningful action. If an undesirable export had taken place, that would form part of our assessment of future export licence applications, but we do that now so there appears to be no additional practical benefit from the noble Lord’s proposals.
The majority of re-exports would not be of concern to us. The reality is that arms are a small proportion of the UK’s defence exports, a significant proportion of which are of low-level components being exported as part of a global supply chain. The equipment that these components go into is most often destined for our allies and partners, who have similar and equally robust export controls of their own. There are significantly more destinations of no concern than destinations of high concern. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Young, regarding other countries of concern, we agree that it is undesirable for UK-origin goods to be re-exported to destinations or end-users of concern. That is why the risk of undesirable re-export is embedded in our assessment of licence applications. If the risk of re-export is sufficiently high an export licence would not be granted. It is an issue of proportionality, and as I said, there are significantly more destinations of no concern than of high concern, which is why we judge that the current scope of the re-export clause is appropriate, as it covers the most sensitive destinations.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, spoke of other states. It is true that other states have reintroduced re-export controls, as acknowledged in a briefing produced by Safer World which said that states were reluctant to go on record regarding specific instances where re-export controls have been applied as that tends to involve confidential discussions with the original recipient. Aside from the United States, which is open and in some cases forceful in pursuing a re-export control policy, the evidence on the effectiveness of the arrangements in other states is unclear. The United Kingdom has one of the most robust strategic export licensing systems in the world, as I have already said, and I do not believe that the introduction of re-export controls would make it more so.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to administrative burdens. There could be significant practical problems and resource implications for government and possibly for industry in dealing with re-export control provisions. The export group for aerospace and defence—EGAD—said in a memo, which I shared with the noble Lord, that there could be low administrative burdens for the UK industry. As I said, we would need to conduct a full consultation to establish the scale of the administrative burdens that would be created for both government and industry. I should add, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that even if we apply re-export controls only to a limited set of countries there would still be a burden that we would need to assess.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, rightly raised the issue of the re-export clause recommended by the parliamentary committee on arms exports. It is important to recognise that the end-user undertaking is a commitment made in good faith on the part of the recipient of the goods exported under the standard or open individual export licence. It has no force in law and cannot be used to prevent the re-export of goods. We require this commitment from the end-user in recognition of the serious threat posed by the proliferation of WMD and multilateral commitments that we have entered into. In recognition of the concerns on this issue and in response to calls from the Committee on Arms Export Controls, we amended the end-user undertaking for standard licences in July this year to make it clear that an export licence does not authorise re-export and that risk of unauthorised re-export is a factor in our licensing decisions. We deliberately limited it to embargo destinations which we consider to be the most sensitive transfers because, as I have already said, the majority of the exports are not problematic. That amendment was welcomed by the Committee on Arms Export Controls, which reflected that this new measure should be allowed time and that successor committees may wish to monitor its effectiveness to review whether a wider re-export clause remains desirable. I agree with that view and await the outcome of the new committee’s assessment with interest.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, I say that since not all countries operate effective export control systems the Government are fully committed to agreeing a strong and comprehensive arms trade treaty at the United Nations. Such a treaty would be expected to raise global export control standards. As a result, transfers of concern would be less likely to happen because state signatories would have regard to the same principles when deciding whether to permit the export. As noble Lords will know, preparations are continuing towards the diplomatic conference in 2012. I would like to see the outcome of that process before committing to take action on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about illicit trade in small arms by criminal gangs. He said that the majority of arms are held in private hands which may fall into criminal hands through theft. While I understand the problems that that causes, I cannot see how re-export controls would prevent that criminal activity. In summary, we prefer to base our approach on thorough pre-licensing assessment, which takes into account the risk of diversion or re-export to undesirable end-users at the application stage. We believe that our current system is robust. Re-export controls would not make it more so.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Will my noble friend explain further why there is a jurisdictional problem in relation to this proposal, which apparently does not exist in relation to the existing arrangements under which re-export to an embargoed country is forbidden? The same point arises in relation to enforcement. Again, enforcement must depend on information from overseas which would be applicable in this case. Apparently the Government object to this case but not to the export to embargoed countries.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for his intervention. It is important to recognise that the end-user undertaking is a commitment made in good faith on the part of the recipients of the goods exported under a standard or open individual export licence. This has no force in law and cannot be used to prevent the re-export of goods.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am indebted to everyone who has taken part in our short debate this morning. The intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, illustrates how much common ground there could be among us and shows that many of the problems that the Minister has raised are not insuperable. If there is not a problem with end-user exports and if other countries do not have a problem in placing re-export provisions into their domestic law, it is difficult to see why there should be such problems for us in the United Kingdom.
I am particularly pleased by the support given to the Bill from the opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, who talked about the importance of aligning ourselves to others. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, made a similar point. She said that, although the integrity of our country has to come first, that is not incompatible with achieving trade objectives.
We were rightly reminded by the Minister and others of what has already been achieved. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, said so eloquently, we need to cut the umbilical cord that links conflict and poverty. She also said that we need to give clear leadership as this issue comes to be debated at the United Nations in 2012. Those objectives are not incompatible. Putting this modest measure on to the statute book would show that we wish to be in line with all the other nations on the Security Council and with many of our European Union allies.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who rightly pointed out the importance of aligning ourselves with other nations in achieving these objectives. To have any degree of enforceability and any assurance that such controls will become normative throughout the world, we will have to use all our diplomatic skills to draw others alongside us.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, asked a key question in his interesting, helpful and welcome speech. Why would we not want to know where arms or equipment manufactured in our country end up? Why would we not want to know their destination and use? As he said, it is crucial to our own defence and security to know the answer. He quoted the Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, who has also said that our objective is to ensure,
“100 pence of value for every pound”,
of development aid. He is absolutely right, and I know that many noble Lords share that view. However, where there is untold conflict in a country, that jeopardises development. Unless we get conflict right, much of the resource that we put in to try to tackle health and education issues ends up being wasted.
There has been considerable agreement among us today, but the Minister raised three specific objections. She said that buyers are put off by the bureaucracy involved in the USA’s ITAR—international traffic in arms—controls, on which she mentioned that she had shared with me the Export Group for Aerospace and Defence letter that was sent to her. However, that is rather like Don Quixote being invited to tilt at imaginary windmills, because my Bill does not propose the American system or a system linked to ITAR. Plenty of other states apply re-export controls in a far less intrusive way and we should look to them as models. In Sweden, for example, a threshold is applied so that, when Swedish companies export relatively insignificant components for integration and onward export, re-export controls do not apply. Although buyers might be put off by the US ITAR controls, I know of no evidence that they are put off by less intrusive bureaucratic systems. Indeed, if they are put off, that would suggest that the United Kingdom is currently winning from competitors that apply re-export controls the business of buyers who have ambitions to re-export. Perhaps the Minister could write to tell me whether she is aware of any such cases. If there are such cases, I think that that reinforces the need for us to act.
The Minister also talked about inconsistency. EGAD’s argument is that introducing re-export controls would be inconsistent with ongoing European Union intra-Community transfers initiatives, which, it says, require European Union members to remove transfer restrictions wherever possible. That overstates the case. The ICT initiatives explicitly provide that states can apply re-export conditions. In any event, it is not clear why national re-export controls cannot be organised in a way that is consistent with the requirements of the ICT measures. Many of the states that negotiated those initiatives already applied re-export controls, so presumably they had to take that issue into account during the process. Again, I would be most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, if she could address that issue when she responds in writing after the debate.
Finally, the perfectly legitimate question of enforcement was raised during the debate—indeed, I raised it myself. One of the arguments against introducing re-export controls is that the United Kingdom cannot prosecute foreign Governments for exporting UK arms against our wishes, as there is no court with the legal jurisdiction to enforce that. No one is suggesting that the UK should prosecute a foreign Government. Nor should the UK look to prosecute or punish the original UK suppliers, which could not and should not be expected to enforce the contract. To see this as a struggle between opposing forces or as a matter of legal enforcement is to miss the point. The countries that regularly buy UK arms exports are responsible trading partners—or at least one hopes so—and one assumes that the licensing procedures ensure that those to whom we export will honour their obligations. In the unlikely event that they decided to re-export without our permission, that information could then be shared with other arms-exporting states and be factored into future licensing procedures. That would reinforce what this country already does and would place us in line with other nations that have introduced these provisions.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and I thank them for their support. I now ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the House of Lords Reform Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The rules of the House require me to begin in that way, but it might be more accurate if I were to move that the Bill be now read for the umpteenth time. In fact, this will be the fourth debate that we have had on this, as the Bill is substantially the same as the one that I first introduced way back in July 2007.
I know that this debate has been eagerly anticipated. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, said the other day that the House was looking forward to this debate with “inestimable pleasure”. The mind boggles to think what alternative attractions have kept him away on this occasion. On the opposition Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, also said that he looked forward to the debate. I have been wondering about this eager anticipation. I worked out that it is rather like booking to go to a concert where a particularly favourite symphony is to be played. Looking forward to it gives you a pleasurable glow of anticipation at revisiting a favourite work.
However, there is a difference today, as some new Members of your Lordships’ House are participating. We look forward in particular to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who is a practitioner in these matters. Also, it is a particular pleasure for me to welcome my noble friend Lord Lothian, who is a former constituent of mine, although I do not think that I ever persuaded him to vote for me when he had the capacity to do so. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
We shall also have the pleasure of hearing from a former Speaker of the House of Commons, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and from a former Deputy Prime Minister, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe. Without in any way being disloyal, I hope that the current Deputy Prime Minister will read carefully what he has to say. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will of course recognise that a symphony is a work of four movements. The Bill that I have introduced consists of four movements—three of which his colleagues, shamelessly and without attribution, adapted in their own way in the constitutional reform Bill introduced by the previous Government. These three proposals were lost in the wash-up.
I begin by saying that this debate is not about whether in future we will have an elected or non-elected House. When I heard the decision of the coalition Government to create an all-party committee to work on a Bill, my original inclination was to say, “Let’s drop the Bill and wait for the Government to come forward with their own proposals”. We were promised them by Christmas, then January, then February. The latest promise is “early in the new year”—but which year is not specified. I was prevailed on by Members in all parts of the House to proceed with my Bill on the basis that we are getting a little impatient, and that even if the coalition Government's proposals in draft form were to proceed smoothly and to timetable, the earliest moment at which the House could begin to enact them would be late in 2012. In the mean time, Members are increasingly concerned that the House goes unreformed.
It is important that we relay to Members in the other place that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, we are not sticks-in-the-mud who are saying that this House is perfect. We are willing to embrace sensible reforms and we are anxious to proceed with them. I was interested the other day to hear one of the new Members opposite, the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who has a distinguished record of service in the other place, say this:
“When I came to the other place, quite a long time ago, I did not have much time for this place and did not understand it. I thought that this place was undemocratic, illogical, irrational and all the rest of it. That was quite a naive attitude to take and was based on a lack of knowledge of this place”.—[Official Report, 16/11/10; col. 740.]
That is quite common in the other place—and I speak from personal experience. Although I led the Liberal Party for 12 years, and therefore had a close association with my opposite number in this place, at the end of that time I still did not understand how the House of Lords worked, even though I was responsible for nominating new Members to it. That is the problem: we have not got across to the other place how we operate. I hope that, by embracing this Bill, we will signal to Members there that we are keen to press on with updating our procedures and composition.
A moment ago, I said that the Bill consisted of four movements. This metaphor has outlived its usefulness, so let us say four substantial sections. The first is the one that the previous Government dropped, which deals with the statutory Appointments Commission. It was not in the Labour Government's Bill, primarily because the phrase “wholly or mainly elected” still applied and they had not made up their minds—any more than the present Government have—whether a future Chamber should be wholly or mainly elected. Of course, were it to be wholly elected, there would be no need for an Appointments Commission. That was the argument of the previous Government. However, I still believe that if we move in future to a mainly elected House, a statutory Appointments Commission will still be required. In the mean time, it will be required until we get to that point. Therefore, my Bill sets out both the composition of the commission, the principles under which it operates, and in particular the important one that the Government of the day, whether they be a single party or a coalition, should not have a majority in this place. That would set it in statute for the first time.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, who is not with us today but who has spoken on previous occasions, is the chairman of the present Appointments Commission. He supports strongly the idea that the commission should have a statutory basis. One obvious reason for this is provided by the case of Lord Laidlaw, who promised the commission that he would give up his tax exile status if given a peerage, but went back on that. The commission had no power to do anything about it. The case for making the Appointments Commission statutory is strong: that is the first section of my Bill.
The second section brings to an end the by-elections for hereditary peers. These were introduced as a temporary measure in 1997 and were to last for “a couple of years”—that is the phrase that appeared in Hansard. The system has now lasted for nearly a decade and a half. Clearly, it is completely out of date, and while the election of hereditary peers passes muster—just—in the Conservative Party and on the Cross-Benches, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats view it as a farce. One has perhaps three or four electors and 10 candidates. A Member can be elected to Parliament by something like two votes to one, which makes Old Sarum look like a model of democracy. It is time that this came to an end.
The third section of the Bill deals with the vexed question of whether we should provide for leave of absence or remove those Members who never attend. I will quote from the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, which states:
“The House currently has before it relevant legislative proposals in the shape of Part 3 of the House of Lords Reform Bill … introduced by Lord Steel of Aikwood and awaiting Second Reading. Clause 11 of the bill would allow members to apply for permanent leave of absence; clause 12 provides that a member who fails to attend the House during the course of a session should be deemed to have taken permanent leave of absence; clause 13 provides that a person granted permanent leave of absence shall no longer be a member of the House of Lords. A number of members who responded to our consultation reiterated their support—previously expressed in debate on comparable bills introduced by Lord Steel of Aikwood in previous sessions—for the provisions contained in the current Bill”.
The committee came to the astonishing conclusion that, in order to deal with the excess numbers in the House, one would need primary legislation. This is the primary legislation: it is here and available, and we would be sensible to adopt it.
The committee does not specify how the proposals would be introduced. It refers to the fact that the House of Lords, by standing order, would have the ability to introduce a scheme, but that it would be up to the Government to devise the equivalent of a silver handshake. In our debate on the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope rightly pointed out that any actuary could provide a simple method of calculating redundancy pay that would benefit the taxpayer and not be an excess burden on them. As far as concerns removing non-attenders, even though they do not occupy space on these Benches, they receive all the papers, some of them have desks and lockers in your Lordships' House, and there is no case for retaining their services. Therefore, the third section of the Bill provides for the first time the capacity for Members to leave this place with dignity and honour after they have given a reasonable amount of service, or after they have reached a certain age.
The fourth and last section is the simplest. It would bring the House of Lords into line with the other place by removing those convicted of offences that carry a sentence of more than one year in prison.
These are the four provisions of the Bill, with which the House is now probably painfully familiar. I will conclude by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who spoke in a previous debate. He was responsible for the drafting of this Bill, which has been expertly done. He said that there would be those in the House who regarded the Bill as necessary but entirely insufficient, and others who regarded it as necessary and wholly sufficient. He said that noble Lords could disagree on that, but that the one thing on which they should agree was that it was necessary.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, the House has had the privilege of hearing my noble friend Lord Steel proposing, supporting and explaining this Bill on a number of occasions. On each occasion, the case becomes clearer. I pay tribute, as I am sure many colleagues do, to the energy, intelligence, integrity and determination with which he has continued to present this case. It has formidable support in this House, which should be taken fully into account by Members of the Government. I do not propose to add anything to what he has said in support of the propositions contained in his Bill because they are all now clearly understood and it is hard to see that any of them are challenged. There has been a curious inertia and unwillingness on the part of both Governments to whom he has presented the case, and it is time that it was accepted.
I therefore propose to address my short remarks to one issue that he did not discuss; namely, the case for or against the arrival of elected Members in this House. The existence of two Houses of Parliament goes way back into history, and it is not quite clear which was on top when, but it is clear that the democratic House that emerged in the late 18th or early 19th century has grown in strength and legitimacy, and nobody now challenges the right of the lower House to override anything that is done in this House.
This House has changed significantly as that has gone on. This House has had the benefit of two steps that increased its legitimacy—if that is not the wrong word. The first was the invention by Harold Macmillan, the distinguished predecessor of the present Prime Minister, of the nominated Peer, which injected stimulating yeast into the existing organisation. The second step was taken by the Government recently in power under the leadership of Prime Minister Blair: the removal, subject to an intelligently struck deal, of the great bulk of the hereditary Peers. Against that background, we now have to proceed as quickly as possible with the implementation of this Bill and finally address whether there should be elected Members. That is why I propose to take a minute or two to talk about that.
One does so on the foundation of the commendation of this House as it presently exists and the identification of the cause for concern about it. The basic proposition is endorsed by the fifth report of the Wright committee in the other place, which I have quoted many times. It is an enthusiastic endorsement of the quality and importance of this House and a warning that it is all too easy to see qualities of that kind disappearing if fashion changes. It is in that context that I quote the current Leader of the House Sir George Young MP when he said that,
“the real contest today is not between the Lords and the Commons but between Parliament and the Executive. In that battle, the two Houses are not rivals but partners”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/2002; col. 728.]
That insight was subsequently endorsed by the Wright committee in its fifth report. The presumption that sits uneasily alongside the Wright committee’s thinking is that,
“the principal cause of today's ‘widespread public disillusionment with our political system’ is the ‘virtually untrammelled control ... by the Executive’ of the elected House”.
That is the consequence of the link between the Executive and that House through the democratic system. That is what we are dismayed and disturbed about.
If we have both Houses increasingly looking like each other with a large or substantial or growing percentage of elected Members in this House, the difference between them would be destroyed, the superiority of the Commons would increasingly be involved in conflict with this House because the Houses would be growing in strength alongside each other and no good purpose would be served that would enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of this House. That is why the Wright committee, whose report I quoted last time I spoke about this subject, said that there is a need,
“to ensure that the dominance of Parliament by the Executive, including the political Party machines, is reduced and not increased”.
That is essential if we are to get the benefits of the proposals contained in my noble friend’s Bill. The second point that the Committee made is:
“The Second Chamber must be ‘neither rival nor replica, but genuinely complementary to the Commons’ and, therefore, ‘as different as possible’”.
It is fundamental to the beneficial prospect of what my noble friend is proposing for us to stand firmly upon those propositions. It is not that I have any hostility towards election or democracy. Like many Members of this House, I respect the importance of the other place, but the importance of the other place needs to be liberated from the dominance of the Executive, and one of the agencies through which that can be assisted is the continued independence and difference of this House. It surely cannot make sense for the most fundamental change proposed to the second Chamber—the introduction of elected Members —to be the one most likely to extend the influence of the elected dictatorship that so manifestly provokes disenchantment with the present elected House.
I have dealt only with that one issue. It is not irrelevant to the Bill proposed by my noble friend but is an important foundation for securing its benefits. I enthusiastically endorse the work that my noble friend has done and invite the House to accept the other premise on which that work will be allowed to flourish.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, another year, another Steel Bill. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for his dogged persistence in trying to secure some much needed incremental changes along the road to Lords reform. As ever, it is a well drafted and commendably short Bill, a perfect symphony in four movements, as he said.
The previous time that this Bill had its Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that it was,
“intended as a spur to the Government, in the hope that they will take over these measures and proceed with them”.—[Official Report, 27/2/09; col. 431.]
There was much frustration at that time, and in the following months, because it was felt that the then Government, the Labour Government, were ignoring the important issues raised in debate on the Bill. I pay tribute to my noble friend, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for a well honed balancing act in response to the debates.
We well understood the critical need for Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill, and the noble Lord was right to say that we did not include a statutory appointments commission because of the ongoing discussion about whether there should be a wholly or partly elected House. Subsequently, these parts were included in key clauses of our Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. I can already hear the echoes round the Chamber of “too little, too late”, but the fact is that those important clauses were part of a Bill that was eventually given Royal Assent. Sadly, the clauses relating to the House of Lords were washed out in the wash-up. We all agree that the wash-up is a complex, untransparent and unsatisfactory process that needs to be examined, but the fact is that if those clauses had survived, we would be in a better place on the issue of further reform of your Lordships' House. The parts of the Steel Bill that we included in our Bill but which were removed on the insistence of the party opposite would, for example, have given us a means of addressing the growing size of the House. Indeed, perhaps the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would not have had to set up the retirement group under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I am sure that whatever views noble Lords might hold about radical reform, there are few among us who are in favour of a House of more than 800 Members, and I believe that shortly we will have 836 Members.
When answering a supplementary question on Wednesday, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, implied that during his period as Prime Minister Tony Blair had added more than 300 Peers to the Labour Benches. It is the case that during his time as Prime Minister Mr Blair created 375 Peers, but fewer than half were Labour Peers. Indeed, as Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher created a higher proportion of Conservative Peers than Labour. I would ask the Minister to confirm that my figures are correct.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said on Wednesday:
“The new appointments since the general election are entirely consistent with the coalition’s programme for government, which set out the objective of creating a second Chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the last general election”.—[Official Report, 1/12/10; col. 1473.]
Following the noble Lord’s worrying comment, can the Minister tell us how many new Peers will be appointed in the future?
The burgeoning size of the House presents us with logistical challenges. For some, it also damages our reputation and opens us to ridicule. Most importantly, it disturbs the balance that has benefited both this House and politics more broadly where no single party has had an overall majority. In the new year, the coalition Government will have a political majority of 72, which means that the role of this House as a revising Chamber is changing profoundly to that of a rubber stamp for policies from the coalition Government, which were not even voted for by the people of this country.
It is no secret that I am currently a member of the Clegg committee that is charged with producing a draft Bill on Lords reform. I have no doubt that this Bill will be published in the spring and it will then go into a joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee, which is the correct way for Bills of constitutional importance to be considered. It is indeed precisely the way in which the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill should have been considered, and likewise the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill. I have to say, however, that pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill on Lords reform is likely to take some time. That is not because most people will wish to employ delaying tactics, although some might, but because the issues that have to be addressed are complex and of crucial importance to the governance of this country. An example is the issue of powers and the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. In looking at these issues, the Joint Committee on Conventions, chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling and approved by all parties in both Houses, rightly concluded:
“Should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would have to be examined again”.
I entirely agree with that conclusion, not as a reform refusenik but as someone who wants reform and wants it to work.
I realise that noble Lords, especially those on the Benches opposite, are anxious for reform and would like a Bill to whizz through in 2011 to mark the anniversary of the first Parliament Act. But proper consideration of these complex issues takes time. Hundreds of hours must be spent in discussion in Cabinets, Cabinet committees and working groups trying to find solutions to problems which on the face of it are simple, but as soon as you drill down become seemingly intractable. That is not an excuse for delay; it is the reality. Perhaps that is the attraction of the noble Lord’s Bill. It is not just for those who want to retain an appointed but reformed House, but for those who want radical reform and see the provisions in the Bill as an incremental step. Again, I look forward to hearing the views of the Government.
It is, of course, difficult to place a timescale on Lords reform. As I say, we will shortly have a tangible draft Bill, but perhaps some incremental legislation will be necessary in the mean time. For example, as the noble Lord himself suggested, the House of Lords retirement group will conclude that a legislative means is necessary to reduce numbers in this House. In the debate held during the wash-up on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, when many noble Lords were frustrated because the clauses on our House had been cut, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said of the clauses on the expulsion and suspension of Members that:
“If we are the next Government, we will certainly wish to find an early opportunity to put this right”.—[Official Report, 7/4/10; col. 1610.]
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when that early opportunity might be, and in what legislative vehicle.
Sometimes in debates on House of Lords reform there is a perceived tension between those who want radical reform and those who merely want the current House to work better. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, suggested in a radio programme on Sunday evening that those of us who want an elected or mainly elected House might not wish to support, for example, an improved committee system in the House because it would weaken the arguments in favour of radical reform. I take this opportunity to say that although I want an elected or partially elected House, I think that this House does a terrific job, but with improved procedures it could do even better. I want us to excel at what we do. That would be good for the Lords, good for Parliament, good for governance and good for democracy.
Naturally I look forward to the maiden speeches of the two noble Lords that we shall hear later in the debate, and I am sure that we will benefit from their wisdom and experience both today and in the future.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, for my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood and perhaps a number of other noble Lords present, this really must feel like “Groundhog Day”. With his usual eloquence and good humour, my noble friend has today moved the Second Reading of more or less the same Bill for the fourth time since July 2007, or what he says feel like, “for the umpteenth time”. We must all admire his persistence in promoting some good principles in relation to reform of this place, while many of us also hope for the promises made by people in all parties in relation to other reforms of your Lordships’ House to be delivered sooner rather than later. We hear a lot in politics about pledges. Today, we should remind ourselves of Mr Asquith’s pledge in 1910 to abolish the hereditary principle for membership of this House. One hundred years later, this Bill offers us a further small step towards the eventual implementation of that pledge.
Like many noble lords, I take great pleasure in occasionally being able to show visitors around this place. Sometimes they are parliamentarians from other countries. Often they ask, “How do you become a Lord?”. When you begin by explaining that perhaps your ancestors fought with the king in battle hundreds of years ago, or perhaps that they were what have been called “special friends” of the King, these visitors look at you in amazement. Then I find that they ask, “How did you come to be here?”. I have to explain that I was appointed on the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon. I have to explain that his motive was to keep me working for the election of candidates from my party to the other place and that he did not want me to pursue my ambition to enter what must be called the other place, because that would have prevented me doing my job of electing people from my party to the other place. I tell them that there are three ways in which he could legally have prevented me from standing for election to the other place. I could have been declared insane, I could have been sent to prison, or I could become a Member of your Lordships’ House. So I say that I was quite lucky, really, with the route that he pursued.
But visitors to what many consider to be the mother of parliaments simply cannot understand that we either inherit our titles or we are appointed mostly by party leaders. Sometimes I illustrate the progress of reform when I meet visitors in the cloakroom. I can tell them that when I first came here in 1999, there were more than 1,400 Peers and that it was one coat peg between two. With the removal of all but 92 of the hereditary Peers, I can proudly show them that we now have our own coat pegs. But I think that they expect rather more in the way of reform.
This Bill takes some very modest steps towards reform that I believe should command the greatest degree of consensus. There is possibly nobody in this country who has loved by-elections more than I have over the past 30 years. But the farcical process we have in this House of holding by-elections to elect hereditary Peers brings the House into disrepute. These by-elections have little more resemblance to democracy than the campaign run by Lord Blackadder when he ran the by-election campaign to elect Baldrick in the rotten borough of Dunny-on-the-Wold, where Blackadder was the only elector.
In the new year of 2011 we will see a draft Bill for fundamental reform of your Lordships’ House, and I believe that we will see a Bill for reform of this House included in the Queens Speech in May 2012. Then we will see the first Members elected to it by 2015. If a new House becomes fully elected, then, as my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, said, there will be no need for an appointments commission along the lines put forward in this Bill. But if there is a non-elected element, I believe that this proposal has much to commend it, and I hope in particular that such a commission would help to ensure that there is proper regard to the need for diversity in any new House. The proposal to end the by-elections for hereditary Peers may make us a little less subject to ridicule in future. This proposal was, of course, in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill of the previous Parliament.
Those in your Lordships’ House who have become my noble friends as a result of the coalition may care to explain today why this sensible measure and other measures were blocked in the rather absurd process of the so-called “wash-up” of legislation at the end of the previous Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, said, it could and should have been agreed at that point.
Provision to exclude Members who never attend is simply common sense. There is provision for members of local authorities to be excluded from membership of them if they fail to attend council meetings, without good reason, for six months. If Members of your Lordships’ House break the law in serious ways, then, just as for Members of the other place, they should cease in future to be law makers.
The provisions in the Bill should have been passed some years ago. However, much more substantial reform must follow if we are to be able to say to visitors in future that we have a democratic system in this country of which we can all be proud.
Baroness Boothroyd
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on his tenacious efforts to reform this House. His Bill does so in a way that would improve our role as a revising Chamber without tearing up the constitution and turning us into a second rate version of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the noble Lord’s party leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, favours the destruction of this House and his Cabinet remit includes the complex subject of constitutional change.
On taking office, Mr Clegg expressed his irritation at our continued existence. Indeed, he admitted his impatience at his first appearance as a coalition Minister at the Dispatch Box in June. He said then that Lords reform was more than,
“100 years overdue”,
and that,
“People have been talking about Lords reform for more than a century”.
He went on to say:
“The time for talk is over”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/10; col. 48.]
I do not wish to be uncharitable. Mr Clegg has heavy responsibilities and was propelled into high office, in unusual circumstances, at a time of economic crisis. Even so, he should know better than to declare that time is up on Lords reform before we have seen a word of the draft legislation to replace this House from the cross-party committee that he chairs.
In June, he promised we would see the committee’s proposals by the end of the year; now we hear we must wait until the spring. Until then, Parliament is denied access to his committee’s agenda and minutes and we on the Cross Benches, those on the Back Benches of the three main parties and the bishops are excluded from its deliberations. As far as I am concerned, it is a cabal. So let us hear no more about the Government’s determination to “push through” the reform of this House. “Push through” are Mr Clegg’s words, not mine; they come from his statement in June. He may push as hard as he likes but there are many in your Lordships’ House who will not be pushed into submission.
The Deputy Prime Minister talks as if this House has been set in aspic since Mr Asquith was Prime Minister. Does he not realise that it has been in a state of continual change for many decades, as we have already heard? Also, does he not understand that we are eager to accept further changes provided they make sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and many of your Lordships throughout these debates have made clear? This Bill offers an excellent way forward; an elected Chamber rivalling the Commons does not. The longer the debate about our future continues, the stronger our case becomes.
This weekend, the Parliament Channel will broadcast a televised debate on Lords reform, which I and many of your Lordships attended. To my delight, Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights body Liberty, gave us a ringing endorsement. She said that the Government should not tinker with part of the constitution without regard to what happens to the rest of it. Those are wise words. She believes that the courts would become more powerful without us, and I agree. We already have a Supreme Court across the way; if we want an American-style Supreme Court, the Government are going the right way about it. Mrs Chakrabarti also praised this House for protecting vulnerable minorities and fundamental rights and freedoms. Britain, she said, would be “a lot less free today” without us. Does Mr Clegg seriously dispute it? Does the Prime Minister not understand the damage that the destruction of this House would cause under the spurious guise of greater democracy?
The Americans have an apt phrase for my advice to the Government: they should “get real” about this place. We do not live in another world as our blinkered critics would have us believe; we do not hanker for the faded aristocratic glories of past centuries—when I leave here, I get the No. 11 bus home. Mr Clegg, not us, is out of date when he talks about 1911. It is a smokescreen for packing this House with new Peers on a scale never before known.
Let us consider the recent intakes that have been referred to. The three main parties have gained 105 new Peers in the past six months, with the coalition taking the lion’s share. It will not stop there unless better counsels prevail. Meg Russell of the UCL’s constitution unit reckons that the Conservatives need another 86 new Peers and the Liberal Democrats another 99 before this House fully reflects the way people voted in the last election—and that is conditional on Labour’s strength being frozen for the remainder of this Parliament.
The scale of what is happening is astonishing. When the latest intake has taken the oath, this House will have more than 800 Members—assuming that those of us who are already here survive this winter. That is our biggest membership since hereditary Peers lost their right to sit here 11 years ago. It is already an absurd number. Meg Russell estimates that the Government will need to increase our numbers to nearly 1,000 if they want to get control of this place before the next election. It will be unmanageable. It will cost more and we shall lose the country’s respect. When families in our country are called upon to make sacrifices to pay off the national debt, surely the last thing we need is a Chamber of 1,000 Peers or anywhere near that number.
I urge the Government to think again. Forget party dogmas. Britain’s freedoms are at stake. I warmly support the Bill as a more responsible way forward for us all.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, it is with a certain trepidation that I rise today to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. After 36 years, on and off, in the other place, I have come to know and respect the great fount of wisdom and experience that resides within this Chamber. I am therefore hesitant to trespass upon it, and today I will not do so for long.
I have been very touched by the welcome that I have received in this House since my introduction. I find myself here in somewhat unusual circumstances. Following the House of Lords Act 1999, I was the second hereditary Peer to be able on his father’s death to continue to hold a seat in the other place without renouncing my peerage. Thus, I think that I am the first hereditary Peer from the other place to be created a life Peer in this House. This is a strange, and certainly unintended, anomaly arising from that legislation.
I was first elected to Parliament in February 1974, since when I have represented seats in Scotland and Wiltshire. I was lucky to hold ministerial office in the Administrations of both the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and Sir John Major, latterly at the heart of the peace process negotiations in Northern Ireland. Subsequently, I was the chairman of my party, shadow Foreign Secretary and deputy leader of the Opposition in what I affectionately call the midnight watches of my party’s recent history.
I realise that I must not be controversial today. Luckily, we are debating the principle rather than the substance of this interesting Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, so I can avoid becoming embroiled at this stage in its details. I have long been involved in debates on the future of this House. I have generally resisted change but not because change was not needed; it is in the nature of the development of human institutions that change is not only necessary but inevitable. My objections have usually been to the reasons for change, which have too often been advanced not out of necessity but from political ideology or partisan expedience. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said about the necessity of the Bill.
I wish today to set out what I believe should be the basic criteria against which any proposals for reform of this House should be judged. First, reform should never challenge the democratically mandated authority of the other place. While that is not an issue in this Bill, it could be significant in any future legislation that seeks democratically to elect either in whole or in part your Lordships’ House.
Secondly, reform should always seek to enhance rather than diminish the ability of this House to hold the Government of the day to account. It is hard for the other place ever effectively to do so, because, by definition, the Government have the support of the majority in the other place and only in exceptional circumstances can the Government fail to have their way. That is why the inherent and indisputable value of your Lordships’ House is that it can, and does, both hold the Executive to account and suggest to it in the most courteous way to go away and think again.
Accountability is a key element in any healthy democratic system, and in ours it is this House that can truly provide that. Any reform that weakens that role does our democratic system no favours. Equally, any reform that seeks to create of this House a political echo of the other place, with a loyal and in-built government majority, not only dilutes the ability of this House to deliver accountability but reduces, if not eliminates, its ability to ask the Executive of the day to think again. In securing reform, it is vital that nothing is done that would reduce the breadth and depth of experience and expertise that epitomise this House.
However, the greatest strength of this House in my political lifetime has been the indefinable spirit of independence which, whatever its political make-up, has allowed the House to challenge the presumption of the Government of the day. In my experience, government reactions have usually been of irritation, but they are often followed by a realisation that something outside what the late Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone called “the elective dictatorship” has spoken in the best interests of the nation. In my humble view, reform of your Lordships’ House should always seek to enhance rather than diminish that spirit.
I finish by reiterating the belief, which I expressed in my valedictory speech in the other place, that the greatest obligation of public service is stewardship: namely, to leave to those who come after us that which we received from those who went before us in as good a state, if not better, than we received it. I reflected ruefully on that occasion that in my political lifetime our score in this regard was not impressive. Within that concept of stewardship, reforms should address not so much how they will affect us today but what improvements they will bring for those who come after us. Stewardship must apply not only in what we do to our environment, our economy and our society but in what we do to our constitution.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, it is a great privilege and an honour to follow the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. As expected, it was superb. This House is renowned for having distinguished individuals who are the best of the best in their fields, with oceans of experience. In Michael Ancram, we are truly fortunate to have a distinguished lawyer, a Queen’s Counsel and, as he has told us, a former chairman of the Conservative Party, a former shadow Secretary of State for Defence and a former shadow Foreign Secretary. He was also a Minister. He fought, lost and won parliamentary seats on many occasions. In fact, he first tried for West Lothian and did not succeed, but he won East Lothian. Then, he may not quite have become Prime Minister himself, but he defeated the future Prime Minister Gordon Brown to win Edinburgh South. He is a true politician’s politician, who has bounced back time and again and never given up, and always with a smile. As Nelson Mandela said,
“The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall”.
Many of us know that the noble Marquess is an accomplished musician who has often played his guitar in front of thousands at Conservative Party conferences. I am afraid that we could not break with 800 years of tradition and allow him to use a guitar to accompany his maiden speech, but he will certainly be music to our ears over the coming years.
Next year, we celebrate the centenary of the Parliament Act 1911. A hundred years ago, it was decided firmly to establish the supremacy of the House of Commons. Since then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said, we have had evolution, not revolution. Arguably, the House of Lords operates more effectively today than it has ever done. Whenever we debate the reform of the House of Lords, we tend to focus on its legislative role, but our role is much wider. The House of Lords is defined on our parliamentary website as:
“A forum of expertise, making laws and providing scrutiny of Government”.
We are a check and balance on the other place. There is no question that, during the past 100 years, there has been evolution in the other place as well, but that has unfortunately created a House of Commons where career politicians predominate, many of whom have had no careers outside politics.
It is amazing that the breadth and depth of expertise of Members of this House, particularly, I am proud to say, among the Cross-Benchers, give this House the ability and the capacity authoritatively to scrutinise legislation every day and challenge the Government of the day, whether that be in our debates, our daily Questions, our Statements or our hugely respected committees. That is the guardianship role of the House of Lords, and it is done at a quarter of the cost of the other place.
There is no question about the fact that many accuse our democracy and our elections of creating, as we have heard from our maiden speaker, elected dictatorships. Many feel that the Government have become too powerful. Many feel that the Government of the day, though the whipping system, can always have their own way due to the majority that they hold in the House of Commons, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has pointed out. I remember from my days in the Cambridge Union the classic motion that we debated at least once a year: “That this house has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government”. In the real world, how often do the Government lose a vote of confidence? You can count the number of times that it has happened. Who is there credibly to challenge the power of government? The role of the House of Lords is to do that in a way that is independent and with an objective frame of mind.
I admire the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for persevering with this Bill—this may be the nth time lucky. The reforms that he suggests are certainly worthy of consideration, in particular the proposal to make the House of Lords Appointments Commission statutory. However, most important, this Bill is about evolution, not revolution.
As your Lordships know, a debate was arranged last week by the independent Cross-Bench Peers—I thank our Convenor, the noble Baroness, Lady D’ Souza, and her team for that—at the Royal Opera House with Intelligence Squared. At the beginning of what was a public debate, the chairman, Nik Gowing, took a show of hands on the audience’s views on the motion, “That an elected House of Lords will be bad for British democracy”. The show of hands at the beginning could be divided roughly into thirds—for, against and undecided—although there may have been a little bias towards those in favour of the motion. At the end of the debate, after several speakers and questions, the chair’s conclusion was that the show of hands had moved towards the motion. Time and again, whenever I have conducted my own straw polls of members of the public, I have found that they initially say that they prefer an elected House of Lords, because it feels and sounds more democratic, but when you explain the role, function and composition of the House, they invariably change their minds and prefer for it to stay appointed. That is exactly what happened in the Royal Opera House debate last week, in spite of superb contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who surprisingly said that the House of Lords was toothless. If we are toothless, why are 40 per cent of our amendments accepted by the House of Commons?
It is clear that we have not thought through clearly the aftermath of a decision to have an elected or partially elected House of Lords. There is no question that there would be needless duplication, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said. There would be conflict with the Commons and there might even be, as was pointed out by Professor Vernon Bogdanor at the Royal Opera House debate, deadlock and gridlock between the two Houses, as has happened in Australia. There is no way that the House of Lords, if elected, would settle for less power than the House of Commons. If an elected second Chamber were to materialise, we would almost definitely end up with a written constitution and an appointed Supreme Court. We already have such a court, but as in the United States the Supreme Court would then have strike-down powers. In such an instance, what would we clamour for next? Elected judges in the Supreme Court? What is more, do we want to vanish into anonymity via the route of proportional representation, as has been suggested, in the European mould? As I have said before, how many members of the public know their MEPs? The MEPs are out of touch with their constituencies and their constituents. This is a road to ruin, not the road to reform. Do we really want to become House of Commons-lite?
This country is unique in not having a written constitution, but our democracy has evolved over centuries. We are regarded as the mother of Parliaments around the world and, regardless of all the scandals, we are still one of the most respected Parliaments in the world. We do not have to copy anyone. Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water; let us, as the Bill suggests, strengthen our appointments system, our independence, our expertise and our ability fearlessly and unwaveringly to question, challenge and hold to account the Government of the day every day.
To conclude, I am really proud to serve as a Member of this House. It brings out the best in Britain, and this House is the best for Britain. We are in many ways the guardian of the nation. This unelected Chamber is, ironically, the cornerstone of our democracy. Only through evolution, not revolution, will we able to continue to protect the fairness, justice, freedom and liberty of our great nation.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for the way in which he moved his Bill again. I get closer and closer to some of his arguments. As I look down the speakers list, I see that out of the 25 speakers probably six or seven of us believe that the Bill is insufficient. I have spoken from that position on previous occasions when we have had the Bill before us, and I continue to do so, but I shall try to be positive to a degree because I recognise that there is much in the Bill that needs to be addressed by the Government if they intend to move forward with proposals that would remedy the deficiency in the Bill as I see it.
I make the point for the record, so that nobody says that noble Lords have not spoken for an elected Chamber, that some of us still believe in standing by party-political manifestos. I know that that may not be particularly fashionable in some quarters these days, but I believe in that. All the parties went to the British electorate at the last election with the very clear mandate that they wanted to reform the House of Lords and, in so doing, wanted to move towards a more democratic and accountable House than we have at the moment. I stand by that. I believe that if we are to build and restore trust with the public, there are a number of areas in which we can do that—and one in particular is by standing by manifesto commitments. Those who do not will suffer in due course, I believe. I wrote my notes at midnight last night and wrote some rather harsh things about some of our friends on the Lib Dem Benches which I shall not repeat today. But I believe that it is an important factor in the nature of the relationship between Parliament and the public.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, went through the history of how the House has changed. It is worth recalling that there has been a considerable change in attitude in the House of Commons to its relationship with this House since the 1990s. We have seen a whole series of attempts to affect change, but among the major changes that have taken place in the other place has been a move towards a majority in favour of an elected Chamber, although I am not certain whether it is wholly elected or partially elected. But that is a big change. If we believe in the supremacy in the Commons, we should take note of it—but, more particularly, we should take note of the votes that have been taken there, because never has there been anything like a majority vote in favour of a wholly appointed House. There is no indication at all that there is any support for that.
I move to one question that I need resolving fairly soon from the Government. Are we going to have a wholly elected House in the draft Bill that will come before us, or will we have a partially elected House with 20 per cent coming in by appointment and perhaps to the Cross Benches? If we are, that would answer many of the arguments that have been advanced so far against the way in which the quality of the House will be undermined if we move towards elections. I should like to have a response on that.
There is much merit in the major points made in the Bill. Yes, we need to have a change on hereditary Peers, and I believe that a majority here are in favour of that. Yes, we need a change on the leave of absence or retirement policy. Then there is what we do with people who commit certain acts and may be sent to prison. Yes, we need a change on that front.
Then we come to the major issue—the statutory appointments committee. I share the view that we need to move toward one, particularly if we have the 20 per cent appointed under the arrangements that may come this way. Does the noble Lord, Lord Steel, believe that what he has proposed so far is sufficiently open and transparent on the basis of the commission that he has advanced to date? We are now seeing the Commons call into account some of the appointments made to public bodies by the Government of the day. I think that we will find ourselves in a very strange position. We see a change recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now saying of the committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was chair that in future the House of Commons will have a right to veto who is appointed to the committee that will deal with budgetary control. It would be strange if we moved to set up a statutory committee to make appointments in this House that was done like the Star Chamber—in secret, with no access. We made the point about Lord Laidlaw, who made promises. Promises of that nature, when a committee requires people to give commitments, should be made in the public domain and be accessible by the public and be open to question by the public, rather than being done in secret, with debates afterwards about the nature of the exchanges that have taken place between people seeking to come into the House under this commission. Would the noble Lord, Lord Steel, consider the possibility that we might move more towards the kind of arrangements that they have in the United States, where congressional sessions are able to address in the public domain candidates for a particular post? They can see precisely where they stand and what they are prepared to do in future. That would be an important point worth considering and, one would hope, acceptable to most of the people interested in this. That is a positive change that we could look to in future.
I come back to the work that is being done. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, will speak later. He missed the brief Question that we had earlier this week—the discussion on the Lords—when we talked about how the conventions will be addressed. I have been pressing this for quite some time, but I have been told that I must wait. Had I had the opportunity of coming in earlier in the week, I would have asked the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, why if the previous Government under the Prime Ministership of Gordon Brown were able to set up a committee to do work on the conventions that was disbanded only when we came to the general election, and why if the Members of this Government saw the need for that work to be undertaken, are they now arguing that it does not need to be done until we have the draft Bill before us? The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked that question, and as yet we have not had an answer, so I would be grateful if the Minister could give a response today.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I begin my remarks by saying how much I welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Lothian, who spoke to us a few moments ago. I had the privilege of serving with the noble Marquess in the Administration of the then Mrs Thatcher. I also had the privilege of serving in your Lordships’ House when his father was a Member here a number of years ago, and I very much welcome his arrival here now.
This is the fourth time—is it?—that my noble friend Lord Steel has introduced a Bill along these lines, but I am sorry to say that his Bill is no more timely now than it was on the previous occasions. That said, I do not necessarily quarrel profoundly with some of its provisions, although I have some detailed points to make. I am not against reform of your Lordships’ House per se and I am looking forward to the government Bill coming forward in draft, as we now hear that it will next year. However, why are some of your Lordships, such as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, so opposed to the concept of an elected House? While I recognise the potential difficulties, which have been described, they seem to me to have been overcome with considerable success in the United States, for example. I will not dwell on the differences now, but that model is one which I must confess that I am attracted to.
I shall now refer briefly to some of the provisions in my noble friend’s Bill which may need further clarification, amplification or even revision. The noble Lord refers to a new Appointments Commission; of course we already have an informal Appointments Commission appointing the so-called people’s Peers. It seems to have worked comparatively well. It leaves the Prime Minister able to make his own appointments, if he so chooses, while allowing the appointment of people whom we very much welcome in your Lordships’ House: for example, the retired Chief of the Defence Staff, who generally comes here as a matter of course. That is not part of any formal commission, which I suppose would be the case if these provisions became law.
I shall also refer to the question of the hereditary Peer by-elections, as your Lordships would no doubt expect. I need to remind your Lordships that the 1999 Act was passed with the concurrence of the then hereditary Peers in this House, who had a majority and who could have opposed the Bill and prevented it from passing at that time. No doubt it could then have been passed by the Parliament Act, had that been thought necessary, but it was definitely thought that that was too difficult and that a deal therefore had to be struck. A deal was struck that allowed the 92 hereditary Peers to remain, including the by-elections, until House of Lords reform was complete. I am happy to accept that undertaking, which was given at the time and which has been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on at least one occasion and, indeed, by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
I put it to your Lordships that the by-elections should remain as part of the deal—the undertaking that was given to secure the passage of the 1999 Act—and that when House of Lords reform is complete, the by-elections will cease. That is well understood. Incidentally, I am looking forward to hearing about the grandfather arrangements that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has referred to. However, I dare say that they will not include by-elections and I shall not be insisting that they do. Sooner or later, the hereditary Peers will, I fear, be on their way but not, I suggest, under the provisions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel.
The noble Lord proposes in his Bill some statutory arrangements for leave of absence. I am not in favour of those but I would not oppose some more rigorous arrangements of an informal kind for leave of absence. For example, Peers could automatically be considered to have taken leave of absence if they did not appear for an extended period of, perhaps, six months or a year, or it may be that the Clerk should write to them at the end of the year, asking, “You have not been for a whole year. Would you like leave of absence?” or something of that nature. However, I am not in favour of statutory arrangements.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
The problem with what my noble friend proposes is that, if he reads the report of our noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, he will see at the back that there is a memo from the Clerk of the Parliaments indicating that that cannot be done. It requires a statutory provision, I am afraid.
Lord Trefgarne
I understand what my noble friend is saying. I am thinking—I confess that I need to apply more thought to it—of some more informal arrangement where Peers could be persuaded to take leave of absence as a matter of course if they did not appear for an extended period.
I did have a problem with one aspect to which the noble Lord referred. I think that he mentioned some silver handshake arrangements. That will cause me very considerable difficulty because, in 1999, there were no silver handshakes and 600 Members of your Lordships’ House went without as much as a penny. It would therefore be very difficult to introduce a new silver handshake arrangement if that was what was now proposed. The noble Lord also referred to arrangements for Peers to be removed or disqualified for serious misbehaviour. It is very difficult for anybody to quarrel with such arrangements or provisions although I point out that recently, when there were some serious allegations against certain noble Lords, the matter was dealt with very effectively without any new legislation. I hope that that, too, can be borne in mind.
I make the general point that a Private Member’s Bill—no matter how distinguished the proposal, if I may say so—is not really the way to introduce major reforms of a constitutional kind. I am therefore, as I say, looking forward to the Government’s Bill coming forward. It will, of course, receive our very close attention. We will be moving into a Committee stage soon and I dare say that I shall have some suggestions to make to this Bill when that time comes. In the mean time, I can do no more than say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield
My Lords, it is a pleasure and an honour to join your Lordships’ House. It is a pleasure because of the immense kindness already shown to me in abundance by all who legislate and work here, and it is an honour to be able to work here with so many of your Lordships whom I have greatly admired, first, as a journalist writing about government and, later, as an outside observer of the British constitution from my academic home in the school of history at Queen Mary, University of London.
I have long had a fascination for the hidden wiring and the moving parts of our constitution, and now I find myself a small new particle of a very big and significant part of the British constitution—your Lordships’ House. The fascination began almost 44 years ago on an autumn evening in the library of St John’s College, Cambridge, where I spent my undergraduate years. What triggered it? My first reading of Walter Bagehot’s 1867 classic, The English Constitution, a magnificent work, brimming with brio and insight into this most ethereal of governing phenomena. Finding the British constitution has been, in one professional guise or another, an elusive quest for me ever since that evening in Cambridge—a fascination, I have to confess, that has not always been fully understood by less than empathetic colleagues and friends, who tend to see in it a dash of the young trainspotter that I was in the glorious days of steam.
In the context of today’s debate, it is intriguing and, I think, useful to plunder Bagehot’s chapter on the House of Lords, even though it was written in the mid-19th century, and I shall come to that in a moment. On the theme of utility, it is sometimes only in long historical perspectives that we can discern the retrospective work of your Lordships’ House. For example, it turned out to be the prefect receptacle when our country mercifully shed its habit of executing those it had come to regard as failed politicians. I made this point a couple of weeks ago to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, when we were companions on a journey returning from the University of Aberystwyth. We partly filled the long slog home across mid-Wales by contemplating the value of your Lordships’ House and what might await in future. The noble Lord responded to my historical depiction of the House of Lords as an alternative to execution, and I have his kind permission to relay our conversation, by saying that he had made a similar point to the Russians while on a visit in his capacity as Secretary-General of NATO a decade or so after the Cold War had ended. He told his hosts that what communist Russia had lacked was a House of Lords of its own into which it could have decanted the likes of Leonid Brezhnev. “If you had possessed such an institution,” the noble Lord told the Russians, “you might still have a Soviet Union”.
Back to the real thing, though: your Lordships’ House. In 1867, Bagehot saw it as a Chamber of,
“temporary rejectors and palpable alterers”,
of draft legislation. It was imperative, he wrote, that the House should contain a “class of respected revisers”. He regretted that Lord Palmerston’s proposal for the appointment of life Peers had been rejected, and warned that without such an infusion of persons with professional knowledge and experience, the House of Lords could find itself in peril. He wrote:
“Its danger is not in assassination, but atrophy; not abolition, but decline”.
It took another 91 years before Bagehot’s prescription was fulfilled with the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958, almost certainly the most transforming incremental reform of your Lordships’ House in its long history, with a powerful and cumulative effect that has made it what it is today—Bagehot’s House of respected revisers. That, in my judgment, is the crucial test to be applied to any of the new configurations of your Lordships’ House that may be proposed: could the Members of a reformed Chamber still be seen as respected revisers?
I was once in favour of an elected Chamber—a British senate of 100 legislators, elected on the basis of proportional representation by huge constituencies that embraced city, town and countryside, with one-third up for election or re-election every five years. I have changed my mind; indeed, it would have been improper to have applied for appointment to the Cross Benches of your Lordships’ House if I had not. There are two chief reasons why I have changed my mind. First, there is the high and continuing utility of having a group of people somewhere in the legislative process who are sensitive to politics and government but are not themselves partisan in a party-political sense. Secondly, in most trades, crafts, professions and walks of life, we are ever keener to widen the confluence of backgrounds, knowledge and experience when recruiting. In my judgment, appointment rather than election will remain the best and primary instrument for achieving this if it is a goal that we share.
Quite apart from election, which would create the danger of a replica Chamber that, by its very existence, would promptly inspire a tussle in terms of relative power with the other place, it is very difficult to imagine that elections would sustain the flow of experience and knowledge that the appointments system provides for your Lordships’ House, especially regarding those with a background in science and technology, business and industry. To rise in the other place, you need first to make your way there in your 30s or early 40s. With the best will in the world, that is usually too soon and too young to have acquired fully professional depth in the laboratory or the boardroom.
I know that undue controversy has no place in a maiden speech, and horizon-scanning is a perilous craft. I hope, however, that your Lordships will allow me a concluding thought on the Bill before us. Once we have seen a debate on the coalition Government’s proposals on reform of your Lordships’ House and they contain, as we expect, a dominant element of election in them, if the two Houses of Parliament find that they cannot reach a consensus on a new DNA for the revising Chamber, and if in the approaching twilight of their term the coalition Government are unwilling to reach for the Parliament Act, we have in the House of Lords Reform Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, a rational, valuable and relatively readily implementable alternative for worthwhile improvement that cuts with the grain of past changes—a means, in short, of effecting organic reforms as an alternative surgery.
Much of the British constitution remains unwritten, though a good deal of it, since I first read Bagehot in 1966, has moved from the back of an envelope to the front of a code and then to the face of an Act of Parliament. I have in mind particularly the Civil Service element in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Yet much remains as magical and mysterious as when Bagehot picked up his pen to describe what he saw.
Constitutional statutes, when they are drafted and brought forward, are, in effect, the Companies Acts of the British way of government. They are often what Bagehot called the “latent part of legislation”, laden with unanticipated implications for other parts of the British constitution and dripping with the possibility of unintended consequences. Their scrutiny calls for the most special care.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, it is not very often that I get the privilege of following a maiden speaker in your Lordships' House and to be given the opportunity to pay a tribute to him. It is even rarer to follow a new Member of such exceptional talent and distinction as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is known to all of us as a broadcaster and writer; and, in the case of my noble friend Lady Hayter, as her PhD supervisor. For 20 years he was a journalist, working as a leader writer and Whitehall correspondent on the Times, and lobby correspondent on the Financial Times. We listened to him as the presenter of the “Analysis” programme on Radio 4.
In 1992 he joined the department of history at Queen Mary in the University of London and, since 2001, has been the Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History. In 2008 he won the Times Higher Education's lifetime achievement award, when he was described by the acting principal as,
“an inspiration to all those students fortunate enough to have been taught by him and a hugely supportive colleague. He has the unusual combination of intellectual rigour and media know-how, which he exercises to full advantage as an independent critic of the government and establishment”.
The Guardian, in a leader column in 2007, said:
“Prof Hennessy is not like anybody else … He is simultaneously both scholar and journalist, traditionalist and radical, conservative and liberal, patriot and subversive”.
We have just listened to a brilliant maiden speech full of humour. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we look forward to hearing from him many, many times in the future, especially when we are debating constitutional issues. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, will be a huge asset to your Lordships' House, and I congratulate the Appointments Commission on making such an inspired choice.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, that leads me neatly into expressing my complete support for the Bill again introduced so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. I congratulate him on his patience and perseverance.
I reread the Hansard report of the debate on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on 27 February 2009. The arguments that he used then in support of it—and those made by the overwhelming number of noble Lords who also spoke in favour, including myself—seem incontrovertible nearly two years on. Indeed, they were so convincing that the previous Labour Administration adopted most of the Bill's provisions in their Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon reminded us in her speech earlier.
Many noble Lords warned in February 2009 that if there were no provision for retirement, a change of Government would trigger the appointment of large numbers of new Peers, making the membership of the House intolerably large. That is exactly what is happening. Frankly I doubt whether many of your Lordships were reassured by the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in response to my noble friend Lord Dubs's Question on Wednesday. Perhaps the most extraordinary statement made by the Minister in those exchanges was that the “dilemma”—his word—of too many Members in your Lordships' House has been created by the House itself. I was under the impression that it was not this House which put forward recommendations for peerages, but the leaders of the political parties, plus, in the case of a handful of Cross-Benchers each year, the Appointments Commission.
At the very least, I hope that the party leaders will accept the advice offered by Dr Meg Russell of the UCL Constitution Unit in her paper of 22 November, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, referred in her speech, entitled Time for a Moratorium on Lords Appointments. She takes head-on the argument that the composition of this House should reflect the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the last general election. If we follow that route we will have an intolerably large House with, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, says, almost 1,000 Members. We are already at the point where the Chamber is seriously overcrowded for Questions. We have had to commandeer the use of the Below Bar visitors’ seats. This is before the first of the 54 new Peers joins us. I suspect we shall be taking over the spouses’ seats next. The pressure on facilities if we get bigger and bigger will also become increasingly intolerable. I have a final comment from Dr Russell:
“For as long as the system of appointment for life continues, the proportionality goal must therefore simply be forgotten, before serious damage is done”.
That is a compelling reason for the retirement provisions in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel.
What is of paramount importance in any discussion of how we change the House is that we do not diminish its effectiveness in holding the Government to account, scrutinising and revising legislation, and drawing on the experience and knowledge of its Members to investigate subjects of national concern through our Select Committee system. Completely absent from the debate about election or appointment is any evidence that an elected House would do that job better. The legitimacy of an assembly can be achieved in several ways. Elections are certainly one route but they are not the only one. That would certainly not be the case if we became just a second-rate shadow of the other place, consisting of a bunch of placemen and placewomen who had got here through being placed high up on a party list.
I would have much more faith in a statutory appointments commission being able to produce a Chamber in which ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, representatives of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom, as well as outstanding leaders of the professions, such as academics, senior police and service chiefs, and all the other distinguished people who make up the Cross Benches were to have a place. That is why I cannot believe that it would be right to go down the 100 per cent elected route. Central to the future of this House and its effectiveness is the continued presence of independently minded Cross-Benchers, such as the noble Lord whose maiden speech we heard just a moment ago.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, not least because I think I agree with every single word he said. I am therefore able to restrict my own remarks to a rather shorter length. In particular, I am happy to agree with him on how fortunate it is that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has joined us. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned several of his previous roles. He may suddenly find himself in the role of politician. None the less, it is fortunate that we have his advice and wisdom at this stage. We are debating a considerable number of constitutional matters at present. It would not be a great exaggeration to say that we are in considerable danger as far as constitutional matters are concerned.
I will make only one or two brief points on the overall question of reform of your Lordships’ House. I was very surprised when a colleague of mine on these Benches, in a discussion that we had on this issue a little while ago, said, “It’s really very difficult to explain to people because, as Mr Clegg says, changing to an elected system would make it more democratic”. I replied, “I think that is profoundly wrong”. What is proposed by way of election to this House will in no way increase democracy, which already exists, 100 per cent, in the House of Commons. What it will do is divide the operation of democracy and make it less effective. I see no reason at all why one should go along with the views expressed by Mr Clegg and reinforced repeatedly by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
I am also particularly concerned about the way in which the arrangements for the coalition give a preponderance of emphasis to views supported by Mr Clegg and my noble friend Lord McNally. One has only to look at the events of the past week to realise what this danger is—that we may, as a result of trying to hold the coalition together, go down extremely dangerous paths. Earlier this week, the coalition Government put forward a proposal not simply for a referendum—during my 33 years in the House of Commons I always found such proposals very dangerous—but a mandatory referendum. The other night, your Lordships agreed to a mandatory referendum. This strikes at the heart of one’s feelings about the issue. Edmund Burke must be rotating in his grave at a very rapid rate. We have a representative system of democracy and Members of the House of Commons are representatives, not delegates. We cannot have mandatory referendums as the dangers of doing so are very great. To start with, pressure would soon be applied to hold a mandatory referendum on capital punishment. I have no great doubts that such a referendum would result in a far bigger majority than is likely in a referendum on the alternative vote. The coalition agreement has set a major constitutional precedent, which is dangerous, and the same is true as far as your Lordships’ House is concerned.
I am very glad that my noble friend has reintroduced his Bill and I hope very much that attitudes towards it will change. The composition of your Lordships' House is dynamic and changing, particularly with regard to the number of noble Lords. As several speakers have pointed out, the large number of Peers is creating serious problems. Indeed, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said that we were in danger of being held up to ridicule. I do not know whether this is a conspiracy but it is certainly the effect of having an increased number of Peers. My noble friend’s Bill is even more timely than it would have been previously as it helps in two respects. First, it suggests that there should be a statutory commission rather than the existing arrangement, which has presided over the enormous number of new Members. Perhaps the quickest way to solve this dilemma is to abolish the present commission and delay the introduction of a new one. My own view is that we should have a moratorium on the introduction of new Peers until such time as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has produced an excellent preliminary report, has reconciled these matters.
There is a serious lack of data on how many Members might take advantage of the proposal in my noble friend’s Bill to retire from the House. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already concluded that we need primary legislation and, as my noble friend has just pointed out, this matter constitutes an excellent example of where that is needed. There is no need to wreck the Government’s programme; we can simply go along with my noble friend’s arrangement. The Bill also provides for a statutory appointments commission, which could take into account the constitutional position. It is very strange that we have never had a limit on the size of your Lordships' House, and it is high time that we did. The statutory appointments commission could take that matter into account and enable noble Lords who wish to leave to do so. If the arrangements made in that regard were cost neutral, it would not be unreasonable for compensation to be paid to those who leave the House. I think that would be a saleable product. It may not be very easy to gain acceptance for it, given the attitude of the press generally, but it could mean that we get a significant increase in Members retiring. However, we do not know to what extent that may happen. We look forward to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which I gather is making rapid progress. In the mean time, for the reasons that I and other noble Lords have given, we should proceed urgently with my noble friend’s Bill and get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, we have heard two remarkable maiden speeches from Peers who will clearly be enormous assets to this House. I wonder whether we would have had that benefit if this had been an all-elected House. I rather doubt it. This is one of the great strengths of the House we have. If I may say so, the news of the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, was not just music to my ears but a veritable ode to joy.
I have sometimes been tempted to think of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, as Sisyphus rolling his stone up the hill, only to see it falling back again, down the hill. Of course, Sisyphus was not at all a nice man. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, on the other hand, is an extremely nice man and he will be following Sisyphus not into Hades, but into that pantheon of politicians who never give up on a good cause.
There is a principle which we ignore at our peril, which is that one should not tear down and replace an institution unless one is sure that the defects in the existing institution rendering it insufficiently fit for purpose cannot be corrected. If you believe, as I do, that the creation of a fully or mostly elected second Chamber presumes the abolition of the present institution, in order to create a wholly different one, you will understand why I support the Bill. It seeks to put right some obvious defects and introduce some real improvements, and the means proposed and the ends desired are eminently sensible and achievable. What is more, they can be put in place without prejudice to the discussion we absolutely must have about the purposes of a second Chamber before we tackle the divisive question of its composition.
There is already broad support in this House for most of the measures proposed in the Bill. I know that there is unhappiness in some quarters over the proposed ending of by-elections to fill hereditary vacancies, because of the solemn undertaking given in 1999—of which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, reminded us. As a hereditary Peer fortunate enough to have been given a life peerage, I share the discomfort of those who feel that a promise made to them risks being broken. On the other hand, it was never foreseen that a second stage of reform would still not have been reached 11 years later.
Our hereditaries make a contribution to the work of this House out of all proportion to their numbers. They contribute individually as Ministers, shadow Ministers, Deputy Chairmen and Deputy Speakers, committee activists, and Front-Bench and Back-Bench experts in many fields of human endeavour. I do not wish to see them go, but in an already inflated House an occasional reduction in their number through natural causes does not seem to be unreasonable. Those remaining should be allowed to serve on as Peers for life, and their continuing contribution should be welcomed on all sides of the House.
As to the Bill’s other proposals, their objectives seem to be subjects of a growing consensus among your Lordships. The case for a statutory appointments commission has been made time and time again and I have no wish to weary the House with further rehearsal of its obvious merits. The case for a permanent leave of absence, one of the options currently under consideration in the group of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, is likewise familiar to the House and I need to make no further comment on that. The provisions in Part 4 for cases of conviction of a serious criminal offence seem to be proportionate, fair and sensible, and I believe that I am far from alone in that view.
So what should we be asking the coalition Government to do? The noble Lord, Lord Steel, was surely correct in suggesting some time ago that these are issues not normally considered to be suitable for a Private Member's Bill, but it is absolutely right that we now carry it forward as a means of making the Government aware of the strength of feeling in many parts of this House that certain measures of reform should not be delayed further. The Minister will doubtless urge us to wait patiently for the delayed draft Bill now promised for early in the new year. Is that a guarantee that the modest reforms proposed in today’s Bill will reappear in some similar form in the later Bill, and, if they do, will we then have to wait years for them to be implemented?
I entirely share the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that enactment of any Bill based on the coalition’s awaited draft will have to wait until some time in 2012, and yet we are called upon to be patient. Perhaps I should remind the House, as the poet Dryden wrote:
“Beware the fury of a patient man”.
If the coalition does not agree with the aims of these proposals, it must say so, and, if it does, it must assure us that it will not seek to delay or obstruct their implementation. As I said at the outset, they do not prejudice the outcome of the future debate on the purposes of this House and the composition that will enable us to fulfil those purposes. We are simply trying to ensure that, unless and until this House is, God forbid, abolished and replaced, we have a scrutinising and revising second Chamber even better equipped to do the excellent job that it currently does.
I wish the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, a fair wind and I hope that his stone will remain at the top of the hill.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I suppose that I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for the opportunity to put one’s thoughts on the record. I am sorry not to have done so before now but I always felt that there were quite enough people on the list to speak in these debates. I am not sure why we are discussing this Bill when the three parties with a democratic mandate are going to put forward their ideas in the near future. Perhaps it is so that, long into the future when everything has gone wrong, some researcher will be able to look at your Lordships’ comments and say, “What wise words of wisdom were uttered by that noble Lord”.
The trouble with the Bill is that it attempts to preserve the appointed life Peers through a pre-emptive strike, but that is not what Parliament intended. It removes several incentives for change. I am one of the hereditary Peers who was elected to stay here, and I accepted that because the purpose was to make sure that proper reform would take place in the future. The hereditary element left was the incentive for change. The trouble is that, when you remove the incentives, people stop moving in the direction in which you want them to go. If we allow the hereditary Peers to die out, steadily and slowly the whole House will become under the control of unaccountable people who appoint those who come here—a theme that has cropped up throughout these debates.
Perhaps we could look, first, at the future of an appointed House. As I said, people are driven by incentives. We also know the mantra that, if you have no democratic authority, all power will be removed, and therefore there will be no purpose in people coming to sit in this House. If people sit and debate in this House without the power to affect legislation, they will simply stop bothering to come, and this place will just be a club for those who like waffling on. The wise people will walk away and that will be sad, because we will not get the sort of people who are being appointed at the moment.
The trouble is that in our constitution there is nothing to prevent that happening, although we thought that there was. The closest thing to it is in the oath of a privy counsellor on the Front Bench. That oath is supposed to be binding, yet there have been attempts to overturn it on many occasions—in fact, this Bill seeks to do just that. Therefore, one realises that our constitution provides no way of binding any future Parliament, so that, whatever we do, it can be changed, and that is the real problem. We cannot put in proper protections.
The Commons supremacists welcome this. They think it is a very good idea to have a House of Lords with all its powers removed because it is a nuisance to them. However, democracy is not a unicameral system, especially when the Executive sits in that one elected Chamber, which is supposed to have primacy when it comes to legislation. The problem is that, when a large party has a majority, Prime Ministers sometimes forget that they are the Prime Minister not of Parliament but of the majority party, as leader. They are Prime Ministers of the Executive, which Parliament is supposed to control. The number of Members of another place who had some form of Executive appointment in the previous Parliament was astonishing. I believe that it was in three figures—and it has got bigger. That is not how the legislature should be behaving. It is there to set the controls and boundaries for the Executive.
We must have a balance. We need a bicameral system and must keep the checks and balances in it. I do not know how we would do that if we were to start appointing in this place. We know that Ministers in the Commons are already irritated by us; they do not even bother to read our debates when we get into that ping-pong session. We do not send things back to the Commons lightly but they cannot be bothered to find out the reasons. We will be completely ignored.
The other thing that worries me is that the Bill, rightly, tries to set out the concept of the Appointments Commission, make it independent and give it the right objectives. But the real control is who you put into it, and the real problem then comes as the commission will tend to appoint the great and the good. I am sorry that the rebels are slowly disappearing. We get very wise people but we also need the rebels and agents for change—those who will push the boundaries or resist what sounds terribly sensible on the surface but has hidden dangers.
We must have checks and balances. If we are to have an appointed House we must separate powers in the other place. We should look at the American model far more closely. I never thought that I would say that. It would have been anathema 15 years ago but I am very worried about the consolidation of power now. If we opt for an elected House, we assume that we will get failed politicians, or whatever, but why? America seems to survive, which another noble Lord said earlier. Maybe we might for a while, but do we assume that the public will permanently be idiots? I am certain that something good will come out of it. There are lots of different ways of electing Lords. People think about it and I am sure that we can achieve something that is not a mere mirror of another place.
I do not want to lose the expertise or the independence but we must have that democratic authority to survive. Otherwise all residual power will have been removed or stifled within the next 10 to 20 years. If we want to preserve some places for experts the 80:20 model—80 per cent elected, 20 per cent appointed—looks quite attractive. As a Cross-Bencher I would say that, wouldn’t I? That is always the trouble.
I shall refer briefly to some other bits in the Bill. On ex-prisoners and people who have been to prison being Members of your Lordships’ House, I always thought that we had a principle of rehabilitation and that after a while people have paid their debt to society. We should remember that when putting something like this together. As we are about to give votes to prisoners should they not have someone in Parliament to represent them since they cannot sit in the other place?
Why are there so many new Peers; why this huge influx? It really worries me. Is it because they do not matter; is it because they are seen as Lobby fodder; or is it because they will be abolished quite soon? I do not understand what is going on. It is ridiculous.
On the other hand I have great hopes. It is amazing how independent people can become once they are no longer beholden to a master, so I look forward to welcoming a huge number of recruits to the cause of a truly bicameral Parliament with power balanced properly between the two Houses, exercising proper control of the Executive through legislation and scrutiny.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I have taken no part in previous debates about the future of this Chamber, but I have listened to many of the speeches and have read most them. As a result, like the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, as he said in his outstanding maiden speech, I have changed my mind. I used to be in favour of an elected, or largely elected, Chamber and am now persuaded that we should remain an appointed one. I have been influenced particularly by the arguments on expertise and independence.
On expertise, let me give one example which I find extremely persuasive. A year or more ago, our admirable Speaker, strangely designated the Lord Speaker, called a meeting of those who were scientists, who were especially interested in science, like me, or who were science journalists. One of the latter, who I believe was the editor of Nature, observed at the end of the meeting, “The Lords are probably the most scientifically numerate legislative Assembly anywhere”. He then asked, “How many of the scientists here would stand for election?”. The answer, of course, was none. The overwhelming consensus view of the science journalists was, “For God’s sake, keep the Lords as an appointed Chamber”. That argument applies to many other forms of expertise.
As for independence, elected politicians, certainly in the United Kingdom, tend to be strongly tribalist. Disraeli formulated what is almost a golden rule in the House of Commons:
“Damn your principles! Stick to your party”.
I have never found that a particularly appealing doctrine. The Lords are, on the whole, much less tribalist, but if elected, contrary to what the noble Earl has just implied, Members would face the usual party pressure: “You are here because your party voted for you to represent them. You should vote the party line”.
Of course we need reform. We need reform in the way in which we are appointed, the terms of our appointment and when the appointment should come to an end. That is why so many of us support this Bill. There is something strange and wrong with the idea of a life Peer. We are a strange kind of constitutional mule, with neither pride in ancestry nor hope of posterity. It is almost assumed that age cannot wither us, unless we recognise our own failings. We urgently need to find a way in which to cull our numbers and persuade existing Peers to retire. Given the large number of new Peers, speeches in time-limited debates will soon be down to two minutes or so, major debates will go on until the early hours of the morning or for several days and there will be an interminable queue for Parliamentary Questions.
The House is quite good at self-regulation, but it is quite a lot to ask that we must form our own judgment of when the time has come to go. Until a new solution has been found, which will take some time, perhaps we could bear in mind some guidelines. Age is not necessarily the major issue; certainly many speakers seem to be unaffected by it. When I first came here, Lord Longford, for one, continued to make very useful contributions as he neared his century. He was also self-disciplined enough to keep within the time limit. I remember that, when new Labour was at the peak of its popularity and the enthusiasm for it had spread even to this House, he made a speech that was definitely politically incorrect. He apologised and said: “I suppose this view is rather old Labour, but if I’m not entitled to be old Labour I don’t know who is”.
At a dinner given by my Lib Dem colleagues some two years ago for those of us who had joined the octogenarians, I proposed some signs that we might heed in judging for how long we should go on. I am sorry to repeat them to my Lib Dem colleagues who are present, but most of my colleagues are on an away day and, anyway, if politicians are not allowed to repeat themselves, they might have very little to say. I have five suggestions of the signs that we should heed to accept that the time has come to retire: first, when candid friends tell you that each of your speeches is getting better than the next; secondly, when what your speeches lack in depth they more than make up in length, although, of course, that is not peculiar to elderly Peers; thirdly, when you stop to think and forget to start again; fourthly, when your doctor advises you to buy day returns rather than season tickets; and, fifthly, when you get out of breath playing chess. No doubt others can add to this list.
Meanwhile, we await what the Government propose. When, as now seems inevitable, they propose that this House should become an elected Chamber and if that proposal is passed, we may be surprised by the consequences. As Ernie Bevin once said and as George W Bush might well have said:
“When you open that Pandora’s box, you never know what Trojan horses will jump out”.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, much of the debate implicitly circles around a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who is just about to desert us but might stay for a minute. I think I am right in saying that he put up the dichotomy of whether to elect or to appoint by cabal. However, there is a third way, and it is very important that people do not go on repeating the fallacy that there is only this choice. The third way concerns how the statutory Appointments Commission would work.
One idea came out of the Labour Group four years ago after Tony Blair had come along and invited us, as it were, to put our ideas on a postcard. We agreed on four points to put to the Prime Minister. These were essentially the same as those in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I drafted a letter, which included ideas about the statutory Appointments Commission, including the fact that it should be responsible for endorsing or at least registering the fact that the party had transparent criteria through which it would bring forward candidates. This would be a total change from leaders' patronage. We drafted a more detailed scheme and put it to the Labour Party general secretary. As noble Lords may know, the Labour Party has a federal constitution. The national executive has sections for trade unions, constituencies and others. Our suggested policy was to select candidates in a transparent trawl once people had put forward their names or those of other people.
Clearly, there would then have to be a confidential stage in the process. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is not here. It would probably be for a committee like his to do this. However, it would be very important that the remit was clear. The present remit for the Appointments Commission for the Cross-Benchers is not clear at all. The “people's Peers” are supposed to be representative in some way—that is why they were so called by the tabloids. However, according to the Sutton Trust, 75 per cent of Cross-Benchers went to public schools. Only 7 per cent of pupils in the country go to public schools, but 75 per cent of Members on the Conservative Benches and Cross-Benches went to public schools. The figure for the Lib Dems is somewhat below that, and that for the Labour Party much below. Therefore, people must be careful about the remit of the Appointments Commission.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe thought that we were still proposing a cabal. I ask noble Lords to take something on board. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and I had about 10 attempts to understand each other on this. He has finally taken on board the fact that there would not just be five people on an Appointments Commission selecting all the party candidates. That has never been part of our scheme. Clearly, the Labour Party would throw out a scheme immediately if it consisted simply of five independent people choosing their preferred candidates. My final point on this matter is that for this reason we cannot have US-style primaries: they would not work within the constitutional set-up of our parties.
Secondly, I shall touch on the assertion of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe that we are ignoring the firm views of our colleagues in the House of Commons. With great respect to all concerned, this is not a hot topic in the House of Commons. For 99 days out of 100, I doubt whether MPs give it a moment’s thought. One of the reasons they do not give it a moment’s thought is that when they knock on doors in the constituencies, no one there is giving it a moment’s thought. It is not a hot topic at all, so the idea that we are contradicting the settled view of the House of Commons has to be very seriously questioned.
Thirdly, an elected House would wake up the House of Commons quite considerably in terms of its lessened role. If the new representatives in the second Chamber did not have case work, how would that get them nearer the people than the present arrangements? The reason why we do not have conflicting duties with our colleagues in the Commons is that case work is for them. We deal with broader industrial responsibilities. That has to be thought through.
Finally, I shall touch on money Bills. We had an interesting dry run earlier this week on the problem caused by the Speaker’s unilateral decision, in line with 1911 Act, that a Bill was a money Bill. Two questions immediately arise that must be looked into. First, would that survive an elected second Chamber? I would say it clearly would not. I cannot think of any way in which it would. Secondly, we have to be very careful, and it is time to say this clearly. In principle, I cannot see why a Speaker of the House of Commons could not wake up one day, say that MPs do not want the House of Lords to amend the Transport Act, the Energy Act, the Agriculture Act, the Social Security Act or the Health Services Act, and so say that they are money Bills. That is on the agenda, and I do not know how we expect the Bill in the spring—or the summer or the autumn—to handle a very important constitutional issue such as that.
Lord Cobbold
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming this Bill which proposes a series of reform measures for this House that are positive, not destructive, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on bringing the Bill back to this House for the umpteenth time.
There are four elements to the Bill. I will focus on the first which is that there should be a statutory Appointments Commission responsible for all appointments to a life peerage and consequential membership of this House. Under the present arrangements, there is no control on numbers of new appointments and, consequentially, no limit on total numbers in the Chamber. Following the large numbers of recent new appointments, the size of the House is definitely too large. The Bill defines the required distribution of membership among the various political parties and, happily, calls for at least 20 per cent of the membership to consist of Members who are independent of any registered political party.
The Bill says nothing about total numbers, except that the total membership should not exceed that of the House of Commons. I do not see any special reason why membership should be restricted to being less than that of the Commons, but I think that the Appointments Commission should be given an optimal total target membership. The optimal number is, I think most people would agree, considerably smaller than current total membership. I believe it should be somewhere in range of 300 to 500.
Obviously, if an optimal number is to be agreed that is much smaller than the present membership totals, a substantial transition plan would be required to spread the number of required reductions over, say, a five-year period. The Bill proposes that provision could be made for Members to be granted permanent leave of absence. My own view is that while welcoming this, it would not be used sufficiently to achieve a significant reduction in total membership. In a sense, there is already a system of voluntary retirement in that a Member may simply stop attending. I believe that a long-term reduction in the number of existing Members can be achieved only by a system of compulsory retirement, and that can be based only on the age of the Member or period of service. I do not think that age is the right choice. People age at different rates, so the only fair and workable system would be a compulsory period of service for all Members which, in my view, should be 20 years. Given a fixed period of 20 years, it should be possible for a Member reaching the limit and still performing a valuable role in the House to be given an extension of service of one to five years on application, I suggest, to the Lord Speaker. Given that 161 Members of the present House have periods of service in excess of 20 years, the introduction of such a system would require a transition period of at least five years. I would hope to put forward a detailed scheme at the hoped-for Committee stage.
The Bill contains provisions for dismissal on conviction of a serious criminal offence, which are acceptable. Lastly, it calls for the abolition of the process of electing replacements for the 92 hereditary Peers when they die. While I am lucky to be one of those 92 Peers, I do not think that heredity can, on its own, justifiably be a qualification for membership of this House any longer.
This is a constructive Bill which I believe meets the current needs of House of Lords reform, and I wish it well.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I, too, salute the indefatigability of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on bringing this Bill forward again. His admirable persistence has become one of the enduring characteristics of this debate. If the Bill could be considered independently of the wider context of a debate about the future of this House, its proposals are sensible and they are welcome. But as we have heard over and over again in the speeches today, the Bill cannot be viewed independently of that wider context. I have to say, however, that it is a measure of the ingenuity, creativity and indeed the long legislative experience of the noble Lord that his Bill can be viewed with equal plausibility either as a bridge towards further reform or as a block to it. It can be seen either as an important attempt to tackle the issues that need to be dealt with as a prelude to the great battle over fundamental reform—and we have heard many times that it will be a great battle—or as a tidying-up exercise which, by absorbing legislative energy, will postpone for even longer a fundamental debate about the future of this House.
I have said it before, but I believe that the great battle should be joined without further delay. Fundamental democratic reform of this Chamber has been pending for over a century, and whatever the merits of the way that the House currently functions—they are clearly considerable and we have heard them rehearsed again in the debate—there can be no substitute for the accountability of legislators to those whom they serve. That is the fundamental and irreducible question which lies at the heart of this debate. For all the arguments for appointment, again rehearsed powerfully in, among others, two important maiden speeches, the question of democratic accountability by legislators is fundamental.
At every stage of this country’s long journey towards an effective representative democracy for all citizens there have been compelling arguments against reform. On reading Hansard, one can see that in the great debates about democracy in the past these arguments were powerfully advanced. However, in time, they were all overcome: all adult males eventually got the vote and then all adult women; and the democratically elected House of Commons became the pre-eminent Chamber. Who today wishes to revisit the arguments advanced at the time against those changes and say that our predecessors made the wrong decisions? We should have their courage and take the next important steps towards making those in power—including all of us in this Chamber in this instance—properly accountable to those we serve. For all its merits, this Bill does not form part of this fundamental process.
The coalition Government have set out their view of this process in their coalition agreement. They said:
“We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber”.
I agree that that is where the debate over reform of the House of Lords should be located, but the agreement went on to say:
“The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010”.
So, on 3 December, I ask the noble Baroness who is to reply on behalf of the Government: where is it?
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of the widespread belief that when in opposition the Prime Minister put a comradely arm around the shoulders of the Leader of this House and assured him that he had no need to fret because reform of the House of Lords was, “a third term issue”. However, despite repeated attempts by me and others before the general election to get Conservative Front-Benchers in the other place to confirm or deny this comradely agreement, they wriggled away from it; we got no answer. So, when the noble Baroness replies, I would be grateful if she would now confirm or deny that the basis on which the coalition Government are operating is that whenever proposals are produced, delivery of them will be postponed until such time—if ever—as there is a third term of this Government. I am sure her answer will be scrutinised with great care.
I hope also that the Minister will at some point set out how she intends to address the serious concerns that have been frequently rehearsed in this House by my noble friend Lord Grocott, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, today, on the issue of how a democratically elected second Chamber—which would, without any doubt, acquire greater legitimacy—might challenge the pre-eminence of the House of Commons. As I have said previously—I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Brooke referred to this today—I believe that the way to resolve this important issue is to codify the functions of this House; to put beyond doubt the respective roles of the two Chambers and their relationship. I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if, once again, I renew my plea to the Government—I join with my noble friend Lord Brooke on this—to reconstitute the working group set up by the previous Government to look at the issues around codification. It would be a great help to the Government and I do not know why they have not yet done so.
Finally, I remind the noble Baroness—although she probably does not need reminding—that the current situation is untenable. Again, my text on this occasion is the coalition agreement, which states that, before fundamental reform,
“Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election”.
Quite apart from the signal that this sends about the determination of this Government to aggrandise power to the Executive, this commitment is ludicrous unless it is unbreakably a one-off measure and coupled unbreakably with rapid movement to an elected House of Lords. Otherwise, following through this principle, enunciated with such conviction in the coalition agreement, we are faced with the proposition that either the House of Lords will grow ever larger at every general election—and the larger the swing at the general election, the larger the Chamber will swell; 1,000, 2,000 and so on and on; or, alternatively, large numbers of existing Peers will be summarily ejected after the general election. Incidentally, how will the victims be determined, an issue on which, along with so many others, the Government have so far been silent? Or will we see some equally arbitrary and equally profoundly unsatisfactory combination of the two?
In their first six months the Government have, I am afraid, displayed an insouciance towards constitution proprieties which is malign, reckless or both. I hope they will take time over this Christmas break to reflect on this approach, and come back refreshed in the New Year and produce a comprehensive and principled approach to reform of this House.
Viscount Falkland
My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate. In the 26 years that I admit to your Lordships that I have been here, I have not enjoyed a debate as much. I walked three-and-a-half miles through the snow to get here this morning because I do not like public transport and I cannot get my motorcycle off its parking space. I admit to being 75, which is nowhere near the age of my noble colleague. I do not think that we should be judged in this House on age alone, but that is a minor part of the subject that we are addressing today.
We all know what a marvellous and experienced politician my noble friend Lord Steel is. His persistence and the adroit way in which he has ridden through this storm four times, adjusting to the changes which have taken place since 2007 when he first introduced his Bill, are quite extraordinary. The speeches today have been very encouraging.
We have heard two remarkable maiden speeches today, one of which I would regard as, if not the best, certainly very close to the best of any maiden speech that I have ever heard—which is not to say that the other maiden speech was not excellent also. The prescience of Bagehot, which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, was very appropriate. He foresaw the need for some kind of enlivening of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, and we had to wait until the 1958 Act to get the life Peers in here.
When I first came into your Lordships' House, I intended to stay only for a maximum of three months, because I was going, as we all do, through certain problems at that time involving my personal life and work. I joined the SDP. It was the party formed by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, on whom I always look as one of the most reliable sounding boards if I have any problems in this House. I found the SDP to be very agreeable and full of very expert people, both hereditary and life Peers. I thought to myself, “Maybe I should give it a bit longer. Maybe I can combine it with some other things”, which I did for a while. Being here has been the most remarkable experience of my life. I am always attracted to things which work but for which there is no logical explanation of how they work. In my early days, I was persuaded to volunteer to go to talk to schools about how our bicameral system worked. It was always difficult when sixth-formers asked me how the House of Lords worked, how it worked with the House of Commons and why it persisted with an hereditary element. All those things were very difficult to explain.
Now, after 26 years, I have to say—maybe it is old age, but I do not think that it is—some anxieties are creeping in. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked why so many Peers are being created. I can give him what may appear a cynical answer. It is very difficult to alter an institution, particularly one involved with the constitution, if it is working very well. When I came into the House, it was working very well, and it has been working very well until recently. The party with which I sit is made up of very nice people, as noble Lords know, and the majority of them want radical reform of your Lordships’ House. If something is working well, the logical way in which to deal with it is not make it not work so well—and it is not working so well at the moment. If you cannot think of clever ways in which to make it not work so well, then just crowd it out and make it uncomfortable. That is exactly what is happening.
I do not know on what basis people have their interviews for this place, when they are told, “We are thinking of putting you into the House of Lords”. But I was struck by the candid way in which my noble friend Lord Steel told us that when he led the Liberal Party he knew nothing about went on in your Lordships’ House, yet he had to put people up to come here. I shall have to ask him afterwards what the tenor was of the discussion that he had with these people. Obviously, he came to the right decision, because we had some jolly good people. But what is the tenor of the conversation now?
The noble Baroness was being extremely kind to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has done far worse than say that we should push on. He said that this place was a democratic outrage. His whole policy is based on his personal view, obviously, but I am very worried about this because it has caught on with my colleagues. A most charming colleague whom you all know but whom I shall not name, this week, in a moment of being tired and emotional, made a most curious attack—or what could be construed as an attack—on the Cross Benches. Any reform of your Lordships’ House without the Cross Benches is unthinkable. We have appointed Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and others, who have that inbuilt independence; they are intelligent and independent and will come to the right conclusions as individuals, as we hereditary Peers do. I was told by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill that I was being discriminatory even to raise that. I was not being discriminatory—we are all equal here—but I do think that hereditary Peers have an element of independence that is worth keeping.
It is the role of Parliament in properly holding the Executive to account that appeals to me. What angers me now is that it is getting increasingly difficult to do that. I shall stand up here, I hope, since I have voted twice against the coalition so far and have made myself seem to be a rebel. I do not think of myself as a rebel; I spent a long time on the Front Benches, and I could not understand why Lord Jenkins put me there, although we got on enormously well, but maybe it was to defuse my rebel instincts. I catch the eye of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. It may have been an accident, but when he was talking about having an independent aspect of 20, he said “perhaps” Cross-Benchers. Was it a mistake to say “perhaps”? Surely he means essentially Cross-Benchers?
This has been a fascinating debate. Everything has been said, and I shall not add anything further. The speeches have been extraordinary. I shall fight, personally, for rejecting an elected House in any form; the nation expects us to do the proper job that we do, within the powers and functions that we have, with the wonderful mixture that we have had in the past. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that we can adopt with profit the ending of the hereditary elections, so that it dies out by natural wastage. All the other things I agree with. I am not sure about leave of absence—that goes back to my comments on age, and so on. But since the noble Lord has got thus far with the principal points in his Bill, why do we not adopt them? I really cannot accept that we cannot go ahead with an interim step because the Government feel that we are likely to have an elected second Chamber. That is absolutely crazy. I leave it there.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for refining his Bill into ever more satisfying harmonies, echoed today by the sweetly plucked strings of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. I congratulate the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, on their very fine maiden speeches. Both of them have a deep knowledge of Parliament and of our institutions of government and will make invaluable contributions in your Lordships’ House.
I support entirely the purposes of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, in his Bill. I will refrain from repeating the case for an appointed as opposed to an elected House—we will have, I fear, all too many opportunities for that in 2011 and 2012—save for saying one thing. I believe that the tests of proposals for reform of your Lordships’ House should be that they would improve the performance and the reputation of Parliament. Proposals for an elected second Chamber would not improve either the performance or the reputation of Parliament. Proposals for an appointed House, reformed through the measures in this Bill, would, however, make us both more competent and more “respected revisers”—in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, drawing from Bagehot.
The Appointments Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, does very good work indeed as we have seen, for example, in its decision to recommend the appointment of the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today. Yet it is unsatisfactory, in principle, that the Appointments Commission is the creation of Downing Street and has to make up the rules as it goes along.
The Bill would legitimise the Appointments Commission. We will continue to need, for the foreseeable future at the very least, to have an Appointments Commission. The Bill would put it on a statutory footing and make its membership independent of Downing Street patronage. Appointments by the Speakers of both Houses would be above reproach. The criteria set out in Clause 5 for the appointment of new Peers and the guidelines that the Appointments Commission might follow, as dealt with in Clause 6, would both have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. That goes a long way towards dealing with the charge that an appointed House could not be legitimate in a democratic age. It is not a charge that I accept—there are other sources of legitimacy—but it deals pretty effectively with that point. In parenthesis, I hope that among the criteria which might be adopted by the Appointments Commission and approved by both Houses of Parliament would be that big donors to the political parties would be excluded from membership of your Lordships’ House. I hope that we can come to that once we have finally been able to tackle the funding of political parties.
Clause 8(1) also provides for transparency, in that the Appointments Commission would have to give reasons for why it proposed particular individuals for appointment to your Lordships’ House. Clause 8, as a whole, addresses real and important problems. Clause 8(2)(b) stipulates that,
“the Commission shall have regard to”,
the principle that,
“no one party, nor a coalition of parties forming a Government, shall have a majority of members in the House of Lords”.
It is damaging to the character of this House and to the quality of our proceedings that the coalition parties together now have a majority in this House. We stumbled accidentally, as is often the case with constitutional change in Britain, into something of a golden age in the period after 1999 with the emerging constitutional principle that neither the Government nor any other party should have a majority in this House. That has meant that the Government have had to win their case reasonably, by argument and not by force, but since the coalition parties have had a majority in this House they are able to bulldoze your Lordships’ House, and are doing so. We are becoming the upper House of the legislative sausage machine.
I wonder if the means by which this evil is to be eradicated, as set forth in the Bill, are almost too ingenious and elaborate. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has sat down at his computer to stress-test, as the bankers say, the compatibility of some of the different provisions in the Bill. It is not obvious to me how we would square the requirements that no one party should have a majority; that the majority of a coalition should be no more than 3 per cent of the membership of the House; that membership of your Lordships’ House, now well over 800, should be no larger in future than the House of Commons, whose membership may indeed be reduced to 600; and that this should be achieved within two full Parliaments, with the hereditaries departing one by one, decapitated by the Grim Reaper but not by any other means, and departures on permanent leave of absence being only voluntary. The measures in this complex section of the Bill are finely tuned but may possibly want some retuning in Committee.
I strongly approve of the principle that the Cross Benches should hold no less than 20 per cent of the membership of your Lordships’ House, but 20 per cent of 600 is only 120, a great many fewer than the 182 Cross-Benchers whose presence and companionship we value so much in our House at the moment. I would be happy to see the Cross-Benchers as a larger proportion of the House. The strengths of the House of Lords ought to complement those of the House of Commons, in that this House represents, in some real sense, the great interests of the land—professional, economic, social and spiritual. If we are to be an advisory House, then the authority and quality of our advice should be marked by professional authority, intellectual standing, specialist expertise, general experience and the reputation of the individuals who are Members of this House. Those are qualities that will not be supplied in any House of Parliament by election, but can be by appointment.
I favour the phased departure of the hereditary Peers, not least because I believe that there should be gratitude and courtesy in politics. It would be wrong for them to be removed summarily and brutally.
The provisions for permanent leave of absence address a pressing and important problem, made more important by the packing of this House by coalition patronage. In the 21st century, the principle of peerages for life is no more acceptable than the hereditary principle for membership of the legislature. Knowledge dates, and wisdom does not invariably grow with the years. The House will need new blood. We may need to find more effective means than are put forward in the Bill. Permanent leave of absence, as proposed in the Bill, should be given only to people who have volunteered for it. Clause 12 deals with those fail to attend, but it will be too easy for them to turn up for one day in a Session for five minutes only and escape that censure. We should not constrain the deliberations of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and his committee; there is no easy answer to this problem. It is a nettle that the House needs to grasp, and I am not convinced that Part 3, as it is, grasps it.
I hope that the coalition Front Bench will take time out from its conspiracy to create an artificial consensus between the Front Benches in support of an elected House to look at the real merits of the Bill, which is capable of further improvement, and will facilitate the passage into law of the Bill or, at least, of the provisions contained within it.
Lord Stewartby
My Lords, at this stage in the debate I do not want to go back over all the issues that have been discussed in what has been an exceptionally interesting debate so far, but I support the thanks that have been addressed to my noble friend Lord Steel for his tenacity and skill at keeping this subject before us and bringing forth, year after year—there seems to be an annual rhythm to these Bills—new aspects that need to be addressed.
As the great-grandson of one of the proposed Liberal Peers in Asquith’s list 100 years ago, I have always taken a great interest in constitutional change. Throughout that time, the position has been that it is so difficult that you should not really attempt it unless you cannot do anything else. Nothing I have heard this afternoon persuades me to think otherwise. I will therefore pick on a few points that have struck me, as the debate has proceeded, as needing a bit more emphasis.
First, legitimacy does not depend on election. It is thought by many to do so, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding, particularly when you have a fully appointed judiciary. To say for this one purpose that the only sort of validity you can have is electoral seems not only wrong, but to have unfortunate consequences. It makes people look at the future of the House of Lords as if it mattered not what the role of the House should be but rather what the nature of its Members should be. That is starting at the wrong end of the issue. We need to tackle this head on. People tend to imply that election is a magic democratic potion, but it is very different. Incidentally, if elected and unelected Houses are compared, why is the unelected House of Lords held in greater respect than the elected House of Commons? That is obviously an opinion, but one will find it frequently expressed.
There have been a number of references in the debate to the lack of understanding outside this place about what it actually does. One cannot point to a better illustration of that than remarks sometimes made by Members of another place who seem to think that reaction against the idea of an elected House of Lords is driven by personal concerns. That is not at all the impression I have got when discussing this subject over a longish time with many other colleagues. I do not believe that this House would object to anything which its Members felt was better than the present situation. That ought to be the necessary starting point. We have not got there yet, and there is a lack of understanding between the Houses on that issue.
There seems to be an increasing awareness in another place of the danger of creating a potential for endless squabbling between the Houses if they both have this so-called electoral legitimacy. There is no doubt that anyone elected to a second Chamber would want to demonstrate that it had not only good ideas, policies and so on, but that it could challenge the House of Commons as and when it thought fit. The present system will undoubtedly be changed in some way; we just do not know how. However, that is an important matter for individual Members of another place. They do not yet seem fully to have got behind it.
Finally, there is the question of why so many new peerages have been created, with more to come. This past week, several colleagues may have found themselves unable to get into the Chamber on a Division because of the press of numbers, despite an eight-minute timescale. That figure was set when Peers were much less numerous. Now Peers have to queue in the Lobby outside because they cannot get into the House to vote, which is a practical illustration of the sort of problems that are developing over this huge number of new arrivals.
I hope this debate will not have to be repeated in a year’s time but if it is, I feel confident that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, will take it forward in the way that he has done so successfully recently. We thank him for that.
Lord Desai
My Lords, here we go again with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and his Bill. I am reminded of the famous tenor who sang at La Scala. He received a thundering encore for his aria, and then another, and then another. Finally he said, “Signori, signore, I cannot go on. I am exhausted”. Someone from high above said, “You will sing until you get it right”. That may be the message to the noble Lord, Lord Steel. My views on House of Lords reform are well known and I shall not repeat them in full. I believe in a wholly elected Chamber because, like most other noble Lords, I believe in the primacy of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons has decided that it wants a substantially elected Chamber, so be it.
As my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe said, while I do not doubt the sufficiency of the Steel Bill, I am not persuaded of its necessity. I have lost faith in the coalition’s ability and good will on reform of the House of Lords. It may be a strange thing to say but the coalition has dilly-dallied and I am not sure that its Bill will appear by February or March. As my noble friend Lord Wills said, the timetable for this is increasingly beginning to look impossible. I have always believed—and have said so before in your Lordships’ House—that no Bill for the reform of the House can pass unless the Government are willing to use the Parliament Act 1949. It will take two rounds. It is the declared intention of the Liberal Democrat members of the Cabinet not to vote for a Bill that they have themselves put forward in another place, so who knows? Will the Lib Dems vote for the House of Lords Reform Bill? If they do, will the Conservatives vote with them or will they say, “You voted against higher education fees so we are going out this way”. It is chaotic. We will all spend much good time—I would love to speak yet again—on the House of Lords Reform Bill but I do not believe that the coalition is serious. After wasting two years on this, we will have to fall back on this substitute, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, said in his excellent maiden speech. That is why I believe we should take this Bill seriously, as I do.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which is itself an uncommon event, in his rejection of Part 2 of the Bill. I agree with him that you cannot achieve substantial constitutional reform through a Private Member’s Bill. I also agree that a pact was made with the hereditary Peers to accept the retention of 92 of their number on the condition that they would all go when the full reform was completed. It was not a matter of by-elections; they would all go. However, under Part 2 of the Steel Bill, they will stay until the Grim Reaper does his job. I prefer to wait and see them all go together, perhaps with a silver or golden handshake.
As my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, has said, Clause 8 is very interesting. We ought to pay attention to it as it says something about the total size of the House. I am impressed that the Deputy Prime Minister so hates the House of Lords that he has decided to add more and more people to it. I do not know whether this is how he takes revenge on his friends, but he is clearly adding lots of Liberal Democrats to the House, so he must hate it very much indeed. Therefore, I wish him luck if it is abolished. I am sure that there is a misprint in Clause 8(7)—I say that as I am trying to prove that I have read the Bill diligently—and that it should refer to “subsection (2)(c)” rather than to “subsection (2)(5)”. That is my signal contribution. That is what happens when you are an academic; the first thing you do to prove that you have read essays is to find all the typos in them.
I am somewhat against coercive retirement. I am glad that Clause 12(2) enables Peers to explain their absence from the House. It may be due to illness, for example. As Clause 12(1) does not say something like, “fails to attend without reasonable cause”, Clause 12(2) is essential as it would allow Peers to explain that there are legitimate reasons for their absence. Clause 13 is too harsh. Peers who have taken voluntary permanent leave of absence or who are ejected, as it were, for one reason or another, should be allowed to retain club rights. That could act as an incentive to take voluntary permanent leave of absence.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, has introduced the Bill for the fourth time and my calculations show that at least two more years will elapse before we deal with it seriously. However, I wish him God speed with it. Perhaps, before I reach the age of 75 in five years’ time, the Steel Bill will be passed.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I find myself in the unenviable position of being one of the last speakers to contribute to the debate. However, the brilliant and learned maiden speeches to which we have been treated are a hard act for any of us to follow. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said, save only that I do not see the Bill as a symphony; rather, I see it as scratching at two itches—overcrowding and political balance.
I declare an interest as one who was appointed to your Lordships' House by the existing House of Lords Appointments Commission. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that it does a good job. As background to the Bill, I call attention to the pride that we take in this House and its history, which leads me to think that we must—as the Bill does—identify, root out and punish misconduct, and be seen to do so. We must police ourselves; other measures do not seem to work.
The country needs to have confidence in this organ of government. Confidence is not the same as trust. Trust is belief that is not necessarily evidence based; confidence is generated by proof of sound governance in relation to past behaviour and guarantees about the future. In saying this, however, I remind myself of the very persuasive thesis of my noble friend Lady O'Neill, whose Reith Lectures in 2002, “A Question of Trust”, were so prescient. She said:
“Perhaps the culture of accountability that we are relentlessly building for ourselves actually damages trust rather than supporting it”.
She said that, in the end, there has to be some trust. That trust would be enhanced by taking the measures in this Bill, which would demonstrate that this House deserves the confidence of the nation.
We have to ask in what way this House could improve itself. We could certainly do so by talking not about an elected House but about its status quo. Hence, Part 4 of the Bill should, for the avoidance of doubt, include the power to suspend or even expel Members for breaches of the Code of Conduct and the expenses rules, even if they do not necessarily amount to criminal conduct. Clause 5, which sets out the criteria for appointment, should have added to it the willingness to abide by and understand the code. Arguably, the conditions for termination of membership in Part 4 are too narrow.
There is a welcome reminder of diversity in Clause 5(4). Appointment to this House is the best way to get more women and minorities into government, since the House of Commons has not wholly succeeded in that aim and the electoral process will always make that difficult. It is noticeable that recent political appointments to this House include relatively few women. Since January 2003, there have been 215 purely party-political appointments to this House, of which 150 are men and 65—that is, less than half—are women. That is a foretaste of what an elected House would be like: it would be more male and probably have fewer disabled Members. It cannot but be welcome that the statutory commission proposed in the Bill would be responsible for filtering all appointments, including political recommendations. That would certainly put a stop to any suspicions in the media about donations and peerages. The requirement of “conspicuous merit” as a criterion in Clause 5(2)(a) would serve as a comfort and guarantee to those nominated.
Genuine democracy would be strengthened by the provisions in Clause 8, which seek to ensure that no one party or coalition would have a majority by appointments and that the government party should have only a small majority. That would serve to ensure genuine debate, for which this House is best suited. The Cross-Benchers would continue to play their important part in standing by whatever argument in debate is the most convincing and in voting accordingly. However, the more influential the Cross-Benchers are, the more one hears disparaging remarks elsewhere in the House about the way in which they split or how they can be unpredictable. That is the most important and heartening element of the Cross Benches and the most attractive to the outside world. There is nothing more disheartening than seeing a majority put together by those who have not thought for themselves about the implications of what they are doing. That charge can never be made against Members of the Cross Benches, who set a lead in terms of quality and action that the Bill would confirm.
A statutory commission with overarching control over the membership ought to have the power to achieve what has been called for on all sides—namely, a moratorium on new appointments. Not only is the membership of this House too large, the struggle by each party to gain proportional representation equates with an attempt to secure an elected House by other means. A cap at around 700 Members would be a good start. In approving appointments on conspicuous merit, a requirement to reflect proportionality as represented in the results of the most recent election should not be a factor, although proportionality in a cohort of appointments might be.
Your Lordships are well acquainted with the arguments for and against paying Members of this House for their services, on which we have recently been through a review. I advert to the issue because it is linked with retirement and the need to move people along at a certain age. We have reformed our expenses regime in reaction to recent events, so this is not the time to change it again, but, sadly, we will not attract younger Members without providing recompense for what they may have to give up in their professional lives in order to attend. Expenses is an unpopular issue, and one of the strengths of this House is its relative economic efficiency. However, candidates are excluded if they cannot afford to attend, especially if they do not live in London. I hope that the statutory commission, when it comes about, can promote the viability of membership of this House among those who live outside London and who therefore necessarily incur extra expense.
I support the Bill because it recognises that the strength of this House is its expertise, its dedication and its understanding of its relative place in the constitution alongside the House of Commons. The House provides government through expertise, dedication to civil liberties, experience and passion to get it right. The House can be a great forum for the scrutiny of the Executive only if it has recognised competence, integrity and authority, which this Bill could enshrine in the House’s membership. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, is to be congratulated on persisting with this worthy reform.
Lord Palmer
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to intervene in the gap, albeit that I had hoped to be well north of the border by now.
I feel very privileged to have heard the maiden speech of my former MP, the most noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and indeed that of my noble friend Lord Hennessy. Like others, I applaud my neighbour and friend of many years, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood.
I wish to make only one point, concerning the hereditary by-elections. It is important to remember that nobody ever thought that by-elections would come into existence, in that in the early days we relied on the top-up scenario. We 90 plus two were elected to remain in situ until stage two of the reforms was implemented. I shall strongly resist any proposal to remove that part of the 1999 Act and shall support any amendment to that effect in Committee.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on his perseverance in bringing this Bill—his fourth effort—to your Lordships’ House. I very much look forward to his fifth effort in the next Parliament.
All of us who have taken part in the debates on the noble Lord’s Bills have many happy memories of past Fridays spent debating the details. Assuming that we give it a Second Reading today, I hope that the noble Lord will seek to bring his Bill into Committee at an early stage. From the debate that we have had today, it is clear that there are some very interesting and detailed matters to be discussed.
In a previous life, I sat where the noble Baroness is sitting. I say to her that I felt I did not always enjoy the unanimous support of my noble friends behind me on this issue, but I was always compensated by the sight of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, enjoying similar treatment at the hands of his Back-Benchers. Alas, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has retreated from the field of battle but we welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, who is taking his place this afternoon.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am so sorry. I am already overcome by the tension in winding up on the noble Lord’s Bill.
I also welcome the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and congratulate them on their excellent maiden speeches. I hope that they will contribute to our future debates on Lords reform, and I am sure they will find one or two more opportunities to do so in the months ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, deserves congratulation on finally persuading the previous Government to allow for retirements and ending hereditary Peer by-elections. It was disappointing in the wash-up that the Conservative Party would not agree to those provisions going through. I suspect that it now wishes that it had allowed them, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, would not now have the arduous task of helping the House to come to a view on how noble Lords might be encouraged to leave your Lordships’ House. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is now hopeful, as he is now in the coalition, that his colleagues in that Government will be somewhat more sympathetic to him than they were in the past, and we very much look forward to hearing the noble Baroness perhaps saying that she accepts the principle of the Bill.
I do not think that there can be any doubt about the Government’s concern about the size of your Lordships’ House. That is why a Leader’s Group has been established, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I also have the honour to serve under him and we are examining ways of encouraging Members to leave your Lordships’ House. Our first report was published on 3 November, which shows that the great majority of noble Lords who responded to the consultation felt that there needed to be some way by which Members could leave the House permanently in order to reduce the size of the House. Other noble Lords have commented that the report also makes it clear that primary legislation is required to allow that to happen. The Leader’s Group will of course continue its work, although I think we might need to take account of the five tests of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
One cannot help pointing out the irony of the situation in which we find ourselves. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, is evidently concerned about its size and has asked the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to lead a group to see how it can be reduced. On the other hand, he has presided over a massive increase in the appointment of life Peers. We are promised many more. Indeed, as a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, pointed out, only two days ago we had the promise from the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He reiterated the coalition Government’s intention to have a second Chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the general election. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, quoted from the work of Meg Russell, who estimates that if that were to be the case we would end up with a House of 977 Members. Apart from the sheer impracticality of that, it would make reform much harder to achieve. It certainly would make the transition arrangements much more difficult.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that there is method to this. He believes that it is the coalition Government’s intention to show that the House of Lords is not working and that is why more substantive reform should take place. I have another view on why the coalition Government want to create many more Peers. Earlier in this wonderful debate, we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who talked about the impact and effectiveness of this House as a revising Chamber. However, we are in different circumstances. Already we see that with the size of the coalition Benches, and the evident intention of the Government to create dozens of new Peers on top of that is to ensure that they cannot be defeated in your Lordships’ House. The problem is that I do not think this House can do its job effectively if the Executive are virtually guaranteed to win every vote that takes place. You cannot be a revising Chamber unless you can revise. You cannot revise unless you have a decent chance of defeating the Government from time to time.
Let us consider the Public Bodies Bill, which gives draconian Henry VIII powers to Ministers. Noble Lords on all sides of the House know that it is a bad Bill. They also know that if my party in government had produced the Bill, it would have been ripped to shreds. There will be a test of the coalition partners in this House over the next few weeks. A number of Peers from the coalition parties have told me of their horror at the Bill. Unless it is substantially changed, how can this House claim to be an effective revising Chamber?
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, clearly recognises that. I acknowledge the careful drafting that he has undertaken. A number of noble Lords referred to Clause 8(2), in which the noble Lord sets out that a coalition of parties forming a Government shall not have a majority of Members in the House of Lords. He goes on to state that in the event of a coalition, the largest party in the coalition shall be entitled to a larger number of Members than the Official Opposition but that the majority of the larger party should normally be no more than three per cent over the Official Opposition party. Clearly, the noble Lord has gone into this matter carefully. I ask him nonetheless whether a coalition, whatever parties are it, would still have an effective majority because of the relatively low voting turnout of the Cross-Benchers. I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who spoke of the careful judgments made by Cross-Benchers when they come to vote. However, their turnout is roughly 20 per cent, compared with the turnout of Members of the main parties, which is more than 50 per cent. This is a matter for consideration in Committee but it is a factor when one comes to a view about getting the right balance between the parties and the Cross-Benchers in your Lordships' House. I would suggest having more Cross-Benchers, but of course we are trying to reduce the number of noble Lords.
The Earl of Erroll
Perhaps I may suggest that the important thing is that, when all Cross-Benchers vote in one direction, it shows that one side has got it wrong. It is not the regularity of the voting that matters, but certain critical votes in which the Cross-Benchers really show that someone has got it wrong.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is a significant point, although in the end the numbers count as well. The matter is one for Committee.
I would also appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on Clause 1, which ensures that only the commission can make recommendations to the Crown for the appointment of new life Peers. Will he clarify whether, when it comes to party leaders’ appointments, he expects the commission to be able to choose from the nominees put forward by the party leaders, or whether it will simply accept the number of names on the list that it has asked for. I note that in Clause 9 the commission has to satisfy itself about the procedures to be followed by the party leaders. I have some reservations about what is essentially a quango, however august, having to look into the procedures of the political parties. I have concerns about the consequences, but that is more a matter for Committee than it is in terms of the principles of the Bill.
I turn to the most important matter—the relationship between the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the committee on Lords reform chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister. I detected in the initial words of the noble Lord that he thinks that the Government's timetable might be slipping and he therefore argues that there is a strong case for passing his Bill in the interim. I suspect that the interim period could be anything from two to 200 years. Will the noble Baroness say what the current timetable is? When do the Government expect to bring forward a substantive Bill following pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses? Does she believe that it is the Government’s intention to seek consensus with your Lordships' House after they publish a draft Bill or are they prepared to use the Parliament Acts? What is Her Majesty's Government’s intention on the transitional arrangements? Is she prepared to give a definitive definition of what “grandfathering” actually means? Finally, can she assure me that powers will be looked at by the Deputy Prime Minister’s group?
I am pro-reform and have consistently voted for an elected House, but I am convinced that the powers of an elected Chamber will need to be codified. My noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Wills made that point. I am convinced that the House’s current notional powers will have to be reduced if primacy is to be retained by the House of Commons. Under a mostly or wholly elected second Chamber, the current conventions will not hold for one moment because they are constraints voluntarily adopted by a House that understands itself to lack the legitimacy of election. It is abundantly clear that an elected House will not operate within those conventions. I believe that my party was also unrealistic on this matter, but simply to maintain that an elected House can live alongside the voluntary conventions we have is impractical and, in the end, it is dishonest about what an elected House will achieve in future.
We will be interested in the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Steel. For our part, we wish the noble Lord well and look forward to debating this Bill in Committee on many Fridays to come.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to respond to this debate on your Lordships' House, so I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for providing this opportunity to debate his Bill. I shall start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Lothian and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, on their wonderful and thoughtful maiden speeches. The noble Lords bring great expertise and value to this House and will be huge assets. As we progress with this Bill, we will have more opportunities to hear from them.
My noble friend Lord Steel’s proposals relate to issues presently under consideration by the cross-party committee chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister. I will try to respond to the points raised today, but if I fail to do so because of lack of time, I will write to noble Lords. A number of the measures put forward demonstrate a sense of shared purpose with the objectives of this Government, which is why it is so valuable to hear the views of noble Lords in this debate.
The Government are committed to bringing forward proposals for a mainly or wholly elected second Chamber—I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on that—and the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear that reform of this House is a priority for the Government. The Bill puts forward proposals in the context of a wholly appointed House, so the Government are obliged to express reservations about the Bill. Notwithstanding that, each of its four substantive parts represents a commendable contribution to the debate about reform of this House.
In the debate in June, my noble friend Lord Steel stated that his objective had been, not to have his Private Member’s Bill passed during the previous Sessions in which he has introduced it, but to bring pressure to bear on the Government to act on the issues. Let me reassure noble Lords that this Government are taking action and will publish a draft Bill early next year. There will be an opportunity to examine the draft Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, that Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers will be given ample opportunity to feed in their views at that stage.
I turn first to Part 1 of the Bill, which would provide for a statutory Appointments Commission. The Government recognise that there are good arguments for placing the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis and that a number of such proposals have been made over the years, including by the Wakeham commission in 2000. There are several important considerations that the Government are compelled to take into account when considering the provisions in the Bill for a statutory Appointments Commission that would apply to a fully appointed House. Moreover, the provisions would establish the system of appointments more firmly in legislation. Let me remind noble Lords that reform of this House is a priority, but an Appointments Commission designed for a fully appointed House may have a useful life of only a few years.
Some noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rennard, may consider that taking this Bill forward would set the ball rolling on reform and that the provisions on a statutory Appointments Commission could be adapted in the event that they are needed in a reformed second Chamber. It is of course possible that the cross-party committee will come forward with other recommendations—
Lord Lea of Crondall
Will the noble Baroness confirm that this Bill is not about an elected House, so the role that the proposed statutory Appointments Commission would have vis-à-vis the parties, is not to be judged on how the commission might relate to an elected House?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, if the noble Lord lets me make progress, he will see that I shall address the point that he has just raised. It is of course possible that the cross-party committee will come forward with proposals for a statutory Appointments Commission if it decides in favour of a mainly elected second Chamber. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, that the cross-party committee has not decided whether the proposals will make provision for a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber.
It is unlikely, however, that adapting the Part 1 provisions on a statutory Appointments Commission to fit alongside proposals for a mainly elected second Chamber could be done without very significant amendment to the legislation. We note, for example, that the provisions of this Bill provide a role for the statutory Appointments Commission to make political appointments. The cross-party committee may decide that the political balance should be determined by the outcome of votes cast in elections to a reformed second Chamber and that the Appointments Commission should be involved solely in non-political appointments.
There remain many fundamental decisions yet to be made by the cross-party committee, including whether an Appointments Commission will be needed, whether it should be statutory, and what its role and functions would be. The Government therefore consider that it would be an ineffective use of parliamentary time to take these provisions forward at this time.
The provisions in Part 2 provide for any vacancy resulting from the death of a hereditary Peer to remain unfilled. In this way, the hereditary Peers would eventually be phased out. There has been speculation among noble Lords that proposals for the reform of this House will allow all Peers to remain for life. This has been prompted by the reference in the coalition agreement to,
“a grandfathering system for current Peers”.
However, the intention set out in the agreement was much broader—simply that there should be an orderly transition where existing Members and newly elected or appointed Members would work together to ensure the exchange of expertise and knowledge from the current House to new Members of a reformed second Chamber. The cross-party committee has yet to come forward with proposals to take this intention forward. Among other things, the committee will need to consider the implications for the size of the second Chamber and its ability to continue to function effectively. However, I can tell my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that it is not yet possible to say whether the committee will decide that hereditary Peers should leave the second Chamber during the transition period in the manner proposed by my noble friend Lord Steel in Part 2 of the Bill.
The provisions in Part 3 on permanent leave of absence provide that this House would be able by standing order to make provision for Members to cease membership upon application, and that absence during the course of a Session which exceeds three months’ duration would result in loss of membership.
The Government recognise that the present size of the House is a long-standing concern to its Members. Many have cited practical considerations for desiring a smaller House, such as the shortage of seats in the Chamber and the demands on the House facilities and administration. There is also concern for the reputation of the House in view of the proportion of Members who do not attend regularly yet fail to avail themselves of the leave of absence scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked about the number of Peers created by the former Prime Minister. I can confirm that from 1997 to May 2010, the Labour Party then created 203 Labour Peers, 84 Conservative Peers and 64 Liberal Democrat Peers. The number of Peers to be created in the future is, of course, a matter for the Prime Minister. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that even when all new Peers are introduced, his party will have 244 Peers, the Cross Benches 183 and the coalition combined 316.
The Leader’s Group on Members leaving the House, chaired by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, was established to identify possible options for Members to terminate their membership and leave the House. Its interim report, published on 3 November, set out the views received from its consultation of Members and was debated by the House last month. The views put forward include those options which my noble friend Lord Steel proposes in his Bill. The cross-party committee is carefully considering the work of the Leader’s Group. This debate has provided a further opportunity for the committee to hear Members’ views on the issue of Members leaving this House. The views expressed by Members and the findings of the group will assist the committee in coming forward with proposals on transitional arrangements for the move from the present House to a mainly or wholly elected second Chamber.
It is possible to conclude that so far there is no clear consensus on options for ending membership in the present House. Proposals on both voluntary and compulsory options have been put forward. While the responses received by the Leader’s Group showed popular support for an attendance provision, alternative options presented include retirement on the grounds of age or length of service. There are differences of opinion concerning the relative merits and disadvantages of the options, and these will require further consideration.
I turn to the provisions in Part 4 on expulsion for those convicted of serious criminal offences. The Bill provides that anyone found guilty and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained for more than a year or indefinitely shall cease to be a Member of this House. It is right that such important issues are addressed. The good name of this House is important to all of us who serve in it. The Government recognise this and want to ensure that the House has the ability to safeguard its reputation. We must all have confidence in the probity of our legislators. We must also have confidence in our ability to deal with those whose conduct is judged to have fallen below the standards expected.
The Government recognise this and the House has acted swiftly when confronted with controversy. Only a few weeks ago, the House agreed to three suspension Motions. However, I am sure we would all agree that we need to have more robust sanctions at our disposal. That is why the cross-party committee is considering provisions to address improper conduct and conduct leading to a serious criminal conviction. I am sure there is widespread agreement among Members of all parties and groups on the need to act in this area.
We should do this, however, in the context of the reform of your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked whether the Government would bring forward early legislation on this issue. The Government are acting; we are producing a draft Bill. The previous Government had 13 years in which to take forward the suggestions that the noble Baroness makes. My noble friend Lord Higgins does not believe that there should be a mandatory referendum on the voting system for the other place. The Government believe that the choice of voting systems has profound implications for the country. A referendum giving voters a direct say on this issue is crucial.
The noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, called for the conventions to be codified. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, raised the related issue of money Bills. I understand that the group proposed by the previous Government did not meet. I can reassure noble Lords that the cross-party committee is considering conventions, including whether it is necessary to codify them.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel and all noble Lords for their excellent contributions to this debate. I felt very much like the stand-in conductor in the symphony. I have learnt very quickly that your Lordships' House is a place of great learning on subjects with which I am not overly familiar. Therefore, I take this opportunity to ask noble Lords for forgiveness if I have not covered all the points in the detail that they would have wanted, but if there are any outstanding questions, I assure noble Lords that they will be answered through written processes and copies put in the Library. Members of both Houses on all sides, and with all the different views that they may have, will have an opportunity to discuss the proposals on reform during pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill to be published early next year. I for one will take an even greater interest in the debates held then.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I think that everyone will agree that this has been a very interesting debate. In fact, I have to say that, of all the debates on my Bill, this has been much the most interesting and constructive, because there has been much more agreement on the need for the measures that it proposes than has been exhibited in the past.
I do not propose to refer to everybody’s speeches, because, for me, it is not a question of when I get home but whether I get home, and I am anxious to make a move as soon as possible. However, it was quite interesting that, out of the 25 speeches, we had only two which were opposed to the Bill. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that I have much more sympathy with their arguments than they would suppose, because a perfectly good case can be made out for scrapping the House of Lords as it is and having instead a small senate, on the American pattern, which would then be a complement and a competitor to the House of Commons. But that would mean a rewriting of the conventions on a much larger scale even than we have been contemplating up till now. That circumstance would lead us ever closer towards a written constitution, which I am in favour of, and would mean, I suspect, a resumption of financial powers of that senate, which we do not have at the moment.
However, that is a debate for another day. My Bill does not cut across such an eventuality if that is what were decided. The cheerful thing about this debate is that more and more Members have come round to the view that these provisions are necessary and that we would like to explore them further.
The debate was greatly enhanced by two quite outstanding maiden speeches, from my noble friend Lord Lothian and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. Strangely enough, they seemed to dovetail in their approach. My noble friend spoke very wisely about the principles of governance which should direct us, while the noble Lord was very instructive on the history and updating us to what he called a Chamber of “respected revisers”, a very different view from that put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. The question is how we update our composition and procedures to make that more a reality.
Lord Trefgarne
I am not opposed to my noble friend’s Bill as a matter of principle, except for the passage on the removal of the hereditary Peer by-elections. The other passages have some short-comings, but perhaps they can be improved in Committee.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, along with one or two others, questioned the precise drafting of the statutory commission proposals. I had some sympathy with his view that it should be more open and transparent, perhaps on the lines of the United States. I am very sympathetic to any amendments that may come forward along those lines when we get to Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, raised the whole question of democratic accountability, which again I think is the debate that we are still to address.
I particularly welcomed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, because he is a conversion to support for the Bill. He was quite right that we should retain the same sort of occasional club rights that we have for the hereditary Peers who have gone. My Bill does not in any way trespass on that.
The important thing that we have to recognise is that two things will happen, whatever happens to this Bill. There are two pieces of work going on that this Bill does not trespass on and which I would argue it assists. One is the work of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and his committee. They have to continue that work, even under the proposals of my Bill, which would provide the primary legislation that the report recommended, because the House of Lords would still have to come forward with a standing order. The details of that obviously have to be worked out in conjunction with the Government. My Bill does not trespass on that work or on the work of the cross-party committee, to which frequent reference has been made.
I very much welcomed the very honest speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, at the beginning of the debate, when she talked about the time that would be required to bring forward the Bill for prelegislative scrutiny. The combination of what she said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said makes me more and more anxious about how long this is going to take. We now discover that they have not yet decided whether it is to be a wholly or mainly elected House. Well, hang on a minute, that is a pretty fundamental issue. If we have not got past that gate, how long is it going to take? The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who is a member of the committee, underlined my point when she talked about the Bill being introduced in the spring. That is the latest definition that we have had. The spring is an elastic thing; it could be late April, I suppose, but it was to happen before Christmas. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked about the number of issues that the committee was still considering and deciding. I do not see the Bill coming forward for prelegislative scrutiny for some considerable time. With the amount of time that it will take for the prelegislative scrutiny to take place and then the actual introduction of the Bill, it will be very long indeed.
On previous occasions, I gave up on this Bill after one Committee stage. That is why I referred to four debates. This is the third Second Reading, but we also had a Committee day. I saw no point in going on with those days because the Bill was being obstructed, but if there is consensus in the House that we need these measures, let us put it into Committee and try and fine-tune it before passing it on to the other place. We can say, “Look, this Chamber is willing to see reforms”. While these more fundamental issues are still being discussed, let us send it down to the other end of the building and see what the House of Commons makes of it. I hope that it will be sympathetic. For that reason, I beg to move.