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
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions she has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on the implementation in Wales of the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The Secretary of State and I have a wide range of discussions with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers on a range of issues relevant to Wales. The Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010 will come into force in England and Wales on 8 April 2011. It will prevent people under the age of 18 from using sunbeds on commercial premises by making it an offence for sunbed operators to provide access.
Mrs James
I thank the Under-Secretary for that answer. As he is aware, my former colleague, Julie Morgan, the previous Member for Cardiff North, and I fought long and hard for the Act. It is vital that we stop under-age use of sunbeds. The Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales is determined to introduce the principle as a matter of urgency. The introduction of the Act on an England and Wales basis is vital. I urge the Under-Secretary to press UK Ministers for action and to keep the issue at the forefront of the public health debate.
Mr Jones
I commend the efforts of the hon. Lady and Ms Julie Morgan in drawing this important public health issue to our attention. As the hon. Lady is aware, the Welsh Assembly Government intend to introduce regulations in 2011 further to regulate sunbed businesses in Wales only, on which they are consulting. This significant measure is aimed at protecting young people, but it also concerns a public health issue for older people. Sunbeds pose a cancer risk and, to be frank, frequently do not produce a very good look.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
2. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the level of employment in Wales.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
7. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the level of employment in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on the level of employment in Wales. I am pleased that for the past three months in Wales, unemployment figures have fallen while employment has risen—positive signs that our approach is working.
John Howell
Nobody would wish to be complacent, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the good news on employment in Wales is an indication that the hard choices we have made about the economy are working for Wales?
Mrs Gillan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have had to make hard choices. We are rebalancing and strengthening the economy by cutting the mountain of debt that the previous Government left us, in order to improve our economic prospects and ensure that more jobs can be created in Wales and across the United Kingdom.
Stuart Andrew
My birthplace of Anglesey is no stranger to the difficult economic times we have had, particularly given the loss of hundreds of jobs at Anglesey Aluminium Metals. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage employment on Anglesey and across north Wales?
Mrs Gillan
I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of the House agree that the job losses at Anglesey Aluminium Metals were a great blow to the Anglesey economy. I am delighted—and, as an Anglesey boy, my hon. Friend will know—that the life of Wylfa power station has been extended by two years. The site is one of eight across the UK that have been shortlisted for future nuclear generation. That would ensure good employment for the people of Anglesey and north Wales, and I am sure that all hon. Members hope it will come to fruition.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Of course, those decisions about Anglesey were taken by the Labour Government and supported by the excellent MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). I wish the Secretary of State and all at the Wales Office festive greetings. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates show that the actions of her Government will result in tens of thousands of public sector job losses in Wales. How many of those will involve women?
Mrs Gillan
I wish the shadow Secretary of State a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year, and I thank him for his kind greetings. We are certainly not complacent and any job losses are to be regretted. We were pleased, however, that the OBR’s original 490,000 forecast for the reduction in public sector staff came down to 330,000 in last week’s forecast. I am sure that he will want to welcome that reduction of 160,000.
Mr Hain
I find it astonishing that the Secretary of State has no idea of the number of women in Wales who will lose their jobs as a result of the public sector cuts implemented by her Government. Women make up fully three quarters of public sector workers in Wales, including at Newport passport office, which is being so shamefully closed. The highly respected Fawcett Society is so incensed at the punitive impact on women of Government cuts that it even tried to challenge them in the High Court. As the first woman Secretary of State for Wales, is she proud of her Government’s attitude to Welsh women?
Mrs Gillan
The Government have considered all the possible impacts on women, and many of the changes that we have made to support small companies, for example, will help women, because women are much more likely to work part time. The shadow Secretary of State has misled the House, and—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State must not accuse any right hon. or hon. Member of misleading the House. She has a lot of experience, and I know that she will correct what she has just said.
Mrs Gillan
Of course I will correct it, Mr Speaker. The shadow Secretary of State is possibly in danger of misleading the House, because he knows quite well that Newport passport office has not yet been closed and that we have already secured the front-of-house services for it, which will save up to 45 jobs. In 2008, his Government did exactly the same thing to the passport office in Glasgow, so I will take no lessons from him.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
3. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on policing in Wales.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
4. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on policing in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
Effective policing in Wales is of the utmost importance to the coalition Government. Both the Secretary of State and I have had regular discussions with Cabinet and ministerial colleagues on matters affecting policing and law and order in Wales.
Simon Hart
The Minister will be aware of the crucial strategic importance of the Milford Haven waterway as an energy hub serving every constituency in the land. Will he assure the House that Dyfed-Powys police will have the long-term resources necessary to protect that vital asset?
Mr Jones
The Government recognise the strategic importance of Milford Haven and indeed of all other Welsh ports, and we will work closely with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that appropriate support is provided in future. Future funding for counter-terrorism policing has been protected as far as possible in the spending review because of the nature of the threat.
Steve Baker
I am sure that Welsh police will welcome the Government’s refreshing approach. What else will the Minister do to liberate Welsh police from bureaucracy and get them back on the beat?
Mr Jones
The Government are indeed keen to throw off the legacy of bureaucracy. As a result of the bureaucratic element of Labour policing policy, police officers were left impotent behind desks. Last year under Labour, just 14% of all police officers’ time was spent on patrol, compared with 22% on paperwork.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister saying during the election campaign that he thought police community support officers did a good job and that we should have more of them? Does he agree, and if so, what representations is he making to ensure that Wales does not lose out on PCSOs?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The chief constable of Dyfed-Powys police recently wrote to me outlining the fact that the consequence of the comprehensive spending review for the force would be at least a 20% cut in real terms—a £10 million loss to the budget. With 83% of costs relating to staffing, will that inevitably lead to cuts in front-line policing and a reduction in the quality of service provided in the communities I represent?
Mr Jones
Again, I have to say that the issue of staffing must be one for individual police forces. The Government are trying to be sensitive about the cuts that are necessary as a consequence of the appalling economic legacy that has been left to the country by the Labour party.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
Further to the previous question, what representations has the Minister made on the future of the rural policing grant as it affects Dyfed-Powys? The grant is currently £2.64 million and there are real concerns about the implications of any change for the delivery of front-line protection.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Minister and the Secretary of State say that individual police forces will be responsible for the cuts that they have to make. However, they will know that North Wales police—overall crime in the area reduced by 40% under the Labour Government—now faces cuts of perhaps 230 officers from 1,600, and 160 police community support officers. If crime increases from the current record lows in north Wales, will the Minister and Secretary of State blame the chief constable?
Mr Jones
Before I answer that question, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being awarded the accolade of “one to watch” in the ITV Wales political awards? I can assure him that I am indeed watching him.
The hon. Gentleman’s point has been well rehearsed, but I would rather rely on the chief constable of North Wales, who has given an assurance that the force will continue to protect the public and provide a service in which the public can be confident.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
5. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on arrangements in Wales to mark the diamond jubilee of HM the Queen.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
The Government are closely involved in the plans to celebrate Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee in 2012. A special four-day jubilee weekend will be held over the first week of June 2012, and other events will be announced in due course.
Andrew Rosindell
Does the Secretary of State agree that all parts of the UK should play their part in ensuring that the celebration of the Queen’s 60th anniversary as head of state is a momentous occasion? Will she outline what her Department is doing to work with the Welsh authorities and others to ensure that the jubilee is truly a momentous occasion?
Mrs Gillan
The jubilee will be a truly historic occasion, and certainly a great testament to the hard work and dedication of Her Majesty the Queen to this country and her people. The people of Wales will be able to play their full part in it. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are working closely with Buckingham palace and the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that the Welsh public are given every opportunity to celebrate the jubilee.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am absolutely certain that large numbers of people in my constituency will want to celebrate the 60th anniversary, just as they did the 50th anniversary. However, I urge the Secretary of State to speak to the police and health service in Wales, because on the last long weekend when we had two bank holidays together several young people in the Rhondda died from drug overdoses, many of them because they were given their methadone for the Monday and Tuesday on the Friday beforehand. Will she ensure that we do not repeat those problems?
Mrs Gillan
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that problem, because I was not aware of it. Certainly, that would be sad at a time of celebration. He will be aware that the Government are publishing our new drug strategy, and I will ensure that that problem is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the strategy. We will take action on that front, but perhaps he could help me by writing to me so that I can take the matter up properly.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
6. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on welfare reform in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about a range of issues relevant to Wales. The Government have set out our plans to introduce legislation radically to reform the welfare system by creating a new universal credit, which will simplify the system, make work pay and combat worklessness and poverty in Wales and throughout Britain.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
With simplification, there is always the danger of people falling outside categories, and therefore of gross injustices. Will the Minister have a word with the Work and Pensions Secretary about boosting the face-to-face advice that is available from the Department for Work and Pensions, especially in rural areas? That would be a great step forward.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that the number of claimants for jobseeker’s allowance in Brecon and Radnorshire has dropped by 25%. Does he agree that that is to do with the resilience of small manufacturing companies such as Beacon Foods—which I visited on Monday—coming through the recession in the way they have?
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the impact on constituents of mine in Bridgend of the lowering of mortgage interest relief for those on benefits from the previous rate of 6.8% to 3.67%? A constituent of mine who has a mortgage at a rate of 5.85% has a shortfall of £236 a month, which is getting him increasingly into debt and he faces losing his property. What help can be offered to people such as my constituent?
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
8. What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister on the proposed referendum on law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
I have had regular discussions with the First Minister on the proposed referendum. I can confirm that this Government have delivered on their commitment to hold a referendum on further powers for the National Assembly for Wales in the first quarter of next year. The legal instruments setting out the arrangements for the referendum to take place on 3 March 2011 were approved by Parliament and will be considered at the Privy Council meeting later this month.
Mrs Gillan
The Wales Office will remain strictly neutral throughout the referendum process, but it is right to consider and prepare now for the outcome, whether it be a yes vote or a no vote. Clearly, a yes vote will transfer primary powers to the Assembly over those areas already devolved, and that will mean a changed relationship with Westminster, including the impact of legislation made in Cardiff on this House and this legislature. If there is a no vote, we will retain the existing legislative process. In that eventuality, I will examine how we can make the system more effective and more efficient, because it is broadly agreed that the legislative competence order process, as it currently operates, is cumbersome and time consuming.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I welcome the referendum on greater law-making powers for the Assembly, and I will campaign and vote for a yes. While the Secretary of State does not have a vote and wishes the Wales Office to be neutral, can she indicate what the Under-Secretary, who is a Welsh MP, will do? Will he vote yes or no, or will he sit on the fence?
Mrs Gillan
Ministers in the Wales Office will remain neutral. Unlike the hon. Gentleman’s party, the Conservative party in Wales will allow members a free vote. That is the sensible way to proceed.
Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
9. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on support for the aerospace industry in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
My right hon. Friend and I have had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on support for the aerospace industry in Wales. I am pleased that we will take forward our order for A400M transport aircraft and the future strategic tanker programme, safeguarding hundreds of highly skilled jobs in north Wales.
Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend regret the pre-election scaremongering, especially in Wales, that we would scrap the A400M, project?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I was talking to the managing director of GE Aviation in Nantgarw on Monday and he said that he was willing to work with the Government to encourage other inward investors—for example, Boeing—to add to the aerospace cluster in Wales. Will the Minister take up that offer and work with stakeholders in Wales to increase inward investment and the number of jobs?
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
10. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the likely effects on Wales of spending reductions in respect of police forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
Effective policing in Wales is of the utmost importance to the coalition Government. Both the Secretary of State and I have had regular discussions with Cabinet and ministerial colleagues on matters affecting policing and law and order in Wales.
Chris Ruane
North Wales police force is one of the best in the country. Under Labour, it had record investment, a record number of police officers and a record drop in crime. Under the Con-Dem Government, all that will be reversed when North Wales police will be forced to sack 250 officers and 484 civilian staff. Will the Minister and his team do what they should be doing, stick up for Wales and stop these dastardly cuts?
Mr Jones
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the cuts are necessary entirely as a result of the Labour party’s incompetent management of the economy. I reiterate that the chief constable of North Wales has sufficient confidence in his force to say that it will continue to protect the public and provide a service in which the public can be confident.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
11. Whether she has discussed with the Secretary of State for Transport the electrification of the London to south Wales railway line; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
I have had, and continue to have, discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about that matter. We have already announced £7 billion of rail infrastructure improvements that will reduce journey times to Cardiff by 15 minutes. The next step is to work with the Welsh Assembly Government on the business case for further electrification. I have recently spoken to both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to agree how best to take that forward.
Mrs Gillan
I think I heard that question. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on receiving at the ITV Wales Welsh politician of the year awards the “campaigner of the year” award for his work on aftercare for military veterans. We all congratulate him heartily.
I assure him that I fully support electrifying the great western main line, but the process is not simple and a range of factors must be considered. If he thinks it is such an easy matter, he should ask the people he sits on the same side of the House with why not a single centimetre of line was electrified in Wales under the Labour Government. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. It is very discourteous to Members and, indeed, to Ministers.
Mrs Gillan
It is unusual for the hon. Gentleman to be quite so sour. As he knows, the Department for Transport is considering new inter-city rolling stock to replace the existing InterCity 125s. The two options that remain under consideration are the revised bid from Agility Trains for a mixed fleet of some all-electric trains, and a proposal for a fleet of new all-electric trains that could be coupled to new diesel locomotives. He knows the decision is complex and I reassure him that I am working with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the business case. My officials are constantly in touch with the Department for Transport. We need to take our time and get this decision right for Wales.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has said that she will resign if the high-speed main line goes through her constituency. Will she resign if she fails to secure the electrification of the line to south Wales?
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Prime Minister is well aware of my constituents’ objections to route 3. If the preferred route on the high-speed rail is route 3, he will expect me to argue against it, not least because we will be holding a proper consultation. He also knows that, when he was in Government, many Cabinet Ministers made representations on post offices in their constituencies after they had supported—
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
12. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on policing in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier response to my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker).
Karen Lumley
Having lived in Wrexham for most of my adult life, I notice that North Wales police force has one of the lowest crime rates and the highest percentage of uniformed officers on the streets compared with other forces in England and Wales. Does my hon. Friend think, as I do, that we could learn something from the North Wales police force?
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 December.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Private John Howard from 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, who died on Sunday 5 December. He was an incredibly gifted and popular Paratrooper. We should send our condolences to his family, his friends and his loved ones at this very sad time. While I was in Afghanistan, I also met the two brave Paratroopers who were wounded at the same time that he was tragically killed. They were in the excellent Camp Bastion hospital, and I know that their families will be relieved to know that they are doing well and are in extremely good spirits.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mark Menzies
I would like to associate myself with the condolences expressed by the Prime Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we invest in the future of the unmanned aerial vehicle programme that has been developed at Warton in my constituency, and will he accept my invitation to come and see first hand the outstanding work force who are driving innovation and skills at that plant?
The Prime Minister
I would be delighted if I could take up the opportunity of seeing my hon. Friend’s constituency and that facility. The truth is that the UAV programme is exactly the sort of defence asset that we should be investing in. It plays an absolutely vital role in Afghanistan—we are increasing our spending on that project—and it shows the point of having a defence review, as it is vital to start spending money on the weapons of the future, rather than on legacies of the past.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private John Howard, from 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment? He showed enormous courage. We pay tribute to his sacrifice, and our thoughts and deepest condolences are with his family. I join the Prime Minister also, as he recently came back from Afghanistan, in paying tribute to all our troops serving in Afghanistan and their families.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that after his changes are introduced, English students will pay the highest fees of any public university system in the industrialised world?
The Prime Minister
The figures are well known for what students will pay. They are much lower than what students pay in the United States, for instance, but I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that in the end, we have to make a choice. If we want to see university education expand and universities well funded, we have to work out where that money is going to come from. Our proposal is that graduates should make a greater contribution, but only if they are successful. They will start paying back only when they are earning £21,000. That is better than the system that we inherited.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister did not answer the question. This country will have the highest fees for going to a public university in the whole industrialised world. He says that his plans are about properly funding universities. They are not: he is cutting public investment in universities and loading costs on to students and their parents. Will he admit that the reason fees are being trebled is to make up for an 80% cut in the university teaching budget?
The Prime Minister
The reason these contributions are going up is because we were left a completely unsustainable situation. That is why, before the last election, the Labour Government put in place the Browne commission, and why the Conservative party backed it. One party has had the courage of its convictions to see this through. [Interruption.] To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they never signed up to the Browne review. The right hon. Gentleman did, and he is the one guilty of rank hypocrisy.
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman has given it away: one party. There are 57 Liberal Democrats, and they are split four ways. That is something, even for the Liberal Democrats. Things are so bad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) is offering his own unique solution to the votes tomorrow. He says that if you run quickly, you can vote both ways. I have to say that if the Kremlin were spying on the Liberal Democrats, we would know why: they want a bit of light relief.
Let us have the Prime Minister answer another question, because he did not answer the first two. He says that he does not want the next generation to be in debt, so does he not understand the anxiety that students and parents have about starting their adult lives with a debt of £40,000?
The Prime Minister
You cannot attack a plan if you do not have a plan. The fact is that Labour went into the last election with a 25% cut planned for the Business Department. The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no way of making the numbers add up. Everybody knows that they said that they would not introduce tuition fees; they introduced them. They said that they would not introduce top-up fees; they introduced them. They said that they supported the Browne review; he wrote it into their manifesto. Why are they breaking their pledge about the Browne review? Why? The fact is—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. All this finger-pointing is very unseemly. I want to hear the response of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
The leader of the Labour party saw a big crowd assembling in the Mall, and he just decided, “I am their leader, I must follow them.” That is his idea of leadership.
Edward Miliband
A week really is a long time in politics—not so much waving but drowning. Let us talk about social mobility, because that is at the heart of these proposals. Let me quote someone whom the Prime Minister used to trust on social mobility—the person he appointed to head his social mobility taskforce: the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He said:
“I’m concerned about the effect this would have on social mobility and the huge level of debt we are encouraging young people to take on.”
I know that the Prime Minister does not have much time for the right hon. Gentleman these days, but why does he not listen to him on this issue?
The Prime Minister
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what has happened in terms of social mobility. Last year, there were 80,000 students on free school meals; only 40 of them went to Oxford and Cambridge. That is the situation with social mobility. What we are introducing—[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not want to hear the details. We are introducing a situation where nobody pays fees up front, including part-time students—which is 40% of students—and nobody pays anything back until they are earning £21,000. Under the new system, everyone will pay back less than they pay under the current system—[Interruption.] They will pay back less every month; that is the case. The poorest will pay less, the richest will pay more. It is a progressive system, but the right hon. Gentleman has not got the courage of his convictions to back it.
Edward Miliband
Only the Prime Minister could treble tuition fees and then claim that it is a better deal for students. No one is convinced, frankly. Is it not absolutely clear that this policy is in chaos? The Education Minister refuses to answer questions on it, and the Government rush out proposals on it daily. Is it not the most sensible thing for the Prime Minister to go away, think again and come up with a better proposal?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no idea what he would put in its place. He supported a graduate tax, which his shadow Chancellor does not back. He was the person who wrote the manifesto suggesting the Browne review. He is just demonstrating complete political opportunism—[Interruption.] Yes, total opportunism. He is behaving like a student politician and, frankly, that is all he will ever be.
Edward Miliband
Mr Speaker, I was a student politician, but I was not hanging around with people who were throwing bread rolls and wrecking restaurants. Is it not the truth that all the Prime Minister can offer us is “you’ve never had it so good” on planet Cameron? What does he have against young people? He has taken away the child trust fund; he is abolishing the education maintenance allowance; he is scrapping the future jobs fund; and now he is trebling tuition fees. Is not the truth that he is pulling away the ladder because he does not understand the lives of ordinary people up and down this country?
The Prime Minister
The fact is that if you introduce a graduate tax, you are going to be taxing people on £6,000, £7,000 and £9,000. Where is the fairness in that? The truth of the matter is that we examined a graduate tax and we know it does not work; the right hon. Gentleman’s party examined a graduate tax and knows it does not work; the Liberal Democrats had a look at a graduate tax and they know it does not work. The only reason he is backing it is because it gives him a political opportunity. I know what it is like: you can sit there for year after year; you see a political opportunity, but you will never be a party of Government. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in this Chamber; the public absolutely detest and despise it. The House must come to order.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
The Prime Minister may be aware that a young constituent of mine, Connor Rankine-Christ, was stabbed in an unprovoked attack at the weekend and has been battling to overcome life-threatening injuries this week. The suspect was released on bail just 24 hours after the attack, which has understandably upset and worried the victim’s family. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the courts should still be able to remand individuals in custody in the most serious cases where there is a risk that the defendant will cause injury by reoffending?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: the courts must have this power. If they believe that someone is dangerous and could offend again, it is absolutely right that that person is not given bail. That happens under our system and it should go on happening under our system.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Q2. What assessment he has made of the likely effects of proposed reductions in expenditure on the programme partnership agreement on the effectiveness of organisations assisted by the Government in the overseas voluntary sector.
The Prime Minister
Expenditure through the programme partnership agreement is not being reduced. We expect to allocate £120 million every year to this programme from 2011 to 2014. At the same time, we are increasing overall levels of support for the most effective organisations working overseas, and we are keeping the promise to reach 0.7% of gross national income for aid by 2013.
Mr MacNeil
Many colleagues on both sides of the House, including myself, have seen at first hand the great work that Voluntary Service Overseas volunteers do worldwide. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will continue to provide the necessary and expected support for VSO to continue to improve the lives of 26 million people around the world?
The Prime Minister
I can do that. Voluntary Service Overseas is an excellent organisation and I know it has widespread support across the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in discussions about how to ensure that its programme goes on succeeding and expanding. Fundamentally, with a growth in the Department for International Development’s budget, there is every chance that that could happen; that is what I expect to see.
Mr Speaker
Would a Government Back-Bench Member like to contribute on this closed question?
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
Voluntary Service Overseas provides valuable experience opportunities as well as giving people a connection with development. I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, but can he give an assurance that VSO’s current concern that its budget might be cut will be overcome by giving it access to other budgets within the Department for International Development?
The Prime Minister
I believe that the discussions are going extremely well and that it will be possible to guarantee that. One reason why people are asking this question about programme partnership arrangements is because the Government want to ensure that organisations are not wholly dependent on Government money, but seek sources of funding elsewhere. As my right hon. Friend says, there are opportunities through other budgets within DFID, and VSO could also make applications to the global fund to combat poverty.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Q3. While temperatures drop across the UK, profit margins for the energy companies have risen by an unacceptable 38%, compelling people on limited incomes to turn their heating down. What will the Prime Minister do to force these privatised companies to pay back some of their excessive profits to customers before more pensioners freeze to death?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask this question. Two things need to be done. The first is that the regulatory authorities need to be tough with the energy companies—and that is exactly what I expect Ofgem to do. The second thing that needs to happen is that the cold weather payments need to kick in. We have already spent £173 million since the start of the particularly cold weather. One reason why this is working so well is that we have made permanent what was only a temporary increase from Labour before the last election.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
This morning, I spoke to one of my constituents—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] It might come as news to Labour Members, if they were quiet, and they should try it. Mrs Lowther, who is 76 years of age, is disabled and has been housebound for 11 days now, because of the snow and ice in Stapleford. Does the Prime Minister agree that in such inclement weather it is imperative that we are good neighbours, especially to the elderly and the frail?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course the Government should be there with cold weather payments, and we are. We should be there with winter fuel payments, and we are. It is also important that local government plays its role, ensuring that grit supplies are there. By being good neighbours, we can all help those who could suffer in the cold weather, and she is quite right to raise the point.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q4. As someone who claims to be an avid fan of The Smiths, the Prime Minister will no doubt be rather upset this week to hear that both Morrissey and Johnny Marr have banned him from liking them. The Smiths, of course, are the archetypal student band. If he wins tomorrow night’s vote, what songs does he think students will be listening to: “Miserable Lie”, “I Don’t Owe You Anything” or “Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now”?
The Prime Minister
If I turned up, I probably would not get “This Charming Man”. If I went with the Foreign Secretary, it would probably be, “William, It Was Really Nothing”.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is simply too much noise. It is very unfair. I want to hear Mr Stewart Jackson.
Mr Jackson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a badge of shame, for which the Labour party should apologise to taxpayers, parents and pupils, that having doubled education spending during their term in office, they managed to drive down educational attainment standards to the bottom of the international league, according to the OECD?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The tables published today make depressing reading. We are falling behind countries such as Poland and Estonia, which we should be well ahead of. Frankly, this comes down to the choice we have to make. We made the choice of putting an extra £3 billion into the schools budget during this Parliament, because we want more done in early years and primary education so that we get the social mobility about which the Leader of the Opposition was posing earlier.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Q5. Over half the students at the university of Wolverhampton come from disadvantaged backgrounds. This morning, the University and College Union said that Wolverhampton was one of the universities at high risk, owing to the Government’s massive 85% cuts to its teaching grant. Will the Prime Minister explain to students and local businesses exactly why he is putting Wolverhampton university at risk in that way?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady stood for election on a manifesto that supported the Browne commission—[Interruption.] She did; she can deny it now, but that is what the manifesto written by the Leader of the Opposition said. The fact is that we have to make a decision. Is it right for taxpayers to continue providing the predominant support for university education? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] They say yes now, but that is not what they stood on at the last election. Many taxpayers do not go to university or benefit from a university education, so it is fairer and better to ask students to contribute, but only when they are successful. No one will contribute until they earn £21,000, which is £6,000 more than under the system that the hon. Lady’s party introduced.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as concerned as I am about absurd health and safety legislation, which has reached such dizzy heights in this country that the chief executive of Sainsbury’s told me last week that Christmas crackers are now category 1 fireworks, and cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 16 without the risk of a six-month sentence of imprisonment? Will he put a firework up the health and safety legislation?
The Prime Minister
That would give me enormous pleasure, and I look forward to doing so.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Q6. The Prime Minister told the House in June that he had been treated not too badly on his last visit to Gateshead—we are, by nature, a very friendly bunch. Will he return to discuss with regional political leaders of all parties their real concerns and fears that the Government’s current strategy is undermining the potential for economic recovery in our region, particularly through the slashing of support for the tourism industry? Before he mentions it, we are already trying to squeeze a few gallons out of a pint-sized regional growth fund pot.
The Prime Minister
There is big Government support for the north-east. There is big support for Nissan and its electric car, and we are supporting the National Renewable Energy Centre, which is building the world’s biggest testing facility for wave and tidal technology. We have also awarded a £7 million contract for the construction of the first advanced bioethanol plant in the Tees valley. So we are investing in the north-east.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a fragile economic recovery. If we had listened to his party, there would not be a recovery; we would be queuing up with Ireland to go to the International Monetary Fund.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Drunks and binge drinking have fuelled an economy that has sadly seen people the victims of knife crime. May I ask my right hon. Friend to stiffen the Justice Secretary’s resolve in dealing with those who carry knives and those who commit knife crimes?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an important point. If she reads the Green Paper, she will see that adults committing a crime with a knife should expect to go to prison. That is absolutely right, because there are far too many people committing knife crimes today who do not go to prison, and they should.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Q7. The dissident terrorist threat is a continuing problem in Northern Ireland, and we have seen some evidence of the terrorists’ capabilities in recent months. Will the Prime Minister ensure that if additional resources that were not previously envisaged are deemed necessary by the Chief Constable to deal with such a threat, he will ensure that they are provided without delay?
The Prime Minister
Of course we keep a very careful eye on the situation in Northern Ireland, and on whether additional resources are required. We stuck to the pledges made by the previous Government about properly funding the devolution of policing and justice. I think that decisions are better made locally, which is why that was the right step to take. I know how difficult the security situation is in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to police on both sides of the border for the brilliant work that they do. Of course we always stand ready to help, but we did make quite a generous settlement in terms of devolving law and justice, and that should be the first call for resources.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
In Afghanistan on Monday, the Prime Minister said that British troops could start coming home from Afghanistan as early as next year, which is a major policy shift. With which of our allies did he discuss that decision, and does he envisage the gap being filled by the Afghan army or the US army?
The Prime Minister
What I said in Afghanistan was what I said before I went to Afghanistan and what I will happily say again today, which is that the whole of NATO and all the nations of the international security assistance force that are involved in Afghanistan are committed to transition to Afghan control between the start of 2011 and the end of 2014. As that happens, there will clearly be opportunities either to reinvest troops in training missions or, indeed, to bring them home. What the Chief of the Defence Staff and I both said at a press conference in Afghanistan was that it might be possible to bring some of our troops home next year.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Q10. Tomorrow the Deputy Prime Minister will vote to break his election promise on tuition fees. This Prime Minister has also broken his election promise to maintain the child trust fund for the poorest in our society. What message does that send to young people about trusting Government?
The Prime Minister
I seem to remember that the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Government, who commissioned the Browne review. [Interruption.] Yes: the Government who went into the election committed to cuts of 25% in the budget of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. If they were committed to that, what were Opposition Members going to do? Were they going to cut the number of people in universities, or were they going to cut the money going to universities? We have had absolutely no answer. The people who are actually behaving in a way that I think drags politics through the mud are people who introduced tuition fees, introduced top-up fees and commissioned the Browne review, and who then, as soon as they are in opposition, behave irresponsibly and run away from it.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
Q11. There are currently plans to regenerate Camborne and Redruth, which would create 6,000 new jobs and allow the building of a modern, state-of-the art mine in Redruth. However, the work depends on transport infrastructure improvements which are currently being reviewed by the Department for Transport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in difficult times when capital is scarce we should prioritise projects that create jobs and deliver growth, and that the Department for Transport should review its assessment criteria?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks very well for his constituency and fights very hard for the economy in Redruth and Camborne, and he is absolutely right that of course we should give priority to transport projects that have the greatest economic return. That is what the Department for Transport does; it also has to look at environmental and other factors, but decisions should be based on where we can show economic benefits from transport—and remember that we are putting more money into transport capital infrastructure than the previous Government planned to do.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
In light of his experience of the World cup bid in Zurich last week, can the Prime Minister tell us what his view now is of an organisation that engages in the most convoluted and bizarre voting arrangements, that says one thing and then votes exactly the opposite way, and that has a leader who seems more interested in power and prestige than accountability—and after he has finished with the Lib Dems, can he tell us what he thinks of FIFA?
The Prime Minister
I certainly learned one thing: when it comes to breaking promises, politicians have got nothing on football management—there is no doubt about that. [Interruption.] Before Labour Members all start pointing, we should just remember who it was who said, “We will never introduce tuition fees.” Who said, “We will never introduce top-up fees”? Who said “We will back the Browne review”? Who is now an organised hypocrisy?
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Q12. Following the Prime Minister’s visit to Afghanistan and the review of the military covenant published today, will he reassure me that his Government will go that extra mile to support our troops, who have given so much to our country?
The Prime Minister
I am sure the whole House is grateful for what my hon. Friend said about our troops. On my visit to Afghanistan, I was again struck by just how hard these people are working, and how courageous, professional and brave they are. They are genuinely the best of British, and we owe it to them that we support not just them, but also their families. One thing I am pleased we have been able to do is introduce a pupil premium for the children of forces families. I know from my own constituency that many children at schools dominated by forces families leave and go to a different school within each year. I think giving extra support to forces families in this way is absolutely right, and I am sure it will be supported by all.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
In a tragic incident yesterday at the Sonae factory in my constituency, two people working at the plant were killed. I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in expressing deepest condolences to the families of those who were killed, and does he agree that when the Health and Safety Executive and police investigations into what happened have been completed, whatever action is necessary will be taken?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join the right hon. Gentleman in what he says about his constituents and the dreadful accident that took place. It is important that we have procedures in place for the HSE and others to investigate these issues and, as he says, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Q13. Does the Prime Minister agree that foundation schools are already free from local authority control, and will he meet me to discuss the cancelled innovative project to join foundation school Redcar community college with Kirkleatham Hall special school, to replace their dilapidated classrooms and provide facilities for the community?
The Prime Minister
I know that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that. The point is that all schools now being given this greater level of independence—whether as foundation schools or the new academy schools—should have greater ability to get together and collaborate to invest in their future, rather than always having to rely on a drip-feed from Government Ministers.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Is the Prime Minister aware that Parliament may have been infiltrated by an imposter? The Deputy Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister has said he will vote to treble tuition fees and abolish the education maintenance allowance. Before the general election the leader of the Liberal Democrats said he would vote to abolish tuition fees and keep the EMA. [Interruption.] Can the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to finish his question without chuntering and shouting from a sedentary position. The last sentence please.
Jack Dromey
Can the Prime Minister tell the House this: are there two Nick Cleggs?
The Prime Minister
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman has the unique qualification of being one of the brothers who was selected on an all-women shortlist—next time he comes in he should dress properly.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
Q14. Within the next couple of years the Ministry of Defence will relocate a further 1,300 jobs away from Bath, allowing two major sites in the city to be redeveloped. Given the urgent need for 3,000 additional affordable homes within the city, will the Prime Minister give me the assurance that the MOD will work with the Homes and Communities Agency and the local council to ensure that the sites can be used for those houses, rather than merely to get the best price in the sale?
The Prime Minister
I discussed this with my hon. Friend this morning, and I certainly agree that the Ministry of Defence should work with the HCA to try to bring this about. Sometimes the wheels can turn quite slowly when it comes to Defence Estates. I know that he will work hard, and I will ask the MOD to work hard, to get this fixed.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister will be aware that a week is a long time in politics. Having had all that time, could he now update the House on his rethink on the future of school sport partnerships?
The Prime Minister
I think that there is quite a common position between both sides; I read the debate where the shadow sports Minister said that clearly we could not afford the current level of commitment. He also said that the current way of doing things was not particularly efficient. So we are reviewing it and making sure that we do provide money for school sport from the centre, but that we do so in a better way because, frankly, too many children in too many schools do not have access to sport after 13 years of a Government who talked an awful lot about it.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Q15. The Browne report states that only just over 1% of UK graduates gave gifts to their former universities, compared with at least 10% in the United States. Does the Prime Minister agree that those of us who received free university education and are in a position to do this should be encouraged to do some serious giving to universities to support current students?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that other countries do better at endowing their universities and making sure that they have a wider source of income. But the fundamental issue is this: if we are going to look at how we are going to fund universities in the future, it cannot be right, and we will not get a proper expansion of higher education, if we just ask taxpayers, many of whom do not go to university, to fund that expansion. It is right that students—only when they are successful, only when they have left university and only when they are earning £21,000—should make a contribution. They should do so in the progressive and fair way that Browne and we have set out.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be aware of the Arctic conditions sweeping across central Scotland. Constituents of mine have been trapped in cars and buses overnight, they have been trapped in their own homes, and schoolchildren have been forced to spend the night in temporary accommodation. Can he assure me that the UK Government are offering all possible assistance to the Scottish authorities, up to and including the use of military personnel and equipment?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we stand ready to give any assistance in terms of how we are doing these things. Ministerial meetings at, in effect, the Cobra level, are going through what actions need to be taken. There is a bigger strategic supply of grit than there has been in previous years, the military stand ready to help and I can guarantee him that whatever needs to be done will be done.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the statement by the Minister for pensions, Steve Webb. May I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that we can hear from Minister Webb?
Petition
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I am presenting a timely petition to the House tonight. It was gathered by school students across Wirral, who recently demonstrated peacefully outside Wallasey Conservative headquarters and marched to the town hall to register their strong objection to the Government’s proposals on the educational maintenance allowance and tuition fees. It is signed by 875 pupils, and I strongly agree with it.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Sarah Smith and students from schools across Wirral,
Sheweth, that the Petitioners believe that the Government’s abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance and the proposals to lift the cap on University fees will prevent students from poorer backgrounds having full and fair access to education.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House rejects any proposals to remove the cap on University tuition fees and urges the Government to enhance equality of opportunity and equal access to education instead of cutting off support for students and creating some of the most expensive tuition fees in the World.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P000869]
Benefits Uprating
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the uprating of pensions and benefits for 2011-12. I shall place in the Vote Office full details of the new rates that are due to come into force from the week of 11 April 2011 for each pension and benefit, and arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report.
As the Chancellor said in his autumn statement, we have taken
“decisive action to take Britain out of the financial danger zone.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 530.]
Our decisions today about uprating are part of the plan to ensure we both get on track and stay on track, now and in future.
The Department for Work and Pensions is continuing its comprehensive review of social security policy, including pensions and benefits uprating. As many hon. Members will know, an important component of the future plans for uprating pensions and benefits is the move to the consumer prices index—the CPI. For 2010, additional pensions and benefits were held at their 2009 levels because the retail prices index—the RPI—was negative, at minus 1.4%. In those circumstances, many people saw no increase in their pensions or benefit. Why did the RPI fall? It was mainly because of falling mortgage interest payments, but only 7% of pensioners have a mortgage. People with earnings-related pensions lost out because of a fall in costs that did not benefit them. Had the CPI been used to measure the change in prices last year, benefits such as additional state pension would have been increased.
The CPI is the headline measure of inflation in the UK as well as the target measure used by the Bank of England, and it is internationally recognised. The CPI uses a methodology that takes better account of consumer behaviour in response to price increases. The Government believe that it is right to use one appropriate index for uprating additional state pensions, public and private pensions and social security benefits, and that CPI is a more appropriate measure of changes in the cost of living of pensioners and benefit recipients than RPI. In addition, the House may be surprised to learn that the RPI excludes the spending patterns of the poorest pensioners.
For all those reasons, the Government have decided to move to the CPI. I acknowledge that over the long term the CPI tends to rise more slowly than the RPI. However, the question is not which is the higher or lower number but which is the most appropriate way to track and measure the changes in average prices. The coalition will ensure that the value of many important pensions and benefits is maintained through a rise of 3.1% even in these tough economic times. In addition, steps have been taken to protect low-income families with children through above-indexation increases to child tax credits. Such measures are better targeted on low-income families and will ensure that the measures in the Budget and spending review, of which the move to CPI was a part, will have no measurable impact on child poverty in the next two years.
For consistency, we also announced on 8 July that we would move to CPI as the basis for calculating the statutory minimum increases for revaluation and indexation of occupational pension schemes. Hon. Members will wish to note that the annual revaluation order, which implements the decision, is being laid before Parliament today, together with our consultation document which sets out proposals and seeks views on the impact of using CPI for private sector occupational pension schemes.
The consultation document includes three main proposals. First, we propose legislation to ensure that schemes that choose to stay with RPI do not have to pay CPI in those years when CPI is greater than RPI. We do not intend to put an additional burden on schemes. Secondly, we plan to include indexation and revaluation on the list of changes where employers are required to consult with their employees. I was surprised to learn that schemes had been able to change indexation and revaluation without any duty to consult employees. We will change that. Thirdly, we need to consider what to do when schemes specifically state that RPI should be used and when they do not have the power to amend scheme rules.
I know that many people will have been alarmed by press speculation that we were planning to override scheme rules. We were tempted to respond to the inaccurate reports in this morning’s press, but we were keen that this announcement should come out in a formal, structured way and to the House first of all. However, I am pleased to announce to the House that, contrary to press speculation, we do not plan to grant schemes a modification power to make it easier to use CPI when they do not already have the power to amend scheme rules. We believe that members’ trust in schemes and the scheme rules could be severely damaged if we intervened to give schemes the power to change their rules when the scheme does not already have such a power. Trust in pensions is important and I believe that intervention demands strong justification.
Finally, I should like to turn to one of the early actions of this coalition Government: the restoration of the earnings link for the basic state pension. Unlike the Opposition, who had 13 years to make that important change but failed to do so, the Government made good on the pre-election promises to restore the link with earnings and delivered that promise within months of coming into power. In fact, we have gone further. We have protected the future value of the basic state pension with a triple guarantee that it will rise by the highest of the growth in earnings, the growth in prices or 2.5%. The triple guarantee means that even in times of slow earnings growth, we will never again see a repeat of small rises such as the 75p rise in 2000.
The new rate for the basic state pension will be £102.15 a week for a single person—an increase of £4.50 a week. From April next year, single people on pension credit will receive an above-earnings increase to their minimum guarantee of £4.75, taking their weekly income to £137.35. For couples, the increase will be £7.30, taking their new total to £209.70 a week. Separately, to help manage expenditure, the Chancellor used his spending review statement to announce that we will freeze the savings credit maximum. Over time, the savings credit has resulted in more and more pensioners being caught up in the means-tested system. Freezing the savings credit maximum helps us to focus resources on the poorest pensioners.
At a time when the nation’s finances are under severe pressure, the Government will be spending an extra £4.3 billion in 2011-12 to ensure that people are protected against cost-of-living increases. We have protected the basic state pension with our triple guarantee and we have confirmed that most people on pension credit will benefit in full from the cash increase enjoyed by those on the basic state pension. Our move to CPI for the uprating of the majority of other pensions and benefits will result in an uplift of 3.1 per cent from next April and will set the future of uprating on a more appropriate, consistent and stable basis that is fair to individuals and the taxpayer. Throughout this statement, I have outlined our firm commitment to ensure that no one is left behind, and I commend the statement to the House.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement today. Both sides of the House agree that we need to cut the Budget deficit, even if we differ in our approaches, but let us be clear from the outset that what is set out today is not about deficit reduction. Making this permanent change from the use of the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, the impact of which will be felt long after the deficit is long gone, is an ideologically driven move that Labour opposes. If it were a time-limited change, we would consider whether it was a fairer alternative to deep cuts in departmental expenditure and would be willing to work with the Government on it. We would have supported a time-limited change to uprating, but why would the Government change the uprating of benefits in a way that will have an impact after the deficit has been reduced if not for ideological reasons? I agree that we need to get the economy back on track, but why will we be punishing the poorest in society and our pensioners even when the economy is growing again? Can the Minister confirm just how much worse off people will be over the next 10 years as a result of the switch and, correspondingly, how much money it will save the Government?
The Minister has conceded today that CPI will rise more slowly than RPI, but he says that the question is not about which index is higher or lower. That might not be the question that he wants to focus on, but for millions of pensioners and low-income families up and down the country, that is exactly the question to focus on. They will be asking how they will make ends meet following these changes. What advice would the Minister give to people who will be worse off year in and year out as a result of his decisions today?
Let us look at the detail. The Minister has outlined the Government’s commitment to continue Labour’s policy of restoring the earnings link for the basic state pension with a triple-lock guarantee. [Interruption.] The Government Front-Bench team may laugh, but they know that we committed to doing that and they are doing nothing more than continuing with our policy. Given that the Government are usually so intent on regressive cuts, the announcement in the Budget sounded too good to be true. The Minister’s statement has confirmed that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is. His statement means that millions of pensioners will see the value of their pension fall every year, and that will be compounded by the increase in VAT, which will leave couple pensioners worse off by £275 a year and single pensioners worse off by £125 a year. To what extent will the Government’s combined measures on the change in uprating of the state second pension, the state earnings-related pension scheme, public sector pensions and the VAT increase wipe out any benefit to pensioners from the triple-lock guarantee?
What of the Government’s previous promises? Before the election, the Minister said:
“We are very clear that all accrued rights should be honoured: a pension promise made should be a pension promise kept…we would not make any changes to pension rights that have already been built up. I have confirmed that I regard accrued index-linked rights as protected.”
That is quite clear, I think, but today the Minister has confirmed that people who have paid into the state second pension, the state earnings-related pension scheme or a public sector pension throughout their working life will see their pension in retirement uprated by CPI, not RPI, as they had thought, which changes the rules of the game for pensioners and those coming up to retirement.
In just one week, we have seen the Lib Dems break their promises to students and to pensioners. The Minister will know, but for the benefit of others I shall remind him, that I have written to him to ask him to set out why he believes that CPI is a better measure of inflation for pensioners. I have copied that letter to the UK Statistics Authority, which on 6 October said:
“We believe that the CPI should become the primary measure of consumer price inflation but only when the inclusion in the index of owner occupiers’ housing costs has been achieved.”
I have not had a response to that letter, and given his attempt at explaining today, it is clear why.
The Minister has not produced any evidence to justify the change in indexation. Indeed, for pensioners and low-income families, average inflation is more than RPI and CPI, because of fuel and food costs. It is entirely disingenuous for him to claim that CPI is a better measure of inflation for pensioners when, in reality, pensioner incomes will be lower as a result. It is disingenuous as well to argue that CPI is a better measure of inflation than RPI for those on benefits. Those in that group spend more on food and fuel, so the average inflation is higher, not lower, than either RPI or CPI. Age UK says that CPI is not better, and that evidence is backed up by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It adds that older people tend to spend more on essentials such as food and fuel, and still spend on housing costs such as council tax. I ask the Minister now, what evidence—not assertion, but evidence—is there that CPI better reflects inflation for pensioners and low-income families?
It is not just pensioners for whom this uprating makes no sense. The Government have said that, from 2013-14, they will uprate local housing allowance by CPI, rather than local rents, meaning a total disconnection between local housing markets and the housing allowance. The long-term consequences are likely to be dire, so will the Minister confirm whether that will be a permanent shift and whether he is comfortable that pensioners and low-income families risk losing their homes because of changes in rents over which they have no control?
The Government enthusiastically talk about making work pay—we would all support that—but we also hear today that they have said that they will freeze working tax credit but uprate jobseeker’s allowance. Does that not mean that the gains from moving into work will shrink every year? Will the Minister explain how that is compatible with the drive to get people back to work?
Finally, does the Minister agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, which says that the
“effective inflation rate for the poorest households was higher than RPI in recent years when the cost of basic essentials like food and domestic fuel rose much faster than other prices”?
It adds that CPI uprating will make inequality and poverty worse.
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. The CPI
“is more reliable because, taking account of spending by all consumers, this consumer prices index gives a better measure than the old RPIX measure of spending patterns. It is more precise because… it takes better account of consumers substituting cheaper for more expensive goods.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1063.]
How right the previous Prime Minister was when he said those words.
There is a sensible debate to be had about the most appropriate price index. The hon. Lady said that pensioner inflation is always higher. I did not notice the previous Government using a higher inflation measure for pensioners in the 13 years during which they decided these things. In fact, over the past 20 years—not the past five, which Age UK used—the average pensioner inflation and the average non-pensioner inflation were the same. In other words, there are times when it is higher and times when it is lower, as we would expect, but in the long run they are the same. Previous Governments never used pensioner-specific inflation rates; nor do we propose to.
It was good of the hon. Lady to say that she would consider the CPI for this Parliament. Obviously, we are announcing today the benefit rates for next April, so I am assuming that, in the event that the House comes to vote on these matters, she will support the benefit rates that we are proposing. It was not entirely clear to me whether she was for them or against, but I hope that, in due course, it will be clear.
The hon. Lady asked about the use of the RPI and felt, I presume, that it is a better measure of inflation. Does she believe that in the year to September 2009 pensioner inflation was negative? I have never met a pensioner who thought that their inflation was negative. The goal is to use an index that matches inflation experiences, and that is what we have done.
The hon. Lady mentions the IFS and its views on the issue. The main difference between the CPI and the RPI is not the basket of goods but how the two indexes respond to price increases. The IFS found that the substitution effect used in the CPI is a better measure for lower-income households, so its judgment is that, on that key difference, the measure that we are using better fits the inflation experience of lower-income households. I am glad she cited the IFS, because it was right on that point.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of people meeting their fuel bills, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the cold weather payment is one of Labour’s ticking time bombs. This winter, it was due to fall to £8.50 a week. That was in the spending plans, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions agreed that it was not fair—that paying people £8.50 a week this year would not be acceptable. So, we found the money to set it at £25 a week not just this winter, but for the whole Parliament, and pensioners on low incomes are better off as a result.
The hon. Lady asks about the net effect of the changes, glossing over the earnings link, which, mysteriously, was Labour policy but never implemented in 13 years. It is funny how things become implementable in opposition but not when one controls the levers of power. The earnings link on average gives about 2% a year above prices; the CPI change on average gives about 1% a year less than the RPI. So for those with low and modest occupational pensions, the net effect on pensioners of the two taken together will be positive.
We have a package of measures to protect the interests of pensioners. The earnings link over the long run will give a newly retired pensioner an extra £15,000 in state pension over their retirement, compared with the prices indexing that Labour, when it had the levers of power, applied for 13 years. That is what it applied in office for 13 years: the prices link. Within months, we have gone to the earnings link, and pensioners will appreciate what we have done for them.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend have constituents like mine, who are looking forward to increases in SERPs, and who have looked at what they received last year when the RPI was negative and the CPI was positive? Labour Members back then proposed no increase whatever in those pensions. At the same time, looking over 10 years, is it not a little disingenuous to fail to take into account what has happened to house prices over the past decade? It is unlikely to be replicated in the next decade.
Steve Webb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Many of the letters that I signed as a new Minister were to people complaining about the April 2010 non-increase in pension rates because they were linked to the RPI, which was negative. One of the worst things about using something that is so heavily affected by mortgage interest rates is that a pensioner with savings not only fails to benefit from falling mortgage rates, but is penalised by falling savings rates, so they get a double whammy. Neither factor will affect the CPI.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
The Minister in his statement said that he will continue to freeze the savings credit maximum, and the reason he appears to give is that over time the savings credit has resulted in more and more pensioners becoming caught up in a means-tested system. Is not another way of looking at the situation the fact that, in future, fewer pensioners on low income will be eligible for pension credit?
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She is right: last year the savings credit maximum was increased—by 12p, and by 6p for a couple, so it is important to keep what we are doing in context. If, however, she is accusing us of shifting the balance between means-tested benefits and universal benefits such as the state pension, I plead guilty. We have chosen to focus scarce resources on the basic pension through the earnings link and to constrain the rise in savings credit, which is a relatively ineffective way of reaching poorer pensioners. It has a take-up rate of barely 50%. Half the people who are entitled do not even have it; everyone claims their pension.
Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)
As the Minister said, the move from RPI to CPI will lead to much more stable increases in the uprating of benefits and pensions, and the triple lock will ensure that pensioners do not fall behind the rest of society. Some concerns have been raised, however, because the CPI does not include any costs associated with housing. The Government have announced plans to consider including some housing costs in the CPI calculation, but when does the Minister expect that to be done, and what impact is it likely to have?
Steve Webb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right that CPI rises tend to be more stable compared with the surges and freezes that we had with the RPI. On the point about the inclusion of housing in the CPI, costs in the form of rents are in the CPI already, so that is covered for lower-income renters. The CPI advisory committee is undertaking a two-year programme to see how housing costs might be included, but it has already ruled out directly including mortgage interest payments specifically, which will help with the issue that we have raised. As and when the Office for National Statistics comes up with alternative measures, we will certainly look at them, but that is without prejudice at this stage, because the work is ongoing.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Minister draws attention to the restoration of the earnings link and to Labour’s failure over 13 years to make that important change, but does he not feel a little uncomfortable about being in cahoots with the party that broke that link in the first place?
Steve Webb
What is a great source of pride to me is being part of a coalition Government who are restoring the earnings link. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, although the measure was certainly in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been happy with the plan, it would not have happened.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one real benefit to pensioners that will result from today’s statement is that it gives them certainty and stability, something that, to their frustration, has been lacking over the past couple of years because of the measly and in some ways insulting changes that were made to their scheme?
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend is right. The nature of the triple guarantee is that, whatever happens to earnings and prices, pensioners will be guaranteed a 2.5% rise. Picking up on one of the points that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), made, I should say that the previous Government, in their spending plans, pencilled in a 2.4% rise in 2012. I have no idea what prices or earnings will be next year, but I do know that 2.5% is bigger than 2.4%.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
If a private company alters its contractual obligations to pay its customers, it is likely to end up in court on a charge of fraud. The Secretary of State admits that CPI increases at a slower rate than RPI. Is not the measure just a simple theft of money from pensioners?
Steve Webb
No, it is not. Each year the Secretary of State has a duty to assess the general increase in prices; that is what the law requires him to do. If the law required him to link state pensions, for example, to RPI, that would be a different matter, but that is not the duty. The duty is to assess inflation fairly, which is what we are doing. I also announced today that, when companies have RPI written into their rules and no provision for changing those rules, the Government will not allow schemes to change them, precisely for the sorts of reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend rightly identified in his statement that the upratings policy forms part of a much wider review of social security policy, which will include major investment in the radical universal credit. Which elements of the Government’s programme does he think will have the most impact on people of working age?
Steve Webb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing that, as well as setting benefit rates, the Department, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is looking at major structural reform to ensure that work pays. The hon. Member for Leeds West asked about making sure work pays, and we need to ensure that the move into work is seamless, people know what they will get and there are not the complexities of multiple withdrawal rates. I think that history will judge this Department and my right hon. Friend’s record very favourably for putting in place the structural reform that has been overdue for far too long.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Minister is very good at giving long, process answers to our questions, but I should like to ask him one simple, factual question. How much does he forecast the average pensioner losing over the next five years due to the switch from RPI to CPI?
Steve Webb
My forecast is that the average pensioner will gain from our announcements today. I understand why the hon. Lady wants to pick out one little bit, but she knows that the average pensioner draws a basic state pension, which we have restored to earnings, which more than offsets any change to CPI.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The Minister rightly reminds the House about the importance of the triple guarantee, which will protect the value of state pensions. What feedback has he had on that important announcement?
Steve Webb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I regularly meet pensioners groups throughout the country, and he will be reassured to know that the restoration of the earnings link has been universally well received.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister will be aware that some of us who now sit on the Opposition Benches never believed that CPI was a better measure because of the fact that it tended to give a lesser increase. However, we do not deny the worth of the triple guarantee. If his concern is to protect the basic state pension, will he address the needs of those people who do not receive its full value because of the high rate of contracted-out deductions? Many people suspect that the rate of deductions is excessive and punitive, and some say that it represents a marginal tax rate of 80% or 90% on their basic state pension.
Steve Webb
Obviously, contracted-out deductions apply not to the basic state pension, but to the additional state pension. The idea of contracting out is that a scheme that offers to provide earnings-related pensions must promise to match the benefits that the state would otherwise have provided. That may not be well understood, but such schemes and the employees who use them pay less national insurance, in return for which, the scheme promises to match what the state would have provided. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description, but if he writes to me with specific examples, I am happy to look at them.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who are public sector pensioners, because they are extremely concerned that the pensions to which they have been contributing and which they thought were guaranteed to increase in a certain way should be changed by the Government without any justification. Why is it felt necessary to do that? If it is so good to triple-lock the basic state pension, why is it not equally good for public sector pensioners?
Steve Webb
To take the hon. Lady’s second point first, if we were to earnings-link all public sector pensions in payment, it would cause a massive increase in unfunded pension liabilities. She has just spent billions upon billions of pounds, apparently casually, but I am afraid we are not in a position to do that. We have done what Governments have always done, which is to assess the general increase in prices, make a figure for inflation and apply it consistently—in this case, to all social security benefits, tax credits and earnings-related pensions. By statute, public sector pensions are linked to what we do to additional pensions. What we are doing for contracted-out public sector pensions is therefore exactly what we are doing for contracted-in additional pensions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) asked about pensioners. What pensioners and this House need to know is the difference that is made in monetary terms when pensions are calculated using CPI rather than RPI.
Steve Webb
Under the triple lock, the increase will be determined by whichever is highest between earnings, prices and 2.5%. In the long run, the earnings figure is almost invariably higher than the prices figure, so regardless of which measure of prices is used, we will use the earnings figure. As I have said, CPI for additional pensions is about 1% a year lower. The average occupational pension in payment is about £70 a week, 1% of which is 70p a week. Under the triple lock, as I have just announced, the pension is going up by £4.50. That shows the great advantage of the triple lock.
Bill Presented
Armed Forces Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Liam Fox, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary William Hague, Secretary Kenneth Clarke, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Mitchell, the Attorney-General and Mr Andrew Robathan, presented a Bill to continue the Armed Forces Act 2006; to amend that Act and other enactments relating to the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence Police; to amend the Visiting Forces Act 1952; to enable judge advocates to sit in civilian courts; to repeal the Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act 1915; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 122) with explanatory notes (Bill 122-EN).
Points of Order
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are widespread reports that the Government will adopt the policy, which seems completely anti-intellectual and irrational, of removing the obligation to have scientists advising the Government on drugs policy. The suggestion is that it will be scientists out, and bigots in. Is it not extraordinary that there has not been a statement in the House so that we might question the Government on that policy? Will you use your good offices to ensure that a statement is made tomorrow, when there is nothing of great significance on our agenda?
Mr Speaker
I fear that the hon. Gentleman overestimates my influence, although I am grateful to him for doing so. He has registered his concern forcefully and it will have been heard by senior Whips on the Treasury Bench. I have a feeling, knowing the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman, that he will return to this matter, and more than once.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister, I am sure unintentionally, misrepresented the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench with regard to a constructive offer that we made to discuss the future of school sport with the Government. He said that we had said that the current system was unaffordable and not working. That is not the case. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that last week the Secretary of State for Education agreed to meet us to talk about school sport. That has not happened. I raised this point of order to put those facts on the record and to say that I am seeking an apology for the misrepresentation of the Opposition’s position on school sport that occurred at Prime Minister’s questions.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order. He has put his point very clearly on the record and I dare say that he will want to share it more widely. As an experienced Member and a former Cabinet Minister, he will be aware that a variety of ways are open to him further to pursue this matter and, as appropriate, to seek a correction. I hope that that is helpful.
Council Housing (Local Financing Pathfinders)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to begin negotiations with certain local authorities with a view to those local authorities leaving the current national housing subsidy system and becoming Council Housing (Local Financing Pathfinders) by April 2011; and for connected purposes.
I am sure that most Members from all parts of the House share the experience that I have in my surgery each week of meeting constituents who do not have a good-quality and genuinely affordable home in which to live. Across the country, tens of thousands of families need a home—homes that councils such as mine in Cornwall would like to build. I am in no doubt that we must continue to invest in upgrading existing council housing, but we must also enable councils to build new homes. The ability to deliver the housing and welfare reforms that our society so badly needs is the prize for serving in this Parliament. Together with a good education and a decent job, those reforms will enable millions of hard-working families on low incomes to improve the quality of their lives.
To enable councils to build more homes, we must reform the way in which council housing is financed. Along with Members from all parts of the House, I support the coalition Government’s plans to do so. As the Minister for Housing and Local Government said in October:
“For far too long councils have been left hamstrung in their efforts to meet the housing needs of their residents by a council house finance system that is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. The Housing Revenue Account subsidy is in urgent need of reform.
That’s why I can confirm that we intend to scrap the current system, and instead replace it with something more transparent that will serve the needs of local communities without interference from Whitehall.”
He went on to say that
“we will offer councils the opportunity to keep the rents…This is a key step to transfer powers to councils and communities, so they are free to improve their local services in a way that best meets the needs of local people.”
It is anticipated that the decentralisation and localism Bill will provide for the new system. We also anticipate a revised debt settlement, plans for the allocation of debt between authorities and proposals for the system’s day-to-day operation.
It is worth recapping the previous Government’s work that brought us to this point. In summer 2006, the Housing Quality Network was appointed to undertake business plan modelling with six councils. The six authorities produced model 30-year business plans, based on a one-off settlement with central Government that would allow them to leave the national system. The modelling demonstrated that self-financing could bring improvements in efficiency, long-term planning and asset management. It could attract private investment and provide opportunities for local authorities to add new homes to the housing stock.
In December 2007, the then Minister for Housing announced a full review of the housing revenue account subsidy system to examine further the case for change. That was launched jointly by the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government in March 2008. In June 2009, the then Minister for Housing announced a consultation on the dismantling of the subsidy system and on replacing it with a devolved system of responsibility and funding. The consultation, “Reform of council housing finance”, concluded in October 2009. In March 2010, the findings of the consultation were published, along with a set of proposals for further consultation. Following the general election the Government have confirmed that self-financing will be introduced for all local authorities by 2012.
The Bill will create self-financing pathfinders to contribute to the coalition policy of ending the national subsidy system for council housing finance. It will give central and local government the chance to learn lessons on debt redistribution and to evaluate the impact before allowing the remaining local authorities to leave the national subsidy system. It proposes that three councils, Cornwall council, the London borough of Wandsworth and Stockport metropolitan borough council, be offered the opportunity to negotiate terms of exit with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and to leave the national subsidy system in April 2011. To enable that to happen, a minor amendment needs to be made to section 80B of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
The proposed establishment of a pathfinder programme for housing revenue account reform, to be undertaken at the three authorities that I mentioned, could have significant benefits for Government, the council housing sector and wider social housing policy. There would be no cost to the Treasury, which in fact would gain. Although it is impossible to be exact about the final formula, receipts to the Treasury during the pathfinder year would be substantial.
HRA reform is about turning local authorities from state-dependent administrators of council housing in an outdated national system into bodies that are locally financed and develop real long-term plans for more sustainable housing with local people. By working through the complex and detailed processes that are required to transform authorities in that way, we will learn valuable lessons that will minimise the risks of unforeseen problems when the legislative deal is done with the whole sector and 160-plus authorities in 2012. An agreement will need to be signed on a voluntary basis by each of the authorities involved and the Government, and it will need to include the debt settlement for April 2011.
It is worth recalling the housing sector’s responses to the July 2009 review, which show its reactions to the self-financing proposals. Although only 6% expressed disagreement with the principle of self-financing, of the 64% who agreed with the proposals, only 10% did so without expressing significant reservations or caveats. Some 49% offered support for the proposals and accepted the redistribution of debt on condition that the amount of debt to be allocated at local level was acceptable. Clearly there is still work to be done with some councils to build consensus and momentum on the proposed reforms. The Bill offers the Minister an opportunity to work with the evangelists and to help him with the doubting Thomases.
The overriding objective is to use the pathfinders to support preparation for national HRA reform, not to divert resources away from the overall project. Such a process should be seen as complementary and beneficial, because it would provide a live testing environment for the detailed proposals as they continue to emerge. For example, the pathfinder councils would be able to participate in the forthcoming Charted Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy consultation in a live situation and provide detailed technical feedback.
The process would clearly be seen as a pathfinder process so that technical, regulatory and financial lessons could be learned. It would not be to the advantage of the three local authorities concerned, save for the de facto benefit of being out of the HRA subsidy system a year early. The pathfinder councils would produce a report, with input from any of agencies that had been involved, such as CIPFA or the Public Works Loan Board, and that report would be made widely available to inform the ongoing preparations for self-financing.
The three authorities in the programme are included on the basis of their high performance, their high standing in the sector and the capacity that each has to take on the work early. There is a geographical mixture of debt take-on and debt write-down, of arm’s length management organisations and retained management, and of stock sizes. That will provide an opportunity to maximise learning from the process.
I should like to end by thanking colleagues outside the Chamber from the local authorities, who have been generous with their time and very patient with my questions, particularly the housing officers at Cornwall, Wandsworth and Stockport councils and Steve Partridge at the Chartered Institute of Housing. Finally, I thank my colleagues from the official Opposition and the coalition who are supporting the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sarah Newton, George Eustice, Sheryll Murray, Andrew George, Dan Rogerson, Stephen Gilbert, Jane Ellison, Ann Coffey and Mr David Nuttall present the Bill.
Sarah Newton accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2011 and to be printed (Bill 124).
Estimates Day
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
VOTE ON ACCOUNT 2011-12
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
HOME OFFICE
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Police Funding
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing us the opportunity to discuss this very important issue. As I did not have the chance to say this yesterday, I hope you had a very happy wedding anniversary.
On 20 October, the Chancellor announced the outcome of the 2010 spending review. The budget of the Home Office will fall by 25% in real terms from 2010-11, and within that the resource budget will fall by 23%, or £2.2 billion. Administration costs are due to fall by 33% and the capital budget by 49%. Taken as a whole, the Home Office has received a settlement with cuts more than twice the average of all Departments, which is 11%. Even ignoring the protected Departments of International Development and Health, the average cut for all other Departments is 17%, or 5% a year.
The comprehensive spending review document states that the Home Office settlement includes support for major policing reforms; a reduction in police resource funding by 14% in real terms by 2014-15; £1.8 billion of capital investment over the spending review period; spending for the delivery of a new national crime agency; and overall resource savings of about 23%. In real terms, central Government funding for the police is due to fall by 20% by 2014-15. As the House will know, part of the police’s funding comes from the police precept, and if the police authorities decide to increase the precept at the rate forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the overall level of police funding will decline by 14% by 2014-15. There is therefore widespread concern about the level of funding for the police and the Home Office over the next five years, and about the way in which it will be achieved.
What has been described as front-loading—the cuts happening in the first few years—has already caused concern. I understand that the Association of Police Authorities recently wrote to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, whom I see on the Government Front Bench, to express that concern. It stated that
“a sensible, realistic approach is necessary to realise the savings objectives and avoid long-term damage to policing capability”
and that its members were
“deeply concerned that front-loading cuts will strip out the required financial flexibility police forces need to transform their working practices in order to make savings.”
The CSR document, about which I am sure we will hear more from the Minister, expresses the hope that the savings will be achieved through reducing bureaucracy, modernising pay and conditions for staff, introducing directly elected police and crime commissioners, abolishing the National Policing Improvement Agency and cutting counter-terrorism by about 10% in real terms. After the CSR was published, KPMG was reported as estimating that 18,000 police officers could be lost over a four-year period. The Police Federation was reported as estimating that the number would be 20,000. At Home Office questions on Monday, the Minister said:
“By cutting costs and scrapping bureaucracy, we will save both money and man hours, so I am confident that the spending review should not lead to any reduction in police officers visible and available on the streets.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 14.]
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend might like to know that this morning a number of my hon. Friends and I met the Minister to discuss the impact of the cuts on the West Midlands police force, which is 80% dependent on central Government funding. My right hon. Friend talks about the impact of the cuts on police numbers, but where police authorities are wholly or mainly dependent on central Government funding rather than the precept, the impact on local communities and police visibility will be that much worse.
Keith Vaz
The Home Affairs Committee has already heard from Chief Constable Sims of West Midlands police. It organised a seminar in Cannock Chase, which is not a million miles from my hon. Friend’s constituency, where those concerns were raised. The problem is that individual police forces are currently unable to tell us precisely what effect the cuts will have locally. We will have to wait for the publication of the settlement, which we anticipate in early December. When the Minister speaks, I am sure he will tell us precisely when the provisional police settlements will be announced and placed before the House. He is smiling, so perhaps he will announce the figures today and we can question him on them. I am sure that we will hear soon. Until we do, we will not know precisely what is happening.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Apart from the cuts, which will reduce the overall number of police, I understand that the CSR will mean a freeze on recruitment, the likely application of regulation A19, which will get rid of the more experienced officers, and a freeze on pay. Do they sound like the conditions for a highly motivated, well performing police force?
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend asks almost a rhetorical question to which the answer must be, “No—people will not be motivated if those cuts take place,” but he is right to raise those concerns. That is why this debate is important. The Home Affairs Committee is of course aware of the deep concern in the west midlands, which is demonstrated by the number of west midlands MPs in the Chamber this afternoon.
A number of police forces have already issued statements on how the CSR will affect them. In a statement on 22 November, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police and the treasurer of the Greater Manchester Police Authority said:
“Final spending details are not expected until the end of November or early December but if the headline reductions in spending totals for the Police Service are ultimately reflected in GMP’s Formula Grant and Specific Grants, the Force and Police Authority will need to find savings of £134m over the four year period…Savings of £52m will need to be found in 2011/12.”
They estimate in their report that GMP will lose approximately 2,950 posts from a total of 12,000 over the four-year period, and BBC News has reported that 1,387 officers and 1,557 civilian posts could go in Greater Manchester.
Northumbria police also issued a statement, saying that the likely impact of the cuts would be the loss of 450 members of the civilian staff out of a total of 2,500. As my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said, it looks as though 2,000 jobs will be lost in the West Midlands police force, including 1,050 police officers over the four-year period.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I should declare an interest, because my son is the chief executive of a police authority. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the large numbers of police officers that will be lost? The Government imply that the loss of police officers will not be seen on the streets because people can somehow be pulled out of back offices, but many officers who are not on the streets investigate internet-related crime and child abuse, and undertake intelligence and scientific activities to prevent crime. They investigate a range of crime, the evidence for which is not to be found on the streets of our towns and cities.
Keith Vaz
My right hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable, as a former Police Minister. He will know that, depending on the police authority or station, 85 different functions could be performed every day in a police station by people from IT experts to those on the switchboard and reception. Of course, the temptation is to remove the back office, but if we do so, those in the front office—the visible police officers—will have to go there, because there will be nobody else to do that work. My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the problems caused by the suggested front-loaded reductions.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that West Midlands police assume in their planning that they will be unable to cope with cuts on the scale being forced on them by the Government without compulsorily retiring up to 400 of the longest-serving police officers under A19, and without a significant reduction in visible policing on the streets—fewer bobbies on the beat—in the west midlands generally and Birmingham in particular?
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
In response to an earlier question about the functions of police officers, it has to be said that many were affected by the previous Government’s ill thought out, badly drafted legislation. For example, the short-term, knee-jerk reaction dispersal orders simply moved one problem to a different street in the same area, which I often saw as a cabinet member for safety in Medway. Of course we must consider the various functions of police officers, but in the past 10 years the police have been tied up with functions they should never have been dealing with.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One thing I hope we can avoid at all costs is the kind of knee-jerk reaction that he mentioned. I would hate the police service to be subject to the same kind of reorganisation that we have had in the NHS in the past 20 years under the previous Government and the one before that.
I do not intend to go on for long, because many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. The Home Affairs Committee hopes to assist the Government in this difficult process—we want to approach the proposals in a comradely and constructive way. I am glad to see so many members of the Committee in the Chamber. Our longest-serving and most distinguished member, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is here, as are my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. The hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) are members of the Committee, and sitting behind them on the Government Benches is a non-member, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) is also in the Chamber. She was a member of the Committee but was poached within weeks of her appointment by the Minister to become his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I am sure she is doing a great job.
The Committee has decided to undertake a trilogy of reports on three different aspects of the proposals to assist the Government. It is rather like “The Lord of the Rings”. We have just published our report on police and crime commissioners. As the Minister knows, members of the Committee have different views on the desirability of police and crime commissioners, but I hope he found our report helpful. It outlined a number of issues that we feel could be of value to the country.
We were very concerned that the figures for the cost of police and crime commissioners came out only after we had published our report. Indeed, the proposals came out on the very day that we published our report. Perhaps we can improve our co-ordination. I am not saying that we should be like “Strictly Come Dancing”, but if the Government and the Committee communicated a little bit better, we might be able to see the proposals before we commence our reports, which would make what we say more valuable.
The second report was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, and we will look at the CSR in the light of the decisions that the Minister will make imminently about how much police forces will have as part of that second report on a reduction in police bureaucracy. There is common ground on both sides of the House about the need to reduce police bureaucracy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was the Minister with responsibility for the police, he also said that he wanted to cut red tape. In the 23 years I have been a Member of Parliament, Ministers have always said that they want to cut red tape, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we need to ensure that it actually is reduced. That is why I hope that Jan Berry will have her term as the police bureaucracy tsar renewed, so that rather than just writing a one-off report she can continue to monitor the situation.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that savings would have to be made whichever party was in government? Will he give us a preliminary figure that he—personally or as the Chair of the Committee—would accept for the reduction in police budgets and numbers?
Keith Vaz
I am afraid that I cannot give him a personal figure. The Committee has not met and has not discussed this matter, nor have we conducted our report. Members of the Committee would be most concerned if I started speaking on behalf of the Committee on a matter that we had not considered. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in policing matters, and we will look at this very carefully. We will of course take evidence from the police and from others.
The final report that we intend to produce is on the new landscape of policing. The Government have not finally decided precisely where every bit of the old landscape will fit in the new landscape and we hope to help by setting out a landscape that will be accepted by the Government and the Opposition, so that whatever happens on 5 May 2015—or whenever the fixed-term election will be held—and if the Labour party is returned to power, we will not have another reorganisation, as we have had in the health service. Let us reach a consensus about how to proceed.
To that end, I was very pleased that the Minister was able to come to the summit meeting that was organised in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase a few weeks ago. I hope the Minister took away the message that there are stakeholders in the policing process who want to be engaged in what the Government are doing. We heard an excellent speech from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, and other Members of Parliament attended. We now have, in people such as Hugh Orde, Denis O’Connor, Paul Stephenson, Paul McKeever and others, some truly outstanding leaders in the profession, but we—Parliament and the Government—need to work together to ensure that we have a permanent landscape and to deal with the reductions in a particular way.
I am very concerned that there will be a reduction not only in the number of police officers but in the number of police community support officers. I was deeply concerned by the press statement issued by the chief constable of Lancashire police—which covers the area of Chorley, if my geography is correct, Mr Deputy Speaker—to the effect that every PCSO has been put on notice that they may lose their posts. They have been a terrific addition to policing.
I recently went to a residents meeting in London—I normally speak at residents meetings rather than attend them, but I was attending as a constituent of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord). The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was also there. We heard an excellent presentation from a local PCSO about the work that he does, which includes reducing the work load of police officers, enabling them to do their jobs effectively.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the 427 PCSOs who received the at-risk notice from Lancashire constabulary, only 149 are completely funded by that constabulary?
Keith Vaz
I did not know that and I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, who is another member of the Committee. However, that still does not address the reductions. If we are to proceed with a view to reaching a consensus—people have strongly held views—we must agree that there is of course a need for an overall reduction in the police budget. However, that hurts us as local MPs when it affects our local areas.
The public want to be able to pick up a phone to report a crime to a police officer and to ensure that that crime is dealt with as quickly as possible. If that is the bottom line, I hope that this debate can be conducted in a way that achieves that purpose. Let us put our party political differences to one side and concentrate on the fact that if a reduction in resources means fewer police officers—as I think it will—the Government will need to think again, and possibly ask the Treasury for additional resources so that we match the spending on the national health service and education. Law and order—the prevention and detection of crime—is a key issue for our constituents and we need to do everything that we can to ensure that it remains at the forefront of people’s concerns.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and this is the third time in seven months as a Member of Parliament that I have spoken on this issue. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), a fellow east midlands Member. I am sure he will agree that the east midlands forces have generally fared relatively badly in terms of funding in recent years. We all hope that, as the Minister finalises his funding settlement for the individual forces, he will look favourably on our local forces.
I commend the police for work they do in my constituency and across Derbyshire. I also commend their positive approach in responding to the anticipated level of cuts. They have not thrown their toys out of the pram and panicked that they will not be able to deliver effective policing across Derbyshire. Instead, they have looked at sensible steps that they can take. To be fair, they have been taking such steps in recent years in preparation for this situation, which they knew was likely to arise. Earlier this year, they reduced their control districts from four to three, moving the control district that covers my area from my constituency to Chesterfield, a move that has been achieved without any real damage to the quality of policing in the area.
We have to be realistic about police funding and accept that there is only so much that forces can do if they do not have the right money in the first place. Making straight-line cuts from the wrong starting position will not leave us in the right finishing position. Derbyshire police estimate that the impact of the comprehensive spending review will result in their needing to make straight-line savings of £6 million in the next financial year. However, they have lost roughly £5 million a year from the damping mechanism, which has cost them some £26 million in the last five years. It is a little much to expect a force that is already £5 million behind where it should have been—which is the equivalent of some 200 police officers compared to how many they would have had with the right amount of formula funding—to be able to absorb a straight-line cut in the same way as other forces that have received much more generous funding. Such a cut is bound to have a serious impact on local policing. It is a little over-ambitious and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he will look to reverse some of the negative impact of the damping mechanism, especially during the CSR period. By the end of that period, our police forces need to be in a fair funding situation; otherwise some of them will have received far less money than they should for an entire decade.
It is worth mentioning that forces can do things to save money that do not rely on cutting front-line officers. I have had meetings with people who have given me information about the waste that exists in police forces, and there is scope for tackling that. I have concerns about how a uniformed, qualified officer has to supervise specialist functions within the police force—for example, on forensics. Somebody in a managerial role ends up trying to supervise something that they are not really an expert in and to which they add little value. That is not a necessary part of the structure. I also question whether it is necessary to have quite so many different silos considering different areas of responsibility. It is a struggle to integrate them and bring together a joined-up seamless force. There must be huge scope for making savings but, fundamentally, there is only so much blood we can get out of a stone before we end up without an effective force.
We are in a bit of a strange position in terms of timing. The review of police conditions is ongoing, yet we want forces to start to make significant savings before they have had a chance to work through the impact of that. It would be unfortunate for forces to lose skilled and trained back-office staff or PCSOs because that is the only way they can make head-count reductions as forces cannot currently make uniformed police officers redundant. If we change the rule halfway through the process and decide that having uniformed officers performing back-office functions is not a great idea, we will find we will have already put ourselves in that position by having to proceed too quickly.
I hope that the timing of the spending reductions will be consistent with the pay and conditions review. It is hard for the public to understand why police officers enjoy an almost unique protection from redundancy whereas PCSOs and skilled back-office staff do not. I do not think the uniformed officers in the constabulary in my constituency will be desperately keen on changing that or on hearing such a change being advocated, but such an approach would give a level playing field for all employees of the police authority.
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer. However, when the Minister considers funding, I urge him one last time—this is the third time I have done so in the Chamber—to acknowledge that straight-line cuts on average will not deliver a fair outcome for forces across the east midlands, especially in Derbyshire. I hope that, over the CSR period, that will be taken into account and that we can move towards having the fairer funding that the formula states Derbyshire police ought to get.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is my turn to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills)—the sequence is normally the other way around—and I am very pleased to do so.
I recognise that the Minister has a tough job on his hands. Although I do not agree with a number of his proposals, I accept that his instincts are to try to make the police more efficient and to achieve a better level of performance with the resources he has. His difficulty is that the Home Office did rather badly out of the recent settlement. It is evident that, while other Cabinet Ministers went to bat for their Departments and secured good deals, the Home Secretary did not achieve quite as much. We must now live with the consequences of that. I genuinely and sincerely fear that crime will rise and that we will have terrible difficulties in some of our major cities in trying to combat the particular types of crime that we have been able to bear down on so successfully in recent years.
I do not oppose the Minister’s ambitions to achieve efficiencies and use more modern methods. In fact, I agree that change is needed. I support the better use of IT and better procurement, and I believe there is a clear argument for the police shift system to be changed, which would release more officers. We argue about the statistics—the Minister is very keen to gloat about the 11% figure—but the reality is that the police shift system is part of the problem, and I am in favour of changing that.
I welcome civilianisation where it frees police to do policing jobs. However, such an approach means there can be no benefit from the mass sacking of civilians. That is the conundrum. If civilianisation is a good process because it frees police officers to carry out policing functions, it logically follows that the mass sacking of civilians will mean that police officers are taken off front-line functions and sent back to doing civilian tasks. The Minister will have to address that problem. It is likely—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made this point—that the initial response of police chiefs will be to sack civilian staff, which will impact on front-line policing. As they struggle to continue to make the budget match up, they will be forced to consider how to sack police officers. The easiest way to do that will be to apply regulation A19, which will mean that some of our more experienced and senior officers will have to go. We will have the double effect of losing civilian staff while officers are taken off the street to do their work and, simultaneously, losing senior and experienced officers.
As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), it seems that that will happen when there is also a freeze on recruitment and a freeze on pay. Those are not the conditions in which we can expect to get the best out of people, or motivate them to embrace change and improve performance; they are the conditions most likely to produce exactly the opposite effect.
I am particularly worried about the west midlands, because our gearing ratio means that we are highly dependent on grant. Earlier today, we met the Minister to discuss that very subject. If we experience a uniform cut in grant without any changes to the damping regime, we will lose out unfairly as a result of an exercise that means we must forgo money and resources, which will be transferred to other police areas. We will have to forgo those resources so that the council tax precept can be kept down elsewhere in the country.
That is a very good argument for what the Treasury want to achieve, and for what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government might want to achieve. However, it is not an argument that someone who is worried about law and order and police resources should be too willing to embrace. Even at this stage, the Minister should consider whether he still has time to go back to his friends in the Treasury, explain the dilemma and see whether they can help him out of the hole that has been dug for him.
Project Paragon in the west midlands has shown that successful efficiency and reorganisation measures can be taken. However, such measures take time to deliver. Project Paragon cannot be turned on and off like a tap. If such things are to be done successfully, they need a long lead-in time. It takes a long time to deliver efficiencies. One of the by-products of such a change is that crime may rise during the reorganisation period, and there is some evidence in the west midlands to show that that is happening. I see that the Minister is nodding, because I think he also accepts that that is the case.
My concern about these very substantial front-loaded cuts is that such a reorganisation will occur far too fast in forces all over the country, at the very time when we are gearing up for major events, such as the Olympics. That is not something that we should be remotely complacent about. It screams out for re-examination, because the obvious dangers are right in front of us. We still have time to look into this issue, but if we delay too long, things will be upon us and our forces will be in chaos at the very time when demand for policing is at its highest.
I agree with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. My view is simple: law and order always has to be our No. 1 priority. I genuinely feel that the Government have got the balance wrong. I am delighted that they have selected areas of other budgets that they feel should be protected, but there are times when I would like to hear a more convincing case for those decisions. However, I am disappointed that so little emphasis seems to be placed on law and order. Yesterday we detected the dangerous cocktail of police numbers dropping, crime rising and the courts prevented from sending offenders to prison when that is exactly where they should be, along with a promise of community punishments, albeit without the resources to make them work. That is a recipe for problems.
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion about allowing offenders to get away, but between 2007 and 2010, under the previous Government, some 80,000 prisoners were let out of prison early. Surely that was completely unacceptable, and if the hon. Gentleman’s previous comment is right, he should accept that that was wrong.
Steve McCabe
Actually, the reality is that under the Labour Government there was a huge rise in prison numbers. It is true that some people were allowed out one month early, but the Justice Secretary proposed yesterday that there should be a threshold in order to reduce the numbers who go to prison in the first place, which means that the courts will be hampered. Indeed, he went on to say that his preference was that people should serve half the sentence in prison and half in the community. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that his constituents will find that much less acceptable than the situation when we were in power. If he does not believe me, I would be happy to go with him to his constituency and talk to them about it, because from what my constituents tell me, I am pretty certain that I am right about that.
Rehman Chishti
The statement by the Secretary of State for Justice was quite clear: those who commit crime should be punished with the efficient force of the criminal justice system, and that includes going to prison. Can the hon. Gentleman show where in the Secretary of State’s statement it said that they should not be sent to prison?
Steve McCabe
I can show the hon. Gentleman where in the statement the Secretary of State gave the estimate for what he expected the reduction in the number of people going to prison to be. He stood at that Dispatch Box and said it, and everyone who was in the Chamber heard it—unless they have selective hearing.
I shall now return to what I was saying. There is a difficult balance. Perhaps the cuts are just too much, and the Home Office has got a particularly poor deal. I was surprised to discover, from the evidence that the permanent secretary to the Home Office gave to the Home Affairs Committee, that the Department has not carried out any research into the impact of the cuts on crime. That came from the very same permanent secretary who three years ago ordered a report on the potential impact of a recession on crime. It seems slightly strange that the man who feared then that a recession could lead to a rise in crime, and who said that we should investigate the potential outcomes, does not seem remotely troubled that a background of massive cuts and far too rapid reorganisation could have a similar effect. Perhaps it is just as well that he is planning to retire.
Keith Vaz
The point to emphasise is that the outcome of the research commissioned by the permanent secretary for Jacqui Smith when she was Home Secretary was that crime would rise during a recession, and that was assuming a level playing field for the number of police officers.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point. He is absolutely right.
I have one last point to make. As I said at the outset, I am in favour of the Minister’s plans to try to modernise the police force and get greater efficiency. I genuinely wish him well, and I think that some of the things that he talks about are things that we should try to do. I also think that they need a longer lead-in time. Time will tell who is right about that. However, there is one priority that I would not adopt at the moment, especially against the background of the cuts and the reorganisation and efficiency changes that we are about to experience. I would not totally change the management and accountability structure of the police at the same time. It seems ludicrous that we should be subjected to the idea of elected police and crime commissioners now. It might be a good idea—although I think that the Minister is wrong about that as well—but what on earth is the pressing need for something that will have a further destabilising effect on the police, at the very time when they have all those other issues to contend with? If the proposal is a good idea, surely there is plenty of time to discuss it, and to pilot it and see what the consequences—the benefits and downsides—are.
Guy Opperman
In 2008, when the previous Government made the proposal and were considering it in their draft legislative programme, was my hon. Friend in favour of it or against it?
Steve McCabe
I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is now my hon. Friend. I do not know whether that means that he shares some of my concerns about policing, or whether I have at least one ally on the Government Benches who will talk to the Minister about such issues. Actually, it was never the Labour Government’s proposal to have directly elected police commissioners, so no, I was never in favour of that.
This is not the time for that experiment. The Minister has enough on his plate. He needs to get on and get the best deal and the best arrangements that he can from his Treasury colleagues, in order to prevent some of our worst fears from being realised. He would be better off concentrating his energy on that. We can deal with the question of police commissioners another time. What is proposed sounds like a Government in too much of a hurry, with too few resources and too few of the right priorities. If the Minister gets this wrong, not only will he suffer personally in a ministerial capacity, but our constituents throughout the country will suffer as a consequence of reckless behaviour that damages the police.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just before I call anybody else, let me say that there have been quite a few complaints about the temperature in the Chamber. I can assure hon. Members that, as always in this Chamber, the temperature is now rising. The problem has been fixed.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), because it gives me an opportunity to express some concern about the fact that I listen to the same statements and participate in the same debates as him, yet I hear different things being said. If he looks carefully at what the Secretary of State for Justice said yesterday about prison sentences, he will see that he was clear that prison is entirely the right place for criminals to be. However, there are a limited number of cases, involving non-violent prisoners who have been given very short prison sentences, in which if it can be proved that a community sentence would more effectively address their reoffending behaviour, that is the appropriate course of action. That, the hon. Gentleman will find, is what the Secretary of State said yesterday, and there is broad agreement in all parts of the House that it is a sensible thing for him to have said.
I am pleased that we have the opportunity to hold this estimates day debate today. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred to “Strictly Come Dancing”, and said that he was a little worried that the timing of Government announcements was not in keeping with the publication of his Committee’s reports. One could perhaps make the same comment about the timing of this debate in relation to the police settlement. Clearly, Ann Widdecombe and Anton du Beke have had some involvement in the timing of this particular choreography, and I suspect that we will have to have a further debate once the police settlement has been announced.
Keith Vaz
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Unfortunately, this was not in the hands of the Select Committee, although we did ask for the debate. May I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s presence at the seminar in Cannock Chase, and the contribution that he made to those deliberations, for which we were very grateful?
Tom Brake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I commend him and his Committee for their excellent work, and for the advice, recommendations and guidance that they provide for the Government.
The recent report produced by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the Audit Commission and the Wales Audit Office on police spending, and the ways in which efficiencies can be achieved, is pertinent to the debate. It shows that police spending has grown significantly—by nearly half—since 1997-98. During that same period, the council tax contribution towards police expenditure has gone up by nearly 150%, so the increases have clearly had a big impact on council bills. It is also worth pointing out that only half of the efficiency savings achieved by the police in 2008-09 were used to reduce budget pressures. There is clearly a potential for more efficiency savings to be achieved, and for those savings to be put back into dealing with budget pressures.
All this has to take place while maintaining public confidence in the police. The report is helpful in pointing out that the forces that have achieved the highest cashable efficiencies do not have lower levels of public confidence. One would therefore hope to be able to square that circle, and the report supports that proposition. A priority for police forces must be to ensure that their threat, harm and risk assessments are finely tuned to value for money considerations and to the savings that they need to achieve, so that there is a clear linkage between them.
For me, the strongest point in the HMIC report was that forces are going to need strong leadership to achieve those transformational changes. If they are going to get beyond the typical 3% annual efficiency savings that have been made in recent years, that will require transformational change and significant leadership. The report goes on to state that this is perhaps not always recognised by chief constables. It states that less than a third of chief constables identify leadership skills as important in securing better value for money. I hope that the Association of Chief Police Officers will look into that, because transformational change will clearly need to involve collaboration with other organisations, other forces locally and other partners, and that is not easy to achieve. It will require significant leadership behind it. The report also flags up the fact that more than half of chief constables said that local police unit commanders lacked the financial skills to deliver the savings. Again, that illustrates the need for additional support to ensure that the necessary training is given, so that the significant savings that some forces have already achieved can be achieved by all of them.
Another important barrier highlighted by the report relates to the need to reassure the public that what matters is not the number of police officers, but what the police do. I have to confess that I am a recent convert in that regard. I am sure that there are Members here who received campaign literature from the Liberal Democrats that talked about additional police numbers. That is something that I cannot disguise, and I will not attempt to do so. However, recent reports have made it clear that we need to improve on the figure of only one in 10 officers being visibly available at any one time, and it is surely not impossible for forces to look into that in greater detail. The public are worried about the perception of police numbers and the availability of police on the streets, but that concern can be addressed if we can achieve a better turnout of officers, even if there is a requirement to reduce force numbers.
Others have talked about police overtime. I do not want to overemphasise what can be achieved by reducing overtime, because there are clearly occasions when police forces do not have control over that factor. Tuition fees demonstrations spring to mind. By allowing overtime to be used, local police forces are often in a position to provide additional tasking to hit a particular problem at a particular time. Having said that, it is clear that some forces are achieving significant savings by reorganising the way in which their overtime works, and one would expect other forces to be doing the same thing.
Members on both sides of the House will support the need for more sensitive and more effective procurement. The fact that 14 forces will have managed collectively to save £18 million by 2012-13 through the national forensics consortium leads me to hope that the other 29 forces that are not part of the consortium will actively consider participating in it, because of the potential collective saving of up to £40 million if they were to join it.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman was part of the Select Committee when we published the report “Policing in the 21st century”, in which we mentioned procurement. This is a no-brainer, is it not? Why do all those police forces still buy on their own, even if it is in collaboration with 14 others? Surely there should be more effective leadership, whether from the National Policing Improvement Agency or from the Home Office, to ensure that they buy in bulk.
Tom Brake
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is indeed a no-brainer, whether it involves vehicles or IT systems. We need to be careful, however, particularly when the “no-brainer” centralised procurement involves taking existing IT systems and moving them on to a common platform, as that can be quite a complex undertaking. Certainly, projects of that nature in the NHS have proved technically challenging, and such projects need to be dealt with very carefully.
The report identifies up to £1 billion of savings that could be derived without hitting the front line. I take the point made earlier, that it is wrong simply to say, “Front line, good; back office, bad,” particularly if the work going on in the back office involves officers engaged in detection and investigation. It is not possible to achieve a simple transfer. However, Members who have seen the HMIC report will know that there are currently 200 officers working in human resources departments. That might be a police role in some shape or form, but I find it difficult to imagine that all 200 of those officers working in HR are working on tasks that require a trained police officer. There is therefore scope for savings in those areas, and in others.
I have mentioned the fact that between the point at which a crime is reported and the final appearance in court, about 100 different processes take place. Some of those involve the police, and it is clearly a labour-intensive process. Anything that can be done to simplify it, while keeping all the usual safeguards in place, will, I am sure, help to improve efficiencies for the police, for the court system and beyond.
The report makes a number of recommendations; I shall highlight a couple of them before finishing. It underlines the need for police authorities to set savings targets for their forces that are more ambitious than those of previous years. I know that that will be a tough call for police authorities at the moment, and it is fair to say that they are not unanimously behind the coalition Government’s proposals for elected police and crime commissioners. I know that the police are all professional in their approach, however, and a number of them want to put their names forward for election as police and crime commissioners, so I am sure that they will want to demonstrate their commitment to achieving significant efficiency savings.
I have underlined the importance for the police of making sure that the threat, harm and risk assessment is closely linked with any financial or business planning, and I have also underlined the need, if these transformational changes are to be made, for some clear leadership from senior officers. The changes are not going to happen by themselves; they will need someone to drive them. The Government’s role should be to ensure flexibility to allow partnerships between forces and other partners to develop so that substantial savings can be achieved. If a carrot were provided by introducing a linkage between future grant allocations and the efficiency savings that forces achieve, I believe that that would help.
Steve McCabe
On that point, does the hon. Gentleman think that individually elected police and crime commissioners all pursuing their own individual political agendas is more or less likely to encourage force co-operation?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I think makes a strong point. It has been put—no doubt by him, by me and by others—to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is well aware of it. The legislation will clearly need to set out the requirement for police and crime commissioners to collaborate and co-ordinate activities with others. When they take on this role, they will also have to bear efficiency savings in mind, so making them will also be in their interests. We are watching that issue closely, and we will want to ensure that elected police and crime commissioners understand the need to co-ordinate effectively with their neighbours.
I believe that the report by HMIC, the Audit Commission and the Wales Audit Office provides a substantial body of evidence to support the case that opportunities are available to make significant efficiency savings. I think that they can be achieved, so long as those at the head of the forces provide the necessary leadership to drive the changes through.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I decided to join some of my colleagues in speaking in this debate because of the deep concern in the west midlands about the impact of reductions in police officers and support staff.
I apologise for missing one or two speeches, but I pay tribute to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) who, as we all know, chairs the Home Affairs Committee in such a distinguished manner. He made an effective speech, although he will not be surprised to hear that I cannot go along with his taking an “apolitical stance”. I am not aware that I have ever taken an apolitical stance, and it is rather late in the day for me to start! I am not point scoring today, however, although I am happy to do so on many other occasions.
I said in my opening remarks that people are very concerned in the west midlands, and it is for Members and Ministers to decide whether that feeling is genuine. I have had the privilege of representing my constituency of Walsall North for 31 years, and I have always been concerned—as one would expect of every hon. Member—that the police should be able to deal effectively and promptly with my constituents’ complaints about criminality.
The Minister states that there is no, or hardly any, correlation between the number of police officers and tackling criminality, but, like many Members, I simply do not accept that for a moment. There is a correlation. Common sense dictates that if we have fewer police officers, it is far more likely that crime will go undetected.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman, like me, is a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Bill Bratton, who appeared before our Committee on 30 November this year, said:
“As a police chief for many, many years, I would always like to have more police, but the reality is it is not just numbers but, more importantly, what you do with them.”
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that argument from someone who spent 40 years heading up the two biggest police forces in America?
Mr Winnick
It is common sense that a senior police officer will take the view that the way in which police officers are deployed is very important. No one disputes that for a moment, but did not Bill Bratton say on the very same occasion that he would have liked to have more police officers? The hon. Gentleman just said that.
Between 1997-98 and 2010-11, central Government funding for west midlands police rose by 36% in real terms. Let me ask those who are critical whether I am justified in raising concerns. No Conservative Member suggested at the time that less should be spent on policing in the west midlands. The money was spent not for the sake of it but to reduce criminality, which it did. We know that under the comprehensive spending review, police forces in England will receive 20% lower funding by 2014-15, and it is not likely that the west midlands will be any different.
I take it from the intervention of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) that some Conservative Members—not, I hope, all—do not consider police numbers important. Let me nevertheless cite the numbers for west midlands police, comparing the time Labour first took office with now. In 1996, there were 7,145 police officers. There was then a steady increase, and this year’s figure is 8,536. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cannock Chase or any other Conservative Member would argue that those increases were unjustified and that there should not have been such a substantial increase.
If necessary, I could provide statistics to show that in the west midlands, as in the rest of Britain, crime has reduced—indeed, the Justice Secretary conceded the point yesterday. I find it difficult to believe, even though the Minister shakes his head in disagreement, that the reduction in crime in my region is not somehow connected with the 36% real-terms increase in police funding and the correlative increase in the number of police officers. There has also been a steady increase in the number of police community support officers since they were first established.
I am not one who always defends the actions of the police. I might well be critical of some aspects of policing the demonstrations today and tomorrow—so be it; we shall see. On one point, I am absolutely certain, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East also made it abundantly clear: when our constituents phone the police to report criminality they want effective action, not a prerecorded message with no action being taken for days. I do not suggest that all has been well, but spending less on police, with fewer police officers, will make our constituents’ problems much more difficult.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, in the west midlands, in the black country—not just Birmingham, but my borough, surrounding areas, and the other three black country boroughs—Members have been very pleased, on behalf of our constituents, first and foremost, by the reduction in criminality. Hon. Members may say that we are being too pessimistic, and I obviously hope that a reduction will not to lead to the reversal that many of us fear, but we have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the progress of the past few years is maintained, that our constituents are protected from criminality as much as possible, and that the police take effective action against criminality when it occurs.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I say what a privilege it is to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), a distinguished Member of the House? I must say that I agreed with much of what he said. I also thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for his eloquent opening of the debate. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) made the point that law and order is a top priority, and that is a view with which I, and all hon. Members, concur.
We will hear shortly how much our police forces will get. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is on the Front Bench, has received a letter from me, listing a lot of ideas, following a long meeting I had with my chief constable, on how to save on procurement, duplication of effort and needless bureaucracy. Although I will speak in the main from the perspective of my constituency, Dorset is a very large area with a number of MPs, but it has a small police force and low funding. Consequently, we are probably braced more than most for the cuts announcement.
Over the past decade, Dorset police authority has received chronically low levels of Government funding. To make up the funding, it has had to rely increasingly on the council tax precept. In addition, perhaps the Minister would note that our budget for police community support officers is ring-fenced at £3.2 million, which the police feel is unnecessarily restrictive. If they cannot change their financial organisation to meet the cuts and future requirements, they have much less flexibility.
According to benchmarking studies, Dorset police have been praised for cuts in back-office services such as finance and personnel, and their costs are way below the national average. My concern is that, following the announcement, Dorset police will experience further cuts, following year-on-year cuts over the past 10 years, despite being told that they are doing an excellent job—every time they were told that they were doing an excellent job, the chief constable had less money with which to do it.
If police officers on the beat in Dorset are to be reduced, we will have problems. In my constituency, the island of Portland is a case in point. Portland has a population of about 15,000 people, but some years ago it had a population of 8,000 or 9,000. In those days, it had 13 police officers based in a police station. It now has two mobile police officers, with two PCSOs backing them up. Those officers are based near the island—they share the office that the police are using to organise for the Olympic games. Let me give all credit to those two brave officers and the two PCSOs—I have been out with them on patrol on two occasions, and they do a remarkable job. However, the people on the island of Portland are not convinced that the police have a high enough profile. If cuts come, I am concerned that places such as Portland will be affected.
As Portland and Weymouth will host the Olympic sailing events in 2012, let me touch on Dorset’s projected budget of just under £64.5 million in that year. In an Olympic year, therefore, Dorset police will face a £6.4 million shortfall in their budget. We know that there is a budget for the Olympics, and we are assured that the money is there. However, there is no definitive funding amount. Manpower costs for the Olympics are difficult to estimate, and Dorset police suggest that they will need 600 additional officers to provide security for the games. Will Dorset police meet all the costs of those extra officers, or just their overtime? The costs are not negligible. The police presence will be needed for 64 days, from pre-Olympic training, throughout the games, until the Paralympics afterwards. The Olympic policing budgets are centralised, in 16 different silos, which makes planning and preparation difficult and drawn out. For example, deciding whether to place a man or a camera on a strategic corner can take weeks, wasting a lot of money.
Finally, I agree with the coalition Government’s stance—I believe that the stance is shared across parties—of wanting more neighbourhood policing. When I ask my constituents whether they have seen their neighbourhood sergeant or constable, they say, “Yes, he was here last week, but for the last two months he’s been taken off on other duties.” No doubt there is a shortage of officers on the ground, but may I suggest to the Minister, who will probably pale at the additional cost, that we turn back the clock, in a positive fashion, and have police officers based in local communities? I am talking about reopening police stations, which will allow police officers to get to know—and literally smell—their community. They will know when young Jimmy or Jack is about to commit an offence at six or eight years of age, and prevent him from becoming a hardened criminal when he is 18. We must get officers back into our local communities. At the right moment, a firm word and gentle guidance can head off a life behind bars. In the long run, the cost of reopening local stations would be offset against reductions in crime and imprisonment, and would allow police to reconnect with the communities they serve.
CCTV has its place. I am an ex-soldier, and have experience of using technology to get intelligence and so forth. However, CCTV cannot tell us the demeanour of a young man or woman intent on committing crime. A police officer on the beat is able not only to deter such a person from committing crime, but if the crime is committed the police officer can respond immediately. That boosts confidence in the community and helps a raft of other things, not least tourism, which brings in much-needed cash to South Dorset.
As the Minister will announce the figures imminently—I believe at the end of this week—may I ask him, most humbly, and with the Olympics in mind, please to consider Dorset police—[Interruption.] And other constituencies, as many Members are also concerned about their police. To get police back into the local community, let us reinvest in police stations, to save in the longer term and fight crime.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak after the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who represents an area that I know very well. For many years I led all the unions at the Portland naval base, and I know that it is a fine community and a fine town.
The hon. Gentleman spoke with passion and conviction about the importance of police officers on the beat to both detection and deterrence. My experience of them, in the west midlands, is very similar to his. I have seen at first hand the outstanding work done by the police service there, and, while I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that the police do not always get it right, I know that the community in the west midlands value their police service. There have been real improvements in recent years, and I have seen the consequences at first hand. Let me give three brief examples.
The first example is this. Nine months ago, in Stockland Green in my constituency, there was a serious increase in crime, including robberies and violent crime. The police mounted a major operation involving not only police officers on the beat, but the highly effective intelligence work behind the scenes that was described by the hon. Member for South Dorset. As a consequence, a number of arrests were made and the problem was dealt with very efficiently.
Secondly, I have seen at first hand how quickly the police respond to serious crimes in my constituency. I say with some sadness that there have been three knife murders in Erdington over the past nine months. It would not be appropriate to comment on the outcome of legal processes that are yet to be concluded, but I will say that the sheer scale of the operation that was mounted, quickly and effectively, in all three cases was hugely reassuring to a community who were rightly concerned about what were very serious offences.
Thirdly, I have seen at first hand the work of the local tasking groups. In Castle Vale, a very fine community in my constituency, the police sit down together with representatives of the local community, and they work together in a highly effective way to target issues of real concern such as antisocial behaviour.
I pay tribute to the work done by police community support officers, whom I have seen on the beat in the Erdington high street area. They are an immensely reassuring presence and they do a very good job, not least in freeing police officers to concentrate on what police officers are best at. I also pay tribute to our chief constable, Chris Sims. Chris is an able leader of the West Midlands police service, although he has had to deal with some problems in it. He is also the national champion of the Association of Chief Police Officers on the issue of bureaucracy—it is common ground that we can reduce back-office costs, for instance—and gives a national lead in the vital areas of forensic science and detection.
Not only is the West Midlands police service of great importance in the west midlands, but it performs those major national functions, as well as supporting other police services. It will play an important role in the run-up to and during the Olympics, and—as the Minister knows—it also plays an important role next door in Warwickshire when big problems arise. Time and again, the Warwickshire police service can count on the tried and tested West Midlands service.
I welcomed this morning’s meeting with the Minister. I hope that, for all the reasons that I have given, he will accept the real concern that is being expressed in the west midlands about the potentially serious consequences of a reduction of up to 2,500—including 1,200 police officers—in the West Midlands police service over the next four years, and of a potential reduction of 400 police officers before 1 April next year.
At the heart of the dilemma facing the police service in the west midlands is the fact that the financial structure in an area of high demand and high need is very different from that in Surrey. More than 80% of the funding of the West Midlands service comes from central Government, as opposed to 50% in Surrey. I hope the Minister will accept that if the Government apply quick and deep cuts indiscriminately to all police services, there will be particularly serious consequences in the west midlands.
The police service in my constituency, in Birmingham and in the west midlands, is already having to plan for the consequences of what it faces—including the compulsory retirement, under regulation A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, of some of the best long-serving police officers, several hundred of whom may have to go before April next year unless the Government change their mind. It is also planning for a significant reduction in the visibility of policing on the streets in the west midlands more generally and in Birmingham in particular, because it believes that it has no alternative. All that is a result of the scale and speed of what is being expected of the police service in the west midlands.
I know of no police service that is incapable of improvement. Yes, there is a debate to be had about how to reduce back-office costs. When our party was in government, it made clear that it considered that to be necessary. However, I ask the Government to accept a simple reality. Unless they change course, and if in 2011 we see a toxic combination of rising unemployment and falling police numbers in Birmingham, crime will inevitably increase. The first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of our communities, in the midlands and throughout the country. Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister, the Home Secretary and the Government to hear the strong concerns expressed by the people of Erdington, Birmingham and the west midlands.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I have a background in criminal law, and have spent a large part of my time down the years prosecuting and defending people in various trials, including murder trials.
I have been out on the beat with members of the Hexham constabulary, who do an amazing job in supporting the police and the community. They undoubtedly need our support, and we should provide that support unequivocally—for the police force and for the operational command—if at all possible; but if we are to do that, we must change the position that we acquired on 7 May. There is currently a significant financial deficit, and that means that we must make choices. Whether we like it or not, we have had to make cuts. That gives no one any pleasure, but we have been forced to do it by our present position.
We are adopting a good procedure in attempting to do a series of things at the same time. There will be a settlement. My local chief constable, who has done an amazing job, wrote to me outlining the cuts that she might have to make, which are undeniably significant. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and others have pointed out that the cuts are a problem that we must address, but choices need to be made, and the chief constable is dealing with them very well. There will be a reduction of 450 officers or civilian staff. In this context, I should remind the House that she was the chief constable who looked after Raoul Moat and all the difficulties and problems that followed on from the events in the summer. She has done a sterling job in trying to hold everything together, but when I asked the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs what he would cut and what his approach would be, he initially said, “I can’t really answer that question,” but at the very end of his speech he said, “This will require the Home Secretary to go back to the Chancellor and ask for more money.”
Guy Opperman
That is an interesting observation, but when the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was Home Secretary he famously said there would not be enough money to pay for various things, and the home affairs budget would clearly have gone down. It is not in dispute that that will present the Department with a significant problem. Efforts are being made, but a choice had to be made, and I applaud the Government on the choice they made and for going ahead with it.
I asked the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) whether he supported the police and crime commissioner changes. We find from talking to our constituents that the centralisation of control under Labour over the past 13 years is a significant problem. The legislation that the Labour Government brought in put ever more work under Whitehall control. The Home Secretary was given ever stronger powers to intervene and to direct police authorities. Labour’s approach failed to recognise the fundamental problem of policing, which is that those who should be in the driving seat, and those who suffer when things do not work, are the public, not the Government.
In the last year prior to the change in Government there were 52 documents of central policy guidance, and a further 60 on planning. The average length of the manuals was just under 100 pages, and they included 4,000 new promises. The principle is very simple: the police are there to serve the local community, not Whitehall, but for too long they have been serving Whitehall.
Jack Dromey
The hon. Gentleman’s esoteric dissertation on central Government diktats is all very interesting, but does he not accept this simple reality: as a consequence of what Whitehall is now doing in front-loading major cuts to the police service—7% and 6% in the first two years—local police services generally are faced with a nigh-on impossible problem and the West Midlands police service in particular will lose 400 police officers by 1 April next year?
Guy Opperman
I make this simple point: what would Labour have cut? All parties would now be facing this difficulty and, frankly, it is fanciful to argue there would not have been any cuts whatever to, say, the Birmingham or Northumberland police forces.
I want to turn now to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. When under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), Labour planned for elected representatives. In the 2008 draft legislative programme it announced that its Policing and Crime Bill would include proposals to provide
“a clear and powerful public voice in decision making through directly elected representatives”.
To my untutored mind, having done nearly 20 years at the Bar, that sounds remarkably similar to what we are introducing now. Labour referred to elected representatives in a policing Green Paper published in July 2008. I accept that I was in another place.
Guy Opperman
No, you are wrong. The promotion is delightful, but it is premature. Mention has been made of “Strictly Come Dancing” and other things, but I was not in the House of Lords then. Instead, I was probably somewhere near the Old Bailey. My point is that even Ed Balls has conceded that there is more to do on accountability.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. When Members are mentioned they must, of course, be referred to by their constituency not their name, and there must also be no references to “you” or to “me”—after all, I have made no decisions in this area.
Guy Opperman
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), has said that there is more to do in respect of accountability, and there is more we can do to deepen local and force-based accountability in policing.
Mr Winnick
If I understand correctly, the hon. Gentleman was criticising the previous Government for having proposed elected police commissioners and for then abandoning the idea. That is what happened, but that is part of the democratic process. The Home Affairs Committee—which by no means has the final say in such matters—heard representations from the police authorities and senior police officers. We discussed the matter and we came to the conclusion that the Government should not go ahead with the idea. That was not decisive in influencing the Government, but there is nothing wrong with a Government listening, and in my view they made the right decision.
Guy Opperman
There were two efforts in respect of this particular proposal, and it is right that certain people have had reservations as time has passed, but let me give one particular example. Sir Hugh Orde was previously a very vocal critic, even predicting that some officers would resign, but following the Queen’s Speech he has changed his position. He now welcomes a commitment to local accountability and says he would work with the Government to protect operational independence. As he put it:
“Policing has always been about serving and answering to local communities. Those are the origins of policing in this country and chief officers”—
and I stress this point—
“welcome the commitment towards local accountability.”
I should also make the point that this proposal has not come from out of the blue. It has been proposed in the past, and it has also been tried in different contexts in America. If we can harness this new proposal and reform the justice system in the way that, without a shadow of a doubt, it requires, we can make a genuine effort to engage in a three-pronged attack to take this matter forward.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I should first declare an interest: I am a member of the Kent police authority.
It is a pleasure to follow my hon.—and perhaps learned—Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and I particularly welcome the emphasis he placed on the need for the localisation of policing decisions, as opposed to the centralisation that went on before. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who I have not previously had the pleasure of hearing make a speech. There has been strong representation from the west midlands in today’s debate, and Members representing constituencies in that area have put their case well. The Conservative party was welcomed by chief constable Chris Sims in October when he organised the security for our conference, and we were very impressed with the service we received.
May I first tackle two propositions put forward by Labour Members? The first is that morale in the police is plummeting and that this settlement will lead to a worse service being provided by them. That is not my experience; I am consistently struck by the professionalism of officers in Kent and elsewhere in the country where I meet police officers. In Kent, we have been planning for many months for these grant reductions. The work that has been done and the engagement of every different area of Kent police in finding substantial savings has been extraordinarily impressive. I have not detected any reduction in morale. Officers and staff appreciate that there has been a very serious recession across the country and in the private sector, where many people have lost their jobs, had pay freezes or had severe pay cuts, and that the police family have come through that period very well. In addition, this Government kept to the third year of the pay review that had been agreed, and I know that that was greatly appreciated in many quarters.
The second proposition relates to the debate about police numbers and the level of crime. I heard the interview that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice gave on Radio 4, in which he made perfectly sensible remarks, and I do not understand the excitement of Labour Members about this issue. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said that the number of West Midlands police officers had increased from 7,135 in 1996 to 8,536 this year. The level of crime did decrease over that period, certainly according to the British crime survey, which Labour Members particularly like to cite. What the hon. Gentleman did not say is that nationally quite a reduction in police numbers took place during part of that period—until about 2002-03—and thereafter those numbers rose. According to the British crime survey, there was a consistent reduction in the level of crime throughout the period—that started in 1994, as we heard from Labour Members yesterday. That does not correlate with the trend in police numbers over that period, so there is no simple link and it is very difficult to show such a correlation statistically.
What I know from my constituency is that police officers, effectively placed and doing the right thing, can make an enormous difference. For example, we introduced neighbourhood task teams to support neighbourhood policing. Medway has had two teams, comprising a sergeant and five or six constables, which support the neighbourhood policing teams, concentrating on particularly difficult high-crime areas. One huge success has been that, through working with other agencies, they have almost eradicated street prostitution in Chatham, which has been a problem for centuries. This is about working with other agencies. A particular team has helped bring about that success, but overall it is not possible to demonstrate a direct or simple relationship between police numbers and crime, and we need to recognise that.
Decisions on police numbers should be taken by local communities. The single most important change that we are about to see in policing is that, for the first time, this will not be about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) suggesting that the Home Office commission research to decide what to do, or even about this House debating what we want police numbers to be and where we want them to be; this will be a decision for each local community to take, through the commissioner who they elect to oversee and organise their police force locally. That will be a hugely healthy change from the current situation.
I have always found, both as a councillor and as a member of a police authority—and in this House, to an extent—that democratic oversight is one of the key drivers of value for money in public services. This is about scrutinising what the employees, the officers and the people delivering the service are doing and ensuring that they are delivering value for money for the taxpayer. I am not convinced that the same savings have been made in national Government as have been made in areas where there is more direct democratic oversight: in local government and, to an extent, in police authorities. If each Department were to report to the relevant Select Committee and the permanent secretary were to put his budget before that Committee for approval and discussion, item by item, that would help us to find savings.
The Government have set out a strong savings programme, but what I see when I participate in the budget review group and the audit and finance committee of our police authority in Kent is that members of the authority, a majority of whom are elected—it is the elected members who must pass the police precept every year—subject the police officers to an enormous degree of scrutiny. Through that process we have made much more substantial savings than we have been ordered to find by the centre. When we examine the reductions in police grant that are coming, the decision will be taken locally as to what the level of precept will be.
Kent’s new chief constable, whom we brought in from Norfolk, where he had been deputy chief constable and had done fantastic work in improving public confidence, making significant savings and restructuring the force, said that he sees these grant reductions as an opportunity to deliver a more efficient and effective force. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members say that he has no choice, but very often when the money is increased by year and there is not the great pressure to find savings and be efficient, it is human nature for people occasionally not to act as efficiently as they might. Perhaps more people are employed in a particular area or perhaps the focus is on something that needed to be done some years ago when things have moved on and it is not necessarily the priority it once was. It is by finding such savings and having proper democratic oversight of that process that we should be able to make our policing more efficient and effective.
Jack Dromey
The constant quest for efficiency and effectiveness is common ground between us, but what has the hon. Gentleman got to say to the people of the west midlands who are led by a chief constable who is the national champion on bureaucracy and they have a police service that has already made very significant changes to promote efficiency and effectiveness, but it now says that because of the scale and speed of what it is being asked to do, there will be significant cuts to front-line policing and some of the best, long-serving officers in the police service will be compulsorily retired?
Mark Reckless
Having a national champion on bureaucracy in the way that it has been organised by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is an organisation that does not entirely respond to this House and has little if any statutory basis, is not the way to tackle bureaucracy. We have had far more success in finding savings in Kent by having a majority of elected members who sit down with the officers who spend the money.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the work is best done locally, and he showed me the good work being done in Kent when I went to visit his constituency, but there is a need to share good practice. What I saw in Rochester and Strood ought to be rolled out in other parts of the country. So even though the savings are made locally, there needs to a mechanism—it could be the Home Office or this could be done through Jan Berry—that will make sure that other police authorities can follow what Kent is doing.
Mark Reckless
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of our Home Affairs Committee, for his comments. He has kindly arranged to use our website to promote some of that good practice, such as the safe exit scheme and our offender management unit, in which we are working closely with probation and other agencies. There is enormous scope for savings through such collaboration.
I do not understand why most forces in the country are not making significant savings through collaboration. I know that Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire have quite a strong programme, but I have not seen any other forces that have anything like the level of collaboration or are making the savings that have been delivered in Kent and Essex. That might be because the forces and counties of Kent and Essex are of a similar size and there might not be the sensitivities about one force being perceived to be taking the lead. It might also be because the personalities and individuals involved are particularly committed to the process. We now have, however, one single directorate to deal with all organised, serious and major crime. A substantial number of police officers have been transferred from each force into a joint directorate that reports to a single assistant chief constable. We have a single director of IT and we procure all our services through a joint procurement centre, and I do not understand why other forces have not taken the opportunity to find savings so that they can reinvest them in the front line. It is happening to an extent, but collaboration elsewhere has been very disappointing.
I am speaking about collaboration not just between forces but between different agencies, such as working with councils—a point we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). In Medway we have a basic command unit that is coterminous with the unitary council. That might have assisted us, but it is by working as a team and focusing the resources on the areas where the public want to see them used that we have managed to find savings, to cut crime and to improve confidence at the same time.
Although the process is different in policing from elsewhere in the public sector, there will be the introduction of directly elected police commissioners alongside the front-loading of the reductions, the potential pay freezes for two years and the review of terms of conditions—and I greatly welcome the work that Tom Winsor is doing. I made the point in my ten-minute rule Bill about the importance of police forces’ being able to make a rational decision about how many officers, PCSOs and other civilians they need—that issue has also been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—and it is essential that forces should have the freedom to make that decision. I am delighted that Tom Winsor is working so hard on that and we look forward to his interim report in February. We must knit together the democratic control and the greater efficiency through collaboration, as well have as a sensible review of terms and conditions while recognising how much the police do and what they do to serve this country and our communities. These estimates and the proposals for directly elected police commissioners are the way forward. They will lead to a revolution in policing in our country that will put the public in charge. It is possible for that to happen even in the tightened financial environment in which we find ourselves.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
In the current economic climate, the police must play their part and do more with less. That is not an unreasonable request. The private and public sectors have had to make significant reductions and changes in working practices. Opposition Members constantly cite cuts of 20%, but taken over five years that works out as a 4% cut each year over the next four years, taking into consideration the fact that some funds can be raised under the local council tax precept.
There have been references to cuts in front-line officers, and I would like to offer some solutions. Politicians often come up with problems and talk about them in this Chamber for many hours, but they do not always come up with solutions. It concerns me when I hear chief constables and Opposition Members talking about cuts to the number of front-line officers.
Since I was elected for Weaver Vale, which is a mid-Cheshire seat, I have spent as much time as I can with the Cheshire constabulary, going out on night shifts in Runcorn on a Friday night and, last Friday night, in Northwich.
Steve McCabe
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comment about a rise in the precept. Obviously it varies across the country. What level of increase does he think he would be able to persuade people in his part of the world to accept?
Graham Evans
It varies from community to community. When I was a local councillor, there was much concern about antisocial behaviour. Despite many attempts to get the local police to spend more time on the street corners, as there was concern about youths allegedly causing trouble, they could never afford the time. The parish council made a decision significantly to increase the precept to pay for the new police community support officers. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise figure, but it could be significant if that community decided to increase the precept to allow a dedicated community support officer for that particular area.
The police do their best to meet the public’s expectation of having officers on the beat, but no police force can have officers on street corners every Friday, Saturday or Sunday night. The public expect to see officers on the beat, walking around, but that is not always physically possible. Credit should be given to the previous Government for the way they introduced police community support officers, because they made a difference to the perception as well as the quality of life of many citizens. Local communities can get together to pay for PCSOs.
Front-line cuts have been mentioned many times. If there is a freeze on recruitment and pay, over a few years there will be a reduction in the number of regular police officers. However, I do not hear the role of special constables mentioned in this House. I can only refer to Cheshire constabulary, but for many years the chief constables of Cheshire have spent a lot of time training and recruiting special constables.
Last Friday we had a particularly long and frosty evening. A dozen officers were on duty from 7 o’clock in the evening to 3 o’clock in the morning, half of them special constables. I was a special constable in the 1980s, so before I went out I tried on my old uniform. It fitted where it touched, so I quickly put it back in its suitcase and back in the attic. Before I went out, I looked at the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and various police reforms that were made in the ’80s so that I could prepare myself for what is going on in the 21st century.
In fact, I was pleasantly surprised by the professionalism of the special constables. Half a dozen were on duty on that evening. Each one is a volunteer and an unpaid volunteer, which is not often mentioned. I hear Opposition Members talking about the big society, and there is no better example of it than the special constabulary. It comprises ordinary members of the public serving their community and they are unpaid. That is not to say that members of the special constabulary do not have the ambition to join the regular force—they do.
My point is that we have a wonderful opportunity to recruit special constables at this difficult time, when there is a freeze on regular recruitment. The training for specials is exactly the same as that given to regular policemen. If an individual wants to join a police force, they can join the special constabulary, although they will not be paid, and can train over the next two or three years while there is a recruitment freeze. During those two or three years, they can learn the ropes and how to become full-time policemen. I am sure that when they submit their CV and application to become a regular police officer in two or three years’ time, their experience will be taken into account by the chief constable. That would enable the communities I serve and represent to have front-line policing, because special constables carry warrants and can make arrests. Indeed, they can do everything that regular police officers can do.
On Friday night, I went out with the police in a minibus, in a Panda car and on foot—walking the main streets of Northwich. Policing is not straightforward. I often hear comments from the public and Members about wanting officers not in cars but on the beat, as though one could simply wave a magic wand to achieve that. If the police are to serve the whole community, there will be times when they need to be in patrol cars and times when they need to be on the beat.
Steve McCabe
I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that special constables make an important contribution; I have seen it for myself when I have been out on patrol with them, so I totally agree. However, they are additional officers and the average borough commander cannot place them on the rota because he is never sure how many might be available. There is a difficulty with the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman seems to be coming close to making which is that the specials should substitute for the officers who have been lost through cuts. If that approach were taken, it would become harder to plan basic policing operations because the commander would not know how many specials would be available at any given time.
Graham Evans
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I agree with him, but the situation varies from force to force. The leadership and management of individual forces are important; best practice has been mentioned in that regard. Cheshire constabulary has invested a lot of time in special constables because the force is relatively small, and I respectfully suggest that other forces—I am not thinking of any particular force, but perhaps the metropolitan and larger forces—could learn a thing or two about recruiting specials.
The hon. Gentleman says that the officer in charge of his constabulary is never sure how many specials will be on duty at a certain time, but this comes down to leadership and management. The senior officers in my constituency know exactly how many special constables will be there on the all-important Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, which is when additional help is strongly appreciated. I have spoken to special constables who have ambitions to become regular policemen. They work during the day and volunteer their time in the evenings, including Thursday, Friday and Saturday. I do not say that they could be a long-term replacement, but merely point out that in the short term I do not accept what I hear chief constables say about front-line cuts in officers. There are creative ways in which specials can be used as a solution in the short term, rather than talking about headline cuts.
PCSOs also play an important role and really involve themselves in the community. I have heard worrying stories about many PCSOs being lost across the country, but they can be paid for through local precepting in town and parish councils. I also find that moneys are held in town and parish council accounts for emergencies. I encourage all chief constables and senior officers to look around their communities to see whether any funds have been siphoned or hidden away for a rainy day. I get very concerned when I hear about those vital officers being made redundant, because I do not accept that it is necessary, especially in the short term.
When I went out on Friday night and in Runcorn previously, I was struck by the fact that Cheshire force sends its police out singly. They go out on their own but have significant and efficient back-up available at a moment’s notice, which means that there are many police officers on public view. Earlier, I heard it said that 11% of officers are available at any one time, but in Cheshire a significant number of officers are out on the beat working on their own, and support is there for them very quickly if need be.
Cutting the amount of police time spent on paperwork has not really been mentioned. A previous Prime Minister talked about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. One thing that we could do as a society and as a country is to tackle the abuse of alcohol. Virtually every call on Friday evening involved people who were badly intoxicated and reliant on alcohol. They had lost structure in their lives and it was quite pitiful to be called to the streets or their homes to assist them.
I cannot help feeling that local authorities that grant long, late-night licences to clubs in town centres and elsewhere, enabling alcohol to be served at 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning, put huge pressures on police authorities and forces. Things might be relatively quiet until 11 o’clock at night, but at 2 o’clock in the morning there is mayhem on the streets with intoxicated people brawling. On Friday night—I was told that it was a relatively quiet night—PC Frost was out in force but there were still several arrests of people fighting in the streets of Northwich. Local authorities have a big role to play and they need to communicate better with the police regarding recommendations on late licensing.
Mark Reckless
My hon. Friend refers to PC Frost and the need for other agencies to work with the police as appropriate. Is he aware of an incident in Kent in which the police control centre received a call—this has been publicised—from a woman asking the police to come out because someone had stolen the snowman she had built in her front garden?
Graham Evans
Yes, we were laughing about that on Friday night. The Kent accents were particularly distinct and we had a laugh about it. There are still plenty of snowmen in Cheshire—at least there were when I left on Monday. [Interruption.] Snow joke indeed.
Local authorities will grant late night licensing to pubs and clubs on the one hand, but on the other they are particularly restrictive regarding new businesses. In my area, a new application has been submitted for a restaurant bar in a particularly pleasant location, but because it is a continental-style restaurant—it has no taps on the bar and serves continental lagers and wine by the glass—the local authority restricts its licence. People have to drink up by 8 o’clock and the doors have to be closed, which makes the business unviable. We need to look at our licensing laws and help the police do what they are supposed to do, which is to protect us from violent criminals.
To sum up, police forces do not have to cut front-line policing but should utilise the special constabulary. If people want to become police officers, there is no better way of showing commitment than by volunteering their time and serving their community in the current difficult economic climate.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this constructive and well-mannered debate. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their genuine concerns in a fairly non-political way.
There has been much speculation today and in the past few weeks about the possible effects of the cuts. It is pure speculation because we still do not know what the individual settlements will be. It is disappointing to Members on the Government side that the Opposition still have not had the good grace to tell us where they would make their cuts. I thought that the answer given by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) when he was pushed on this issue was very interesting. Essentially, he said that he would go back to the Treasury to ask for more money, so perhaps the Opposition do not accept there should be any cuts whatever in policing. It would be interesting if that point were addressed in the winding-up speech.
I want to address an issue at the core of this debate—the effect that the reduction in funding will have on police numbers. I know that that is a totemic issue for the Opposition, and it is easy to understand why, because the Labour Government, in their 13 years in office, were very successful at one thing: persuading this country that only by pouring more money in can we get better results out. That is why the debate about policing has always focused on the number of police rather than what they do all day. [Interruption.] We have a record number—140,000—as someone shouts from a sedentary position, but seemingly, simply because we have record police numbers and PCSOs, Labour Members think we have record effective policing. That is simply not an equation that works.
Labour Members do not care whether police officers are on patrol, filling in forms or responding to jobs. They seem incapable of acknowledging that having more and more police officers doing more and more administrative and bureaucratic tasks does not mean better policing. Sadly for the Opposition, the debate has moved on. They need not take my word for it; they can take that of someone who knows more about policing and fighting crime than all of us in the Chamber put together—Bill Bratton, who was chief of police of the Los Angeles police department, of New York city and of Boston. He is famous across the world for putting the broken windows theory into practice. He introduced the CompStat system of tracking crimes, which is still in use today and massively reduced crime in New York city, where he devolved decision making to precinct level and got rid of a backlog of 50,000 unserved warrants. When he was chief of police in Los Angeles, crime within that city dropped for six consecutive years. In 2007, the LA police commission reappointed Bratton to a second five-year term, which was the first time it had made such a reappointment in almost 20 years.
It is fair to say that that guy knows what he is on about, and here is what he said to the Home Affairs Committee on 30 November. The Chair, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, said:
“There is a debate at the moment, obviously because of the current economic climate that will result in the numbers of police officers in a local area being reduced. Do you think there is any correlation between the numbers of officers in a particular area and the level of crime?”
Bill Bratton replied:
“As a police chief for many, many years, I would always like to have more police, but the reality is it is not just numbers but, more importantly, what you do with them. More is fine, but if they’re just standing around or if they’re not focused on issues of concern to the public, then those numbers are not… going to achieve what you would hope to achieve, which is improve public safety and reduce crime.”
Steve McCabe
It is only fair to say that Bill Bratton went on to caution the Select Committee against drawing too many conclusions from the American experience, because policing is organised very differently in the United States.
Mr Burley
I shall give another quote from what Bill Bratton said to us:
“So, I had 38,000 police officers in New York City. In Los Angeles I had 9,000. Los Angeles: 500 square miles, worst gang problem in America, 4 million residents. New York: 38,000 police officers, 300 square miles, 8 million residents, a drug crime problem. To have the equivalent of what I had in New York City in Los Angeles, I would need 18,000 police officers, I only had 9,000 but, over a seven-year period, every year crime went down in Los Angeles… the public perception of police and their effectiveness improved”,
which reinforced
“the adage: it’s not so much the numbers but how you use them, how you inspire them, how you direct them and what their priorities are.”
If it is not a matter of numbers, it is about what the police do all day, and the fact is that in this country the police spend a huge amount of time filling in forms. On 15 March 2007, I went out on the beat in Paddington with the Met, one of the more advanced forces in this country. This is what Met police have to fill in for a single domestic violence incident: a124D paper booklet in the victim’s house; an evidence and actions booklet, which is the same as an old pocketbook, but with structured questions; a custody record, in the station if someone is arrested, with the same details as are in the EAB, which they give to the custody sergeant to rekey into his computer system; a CRISS report, which is an electronic crime report filled in by the officer at the station and that is used for Home Office statistics; a MERLIN report, which involves a national computer system with details of vulnerable children from domestic violence backgrounds—the same details as in the first two forms; a CRIMINT report, which is a Met police-wide intelligence system; and the case papers—that is, the MG forms, which are Word documents that get sent to the Crown Prosecution Service for court. It is not uncommon in the Met and other police forces for officers to be off for the rest of the shift following one domestic violence incident arrest. That is what they are spending their time doing—this mad bureaucracy and paperwork. It is not about the number of police officers; it is about what they do all day on their shifts.
As we have heard recently, Home Office figures have revealed that officers now spend more time on paperwork than on patrol—just 14% of their time on patrol compared with 20% on paperwork. That is why I am delighted that this coalition, like Bill Bratton, is dealing with the reality of the cuts by focusing not on police numbers, but on what the police do all day. Only by clearing away this bureaucracy and these inefficient, wasteful practices will we get the police service that this country deserves.
Keith Vaz
With the leave of the House, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting me speak at this point in the debate. I shall explain why I am doing so. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), who is the youngest member of the Home Affairs Committee. That is my cue to say that the second Wednesday in December is the date of the annual Westminster children’s party for the children of MPs and staff. I am the host, as I have been for the past 14 years; my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the shadow Home Secretary, is Santa Claus, so please do not detain him for too long. Unfortunately, I am therefore unable to be present for the end of the debate, although I wish I could be. I will certainly read with great care the report of the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the shadow Minister, and by the Minister.
The debate has been outstanding, with some excellent speeches, and I commend the hon. Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I also commend the four members of the Home Affairs Committee—my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cannock Chase—for their contributions.
This debate gives us the perfect setting for hearing what Front Benchers have to say about these issues. I can pledge to Parliament—we have been elected by the whole of Parliament, with members of the Committee elected by their party groups—that we will look at the policing issue very carefully indeed. We will produce thoughtful reports. Sometimes, obviously, we will have to be critical of the Government. When they are doing the right thing we will praise them. I can promise the Minister that we will ensure that the reports are thorough, and that they help him and the rest of Parliament to deliberate on these very important issues. I shall now hand over to those on the Front Benches.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has said, this has been an interesting and thoughtful debate, with a large number of contributions from both sides of the House. Before my right hon. Friend rushes off to his important engagement, may I say to him that his chairmanship of the Select Committee over the past few years has been a model of how to chair a Select Committee? There are difficulties sometimes, because we all have party allegiances, but he knows that one of the strengths of the Select Committee system is the way in which it tries to bring some independence of thought to proceedings. That is particularly important when it comes to the Chairs of those Committees. He has chaired the Committee exceptionally well, and I look forward to reading its further reports on policing matters.
I also congratulate my hon. Friends from the west midlands, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who met and made representations to the Minister about their concerns regarding the policing reductions that we will see over the next few years. I hope that when he makes his winding-up speech he will comment in particular on the points that they made.
I shall not pick out every Government Member who spoke, but I found it interesting that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for example, should make a plea for opening police stations—because the Minister is going to close them. I am sure he will have an interesting debate with the Minister about that, but he made an important point about the need for community and neighbourhood policing, and let us hope that, whatever happens over the next few years, neighbourhood policing and police presence on the street will be effectively maintained.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), whom I cannot see in the Chamber at the moment, made an important point when he said that this is all about choices. Indeed it is. He defended the choice before us on the basis of economic necessity, but our view is that the police have fared particularly badly in the budget settlement and comprehensive spending review. Other Departments have fared significantly better, so somewhere along the line a choice was made about the budget settlement for the police, as opposed to the budget settlement for other Departments.
I should like to praise the police service, police officers, police community support officers, police staff and, indeed, police authority members for the excellent work that they do. We have seen it in London, in particular, over the past couple of weeks, but in other parts of the country, too. When we have these debates, it would be remiss of us not to put on the record every time the wholehearted support of all Members for the police throughout the country, and for their hard work. To be fair, I know the Minister does that. There might be differences between us over how we provide that support, but we need always to recognise their dedication and public service, and the duty that they perform on behalf of all of us throughout our country.
Helped by a record number of police officers, crime fell by 43% under the previous Government, and the chance of being a victim of crime is at a 30-year low, but the Government’s cuts to policing, starting next year as the estimates for 2011-12 show, will put that progress at risk. By cutting police funding by 20% over the next four years, the Government are taking big risks with the public’s safety and undermining the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour.
The speed and scale of the Government’s cuts have put police forces and chief constables in an impossible position. A number of forces have already announced plans to lose thousands of police officers and police staff, blowing apart the Government’s claims that the front line can be protected. Indeed, many of the most experienced officers in our police forces will have to go.
People will be rightly worried that, at the same time as cutting funding for front-line police, the Government want to spend more than £100 million on bringing in directly elected police commissioners—a sum that, according to the Association of Police Authorities, is equivalent to 600 police officers. That controversial experiment risks politicising the police at huge cost to the taxpayer, and it will do little to improve police accountability.
The coalition’s spending review announced that central Government police funding will be cut by 20% in real terms by 2014-15. Funding allocations for individual police forces are expected to be announced in the next few days, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on when that will be. Following consultation, a further debate will be possible, as we will know more about the impact on all individual forces. The hon. Member for South Dorset and others, including the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), made the point about what that will mean for individual police forces throughout the country.
The biggest cuts will be next year and the year after, with funding reduced by 6% in 2011-12 and by 8% in 2012-13. Front-loading the cuts will make it even more difficult to minimise the impact on front-line policing through efficiency savings. The Minister has just received a letter from senior Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and independent members of the APA, urging him to reconsider the front-loaded cuts in 2011-12 and 2012-13 in order to
“avoid long-term damage to policing capability”.
The letter warns that the current cuts timetable will also mean fewer police community support officers and could affect the
“safe and secure delivery of the Olympics”
in 2012.
Those cuts go way beyond what experts believe can be achieved through efficiency savings and better procurement. In other words, a 6% cut next year is too much. Coalition Ministers have regularly quoted from the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, “Valuing the Police: policing in an age of austerity”, which was published in July, and it says that a “re-design” of the police system could
“at best...save 12% of central government funding, while maintaining police availability”.
The front-loaded cuts of 20% that will start in 2011-12 go significantly beyond that.
A number of Government Back Benchers have said that police forces across the country can make efficiency savings without impacting on the front line. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) asked what the Opposition have said about that. The previous Home Secretary made it clear that he accepted the 12% figure and the HMIC report. However, the present Government propose to go beyond 12% to 20%.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
indicated dissent.
Vernon Coaker
The Minister will hide behind local precepting and councils raising money to make up some of the gap, but that is smoke and mirrors—a sleight of hand. There is a 20% reduction in central Government funding to police forces across the country. That goes beyond the HMIC recommendation. Hon. Members must understand that although some money can be saved through efficiency, that amount cannot be saved without impacting on the front line.
Vernon Coaker
I will give way after I finish this point. The Home Secretary failed to fight the police’s corner in the spending review negotiations, so it falls to Parliament to stand up for the law-abiding public against these reckless cuts.
Mark Reckless
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the difference between 20% and 12% that he describes makes no allowance for savings from things such as a pay freeze and changes in terms and conditions?
Vernon Coaker
I am quoting the Green Book and the HMIC report. We will see over the next one, two, three and four years whether the hon. Gentleman is right in the statistics that he has quoted from this book—that saving and this saving. We will see whether what he says stands up in police forces in Kent, Nottinghamshire, the west midlands and elsewhere across England and Wales, or whether we will see massive losses of police officers, police community support officers and police staff. Then we will see who has understood the statistics and figures correctly, and who is actually right. I will have a side wager with the hon. Gentleman, and it will not be me who is out of pocket, but him.
I repeat the call that has been made to the Home Secretary and other Ministers to go back and say to the Treasury that the police spending settlement is not acceptable, that it must be reopened and improved. Will the Minister give us that commitment in discussing the estimates for 2011-12, or does he just intend to carry on with the settlement as it stands? As the hon. Member for Hexham said, choices are available to the Government. The Minister can try to argue for a better deal, like those for schools, hospitals and the Ministry of Defence. The big casualty in the comprehensive spending review was the Home Office, and therefore the police service and police forces of this country. I know that the Minister says that there is no link between levels of crime and police numbers, but that is not what the public say.
Let us look at some examples. The hon. Member for South Dorset is already getting cold feet about reductions in police officer numbers in his area, and he will not be the only one. Hon. Members will have to go back and say that things will be tough. There will be police officer cuts across the country: Greater Manchester police have announced a cut of 1,387 officers and 1,557 staff; North Wales police have announced that 440 posts will be cut, made up of 230 police officers and 210 staff; Northumbria police have announced a cut of 450 civilian staff; Thames Valley police have announced 800 staff cuts, but there is no breakdown between police officers and police staff; and West Midlands police have announced a cut of 2,200 posts, made up of 1,100 police officers and 1,100 staff.
Whatever the book says, and whatever Government Members say, I am willing to go to each and every one of their constituencies and ask the public whether they want fewer police officers or more police officers on their streets. I will ask them whether they believe that the Government should have prioritised police spending more in the Budget so that police officer posts, police staff and PCSOs could have been protected, or whether they were a price worth paying.
A few months into this new Tory-led Government, I believe that people will be astonished that police recruitment has been frozen, thousands of police officer posts are to be lost and experienced police officers will be forced to retire, including in my own area of Nottinghamshire.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Could the hon. Gentleman help us by telling us what percentage of the budget his party would have cut had it been returned to government, and what the consequences would have been for police numbers? It is a fact, is it not, that Labour would have cut the budget by 20% and made as many reductions in police numbers?
Vernon Coaker
That is not the case. The hon. Lady will know, as I pointed out earlier, that we would have accepted what the HMIC report says. The previous Home Secretary made that clear. That report is clear that the level of savings set out in it can be made over four years without having an impact on the front line, but that if cuts go beyond that, they will have an impact on front-line and visible policing.
On top of what I have just mentioned, the number of police community support officers will go down and police staff numbers will fall dramatically. Coalition Members will have some explaining to do when they go back to their constituencies. The estimates for 2011-12 will be just the start, unless the Minister and his colleagues start to stand up for the police. They should stop defending the cuts and start defending the police and the communities that they serve.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate, and I welcome the introduction to it by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and the report that his Committee has just published. I am sorry that he is not here to listen to these final contributions, but I understand why he has had to leave. The Committee’s report was very helpful, and we look forward to its further reports.
There have been a number of important and useful contributions to the debate, and I hope to address them during the course of my remarks. I am afraid I did not think that the shadow Minister’s response did justice to a number of the serious points that were raised by Labour Members as well as by coalition Members about the importance of police deployment, how savings are to be driven in the police and the value of leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) particularly mentioned the important role that police authorities will have in the next few months in driving value for money and helping police forces deliver leadership.
Let us begin by discussing what we agree about. We all agree about the importance of the police and of valuing them. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was absolutely right to take the opportunity, as I always try to do, to thank the police for what they do. I am sure that they are in action once again just outside the House in relation to the protest that is being run again today. Every day, police officers act to keep us safe and many of them take risks in doing so, and we should thank them for their work. They are an immensely important public service.
I apologise to Members of all parties, because I am afraid I will not be able to indicate the provisional grants for individual forces today. We will announce them before Christmas, and there will be the usual parliamentary debate on them next year. As all Members will understand, I cannot therefore comment on individual forces’ specific grant issues. I can say that I am paying the closest attention to hon. Members’ representations, including those from the West Midlands force area. I will continue to do so after the provisional allocations are announced.
The backdrop to the debate is the spending review. Given the contributions of most right hon. and hon. Members, I do not think it appropriate to rehearse at great length why the Government have to take the action we are taking. I would just point out that we believe it necessary to deal with the largest deficit in our peacetime history, and that debt interest payments alone this year, at more than £40 billion, are far greater than the combined spend of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
We announced a reduction in police spending in the review because we believe that dealing with the deficit is essential, and that the police can and must pay their share—
Nick Herbert
The police must pay their share in reducing the deficit. Contrary to what the Opposition suggest—that a poor deal was secured for the police—the deal was rather better than expected in relation to non-protected Departments.
It is important to point out that the fact that the reduction in central Government spending on the police is 20% over four years—that is clear from the settlement—does not mean a 20% reduction in the amount of money that forces will have over the period. That is an immensely important point, but I am not sure that the Opposition have fully grasped it. There is a straightforward reason: forces do not raise all their money from central Government—on average, they raise getting on for a third of their money from central Government, or nearly £1 in every £3—and the money that they raise locally is not being cut.
As has been pointed out, that means that if we assume both the OBR forecast of reasonable rises in the precept based on—[Interruption.] The OBR forecast is based on the historic trend and the precept freeze, which the Government are funding next year. That reduces the cut in police force funding over the four-year period to 14% in real terms. The Opposition must explain why they believe that the 12% cut that they concede they would have made to policing, based on HMIC advice, would leave forces strong and secure—I assume that they would not otherwise have proposed that—but that a 14% cut is Armageddon, with all the consequences that the hon. Member for Gedling says will flow?
The difference between a 12% cut in real terms and a 14% cut at the end of the four-year period is £200 million, and the Government are making specific additional proposals, to which my hon. Friends referred, including the review of pay and conditions, which is being set up by Tom Winsor. We also expect the police to take part in the two-year pay freeze, subject to the agreement of the police negotiating board, which will close that £200 million gap. Labour Members simply have not answered the question. Why do they feel able to go around campaigning on, and scaremongering about, the impact of the spending reductions that forces are being asked to make? They are clearly and simply seeking to make political capital out of the situation, yet they would have cut the police budget themselves, in precisely the same order of magnitude as that which the Government have announced—the availability of resources to the police would have been precisely the same. They are perpetrating on the public a great fraud about their position.
Steve McCabe
I do not think that the Minister is deliberately trying to mislead the House, but is it not fair to say that the 12% cut that the former Home Secretary mentioned would be subject to exactly the same precept conditions, so it would have been reduced in the same way as he has reduced his 20% cut to 14%? He has therefore inadvertently misled the House on that point. Of course, he also completely misleads the House in relation to the west midlands—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the Minister, but he cannot accuse him of misleading the House because he is using figures that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with.
Steve McCabe
I am happy to apologise. I was suggesting that the Minister was inadvertently misleading the House by quoting figures that do not stand up to scrutiny.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman very clearly and he said it twice. I am glad that he has clarified that he believed that it was not deliberate.
Nick Herbert
I repeat that the Opposition proposed cuts of exactly the same magnitude. Indeed, the shadow Chancellor—when he was shadow Home Secretary—told the House on 8 September that as Home Secretary he had set out savings of £1.3 billion over the next four years, or about 12% of the Home Office budget. He also said that the HMIC report confirmed that, with a lot of effort, it would be possible to save 12% without affecting front-line services—[Interruption.] Those are not my words: they are the words of the shadow Chancellor.
As I pointed out on Monday, the shadow Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee seminar in Cannock on 22 November that this is a tighter environment for police spending and would be under any Government. Let us nail once and for all the idea that the Opposition would not have cut police spending. They would, and they have admitted it. The order of cuts that they would have made in police spending is exactly the same as we are asking the police to make now—
Nick Herbert
No, I am going to make some progress if the hon. Gentleman—whom I met this morning—will forgive me.
The hon. Member for Gedling referred to the letter that the Association of Police Authorities sent me asking for a re-profiling of the cuts. I note that it did not ask us to revisit the overall level of the cuts. I am afraid that it is not possible to revisit the spending review. The settlement, which did not presume that the deepest cut would be in the first year—[Interruption.] It will not be in the first year. The settlement fully takes into account the savings that we expect to be made as a consequence of the pay freeze that we expect the police to undertake, which the Opposition have unfortunately discounted in all their considerations.
One of the signatories to the letter is Ann Barnes, the independent chairman of Kent police authority, who is also, I believe, a vice-chairman of the Association of Police Authorities. She is no fan of the Government’s proposals to introduce directly elected police and crime commissioners. Nor, by the way, is she one of the hon. Gentleman’s friends who oppose the policy while secretly planning to run for office. Ann Barnes issued a news release about that letter in which she said—and it is important that hon. Members hear this—
“I do not think police capability in Kent will be compromised. Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of policing in Kent and despite the reductions, we are confident that people will see little difference in the level of policing delivered locally.”
She was very much reflecting the views that have been put sensibly by my hon. Friends—who have been discussing these issues with their chief officers—that, across the country, chief constables are making every effort to protect front-line policing and that some are guaranteeing that they will protect neighbourhood policing. There is an enormous discrepancy between what chief officers are saying about the impact of these spending reductions on service delivery and the Opposition’s claims that there will be some catastrophic collapse in policing.
Nick Herbert
I will make a bit of progress because I am short of time, and then I will give way.
We are confident that these savings can be made because, in part, of the evidence of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, backed up the Audit Commission. HMIC has said that it is possible for forces to make savings of more than £1 billion a year—12% of the annual budget—through things such as improving productivity, cutting costs, sharing services and addressing savings in the back and middle offices of police forces. In addition, further savings can be realised through areas such as better procurement, although some of those savings were included in the HMIC report.
It is significant that the hon. Member for Gedling and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) never refer to those issues. They never talk about the savings that could be made by forces, and they are simply unwilling to engage in the necessary debate about how to increase and improve deployment, given the fiscal constraints that confront us.
Ed Balls
To avoid any further inadvertent misleading of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, first, that the HMIC report that refers to 12% deliverable cuts refers to cuts over four years and, secondly, that it refers to cuts in central Government grant? The HMIC report referred to 12% cuts in central Government grant; the Government are proposing a 20% cut in central Government grant. Will he confirm the difference in those figures and that that was what HMIC recommended?
Nick Herbert
I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman understood this. The HMIC report was not referring to grant; it was referring to the savings that can be made by police forces. I strongly advise him to read the report again. It is important to understand the savings that could be made by police forces. Hon. Members could then work together sensibly and constructively, as urged by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, to support forces in delivering savings.
Police forces and authorities spend about £2.8 billion every year on equipment, goods and services. Ending the practice of procuring things in 43 different ways could drive down the costs of goods, services and equipment by £200 million annually by the end of the spending review period. Furthermore, there is the issue of IT. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman knows how many different IT systems there are across our 43 forces. There are 2,000 different systems and 5,000 staff involved with them. The information systems improvement strategy programme on savings in IT could save another £180 million annually by transforming how police information systems are developed, procured and implemented. We are convinced that further savings could be made.
It is important for hon. Members to reflect on the fact that half of all spend by police forces is on the middle and back office. The people in those offices are not involved directly in crime fighting activity—although they do important things, such as providing direct support for the front line or keeping the organisation running. Not only is half of all spend made in those areas, but a quarter of all police officers—I am talking about sworn officers—are employed there. HMIC believes that significant savings can be made in the middle and back office by better management while, at the same time, protecting the front line.
Richard Burden
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the chief constable in the West Midlands force is looking at all those kinds of savings and more. However, he will also know that that will not do the job in West Midlands. Why not? That is because of the disproportionate reliance in West Midlands on the central Government grant, which we have urged the Minister to address time and time again. I am pleased that he is listening to us on that. However, I would like an assurance from the Minister today not only that he will listen, but that when he comes back to the House, he will do something about the problem.
Nick Herbert
I cannot pre-announce the grant determination. I met the hon. Gentleman this morning, and I will of course pay attention to the particular circumstances of West Midlands police if they are receiving less funding from local government. However, I would also like to draw his attention to what the chief constable of West Midlands has said:
“I remain absolutely confident that we will continue to protect and serve people in the West Midlands in the way they expect.”
That is a familiar message, because it is also the one being sent out by chief constables up and down the country, who are rising to the challenge of delivering services.
While the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is here, I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to apologise for what he said on Monday, when he described the figure of 11% of force strength being visible and available to the public as a “smear” and a “corrupt and erroneous statistic”. That was a reference to the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. I find it difficult to believe how the right hon. Gentleman could describe something in such a report as a “corrupt and erroneous statistic” or say that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary was seeking to “smear” police forces.
There is an issue about the visibility and availability of police officers, and we have to address it. The report said that
“general availability, in which we include neighbourhood policing and response, is relatively low. Several factors have combined to produce this ‘thin blue line’ of which shift patterns, risk management, bureaucracy and specialisation are the most significant”—
bureaucracy being one of the factors that needs to be addressed. The real question for this House is why, at a time when we had achieved record resourcing for policing, a record number of police officers and a record size of the police work force, we had visibility and availability at only about 11% of force strength. I agree with the inspectorate of constabulary that that figure is too low. We need to have a sensible debate about how we can address shift patterns, bureaucracy and the drift of officers into specialist units, so that we can protect that visibility and availability, which all my hon. Friends—indeed, all Members of the House—want to improve.
Ed Balls
I will happily take this opportunity to say that I wrote to Sir Denis O’Connor yesterday on the matter, and I copied the letter to the Policing Minister. In that letter I say that I have not criticised—and will not criticise—the 11% statistic, which was drawn up by HMIC. What I have consistently criticised is the way in which that statistic has been used, in a misleading and smearing way, by Ministers—the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Policing Minister—to do down the important work of the police. The Minister says that 11% of the time is spent on visible policing, with the other 89% wasted on bureaucracy. That excludes people working on organised crime, in CID, on domestic violence, or on child abuse. That is the smear.
Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I just read out the HMIC report, which says:
“A re-design of the system…has the potential”—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he was making an intervention. I think that he has made his point, and the intervention was getting a little long. It would be very helpful if when putting forcefully the arguments on either side of the House, all Members could avoid casting any aspersions on the correctness of another person’s view.
Nick Herbert
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly agree with that. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has been caught out—
Nick Herbert
He has been caught out. I note that, in his letter to the chief inspector of constabulary, the right hon. Gentleman did not apologise for describing the chief inspector’s report as a “smear” or “corrupt and erroneous”, but that is what he said on Monday. I hesitate, after Monday, to advise hon. Members about using their words carefully, but the right hon. Gentleman should learn that he needs to choose his words more carefully when talking about the inspector’s report. I am sure that he will do so in future.
It is essential that we address the bureaucracy—
Vernon Coaker
I should like to quote from the HMIC report, because the Minister disputed the 12% figure that I used in relation to central Government funding. The report stated:
“A re-design of the system…has the potential, at best, to save 12% of central government funding, while maintaining police availability. A cut beyond 12% would almost certainly reduce police availability”.
The 12% referred to central Government funding, so the Minister was wrong.
Nick Herbert
No, the Audit Commission and HMIC said that the savings that could be made available to police officers were more than £1 billion a year—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is in no position to criticise anyone for misquoting people—[Interruption.] No, I did not.
The Opposition simply do not focus on the importance of reducing bureaucracy or of changing shift patterns. I want to give two quick examples. The action that we are taking to scrap stop forms and to limit stop-and-search reporting, with all the unnecessary bureaucracy that that has imposed upon officers, will save 800,000 hours of police time. Yesterday, the Assistant Commissioner of the Met, Ian McPherson, told the Greater London authority in an evidence session at which I was present that changing shift patterns in the Met will effectively increase staffing levels by an equivalent of 20% on Friday and Saturday evenings. There are things that we can do to improve the efficiency and deployment of police officers within the availability of constrained resources. That is why it is so important that we continue to reduce interference from the point of view of central Government, and why we have scrapped the remaining targets and the pledge. It is also why we intend to give more discretion to police forces so that they can make these important management decisions.
I want quickly to comment on what hon. Members have said about the use of the A19 procedure to enforce retirement for officers who have served for more than 30 years. There are only 3,000 officers to whom A19 might apply, out of a total in England and Wales of 143,000. It is not the ideal procedure, which is why we have set up a review of pay and conditions by Tom Winsor, which will report in February. It is important that we address issues such as the number of officers on restricted duties—more than 5,500—and the institutionalisation of overtime, when overtime costs are still in the region of £400 million a year. These are all areas in which considerable savings could be delivered to help to protect front-line policing.
Finally, I want to address the issue of police numbers and crime. I want to put on record what I actually said in the interview on “The World this Weekend”, which, by the way, was heavily edited. Nevertheless, as stated in the transcript of the interview that was broadcast, when asked about the link between reducing crime and police numbers, what I actually said was this:
“I don’t think that anyone, and no respectable academic would make a simple link between the increase in the numbers of police officers and what has happened to crime. There is no such link.”
The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is not stupid, and he will know that I was quite clearly referring to that simple link. That was my point and I believe it was a correct point—one also made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). It was also made by one of the world’s greatest crime fighters, Bill Bratton, who was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). If hon. Members believe that there is such a simple link, perhaps they can explain why police numbers have increased in Sweden and Spain, but crime has increased, too. Perhaps they can also explain why police numbers in the United States have fallen, yet crime has fallen, too.
It is obvious to anybody who thinks about it that there is not a simple link, and that what we should be concerned about is how officers are deployed, whether they are available and visible to the public and whether they are there on the streets when the public want them. What therefore matters is not the total size of the police work force, but the efficiency and effectiveness of their deployment and how much they are tied up by bureaucracy. That is an issue that the Opposition simply will not address.
Opposition Members talked about the cost of police and crime commissioners. May I point out that the £100 million costing by the hon. Member for Gedling for police and crime commissioners was for a period beyond that covered by the spending review. The annual additional cost of police and commissioners is reflected only in the election cost and there will be no greater cost for the police authorities themselves. The money will not come out of police force budgets. It represents £12.5 million a year on average—less than 0.1% of police spend. Pointing out that an election will cost too much money and should not be held in the first place is not a good argument for any hon. Member to advance against a democratic reform. That is a very weak and poor argument.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) that we are determined to ensure a safe Olympics and that we will make further announcements about the police funding for the Olympics in due course. I would be happy to meet him to discuss any concerns about that.
While Labour Members continue to play politics, continue to criticise cuts, even though they would have made them themselves, and continue to criticise democratic accountability, even though they would have introduced it themselves, Government Members know that we must tackle the deficit. It is in our national interest to do so, not least for the sake of the future funding of police officers generally and of individual officers. We are determined to make the savings by reducing bureaucracy, giving forces more freedom and driving out cost. In so doing, we are sure that we can protect the front line and the visible and available policing that the public value. The public want to know that the police will be there for them, and we are absolutely determined that they will be.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).
Department for International Development
Zimbabwe
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 216 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 216 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the excellent work that he does as Chairman of the Select Committee. I also congratulate the other members of the Committee, and I welcome the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned human resource. It is, of course, the most important resource in Zimbabwe, but many people have fled Zimbabwe for a variety of reasons. Some have come to the United Kingdom, while others have gone to South Africa, Zambia or other countries in the region. Does he agree that a sign of real political progress and stability in Zimbabwe will be people returning from those countries and others to such places as Harare, so that they can make a real contribution to the country’s future?
Malcolm Bruce
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The vast majority of Zimbabweans who are not in Zimbabwe would rather be anywhere except where they are. They would like to be back in Zimbabwe, but, for a variety of reasons, it is difficult for them to go back. It is not just a question of whether they are under threat, whether they can return to any assets that they have, or whether those assets are still there; it is a question of whether they can do anything functionally or economically useful.
We found that some doctors and teachers who had left the country had come back, but they were working for a fraction of the money that they could obtain in neighbouring Botswana or South Africa, let alone the United Kingdom. They were returning because they wanted to help, but they were making sacrifices. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. One of DFID’s activities was trying to supplement those people’s salaries, just to add an extra pull, but that still left them earning well below the market rate for the southern African region.
I have no doubt that if only peace and normality could be returned to Zimbabwe, within a very short time the people would come back, economic activity would return and, indeed—this is what is surely so frustrating for everyone—Zimbabwe could provide a shining example for the rest of Africa. People have the capacity to bring that about, given the chance, but clearly they are not being given that chance.
Obviously I want to focus predominantly on DFID’s activity, but the ambassador has highlighted the difficulties that were apparent in February and are plainly still in existence. There has been very little progress towards any kind of constitutional settlement, and there are mutterings about when an election may take place. The ambassador made it clear unequivocally that
“The constitutional process needs to be completed in an orderly and well-paced way”.
He said that the Zimbabwe electoral commission and the other commissions needed “to be capacitated”, and that
“technical changes need to be made to the voters’ roll”
—and to, for instance, the electoral Acts—
“as well as the putting in place of thorough and comprehensive monitoring arrangements. All this is going to take time if it is going to be held as it should.”
This is the crunch:
“If a poll was held prematurely, it would be most unlikely to be either free or fair”.
It is important for the House to take note of that fresh advice from our ambassador.
We are in a position of compromise—a sort of limbo. The Library note refers to “limping along”. However, the position is better than it was. Few analogies stick for very long, but a slight comparison can be made with some of the hiccups along the way in Northern Ireland. The longer even a small improvement continues, the harder it becomes to go back to the situation as it was previously. There is no guarantee, however, and the big fear is that too many people in powerful positions in Zimbabwe would like to take the country back and they have the capacity to do so. We need to rely on the genuine friends of the people of Zimbabwe, and although the United Kingdom stands among them, I acknowledge that we have a difficult role to play and that we have to play it from a distance. We need to work discreetly and to recognise the legitimate role of the neighbours in Africa, especially South Africa, but also the Southern African Development Community states. In this context, it would be nice if SADC became a more effective and coherent organisation. The fact that the tribunal judgments of SADC have been denounced and ridiculed by Zimbabwe, which says it does not recognise SADC, is clearly a weakness to the south African states in the region.
The continuing situation in Zimbabwe is not only a disaster and a frustration for the people of Zimbabwe; it is a drag anchor for the whole of southern Africa. If the situation is not resolved, the capacity of many other countries in southern Africa to fulfil their potential will be comprehensively weakened. That is perhaps understood more than it was, and the mood is changing, although perhaps too slowly.
We made some specific points in our report, and I would be grateful for an update on them from the Minister. I am sure he will tell us about current DFID activities in the country. The figure was $100 million, much of it spent on health. Has there been any change in that, or any consideration of whether we could, or should, be doing more on education, or do we feel that others are doing that satisfactorily? Also, do we feel we have the capacity to increase funding?
I think the Committee was in agreement that where we saw funds being effectively spent, they were delivering real results. If we could find comparable projects on a wider scale, we would certainly support additional funding. Again, I would appreciate the Minister stating the Department’s view on that. So far as we were able to gauge, the money was going precisely to where it was intended. Great precautions were taken to ensure it did not get into the wrong hands and was not misappropriated, and that it delivered results.
The point about precautions raises the issue of the mechanism or agency used. A number of the partners, both international, local and national, said it led to bureaucratic delays, and to inflexibilities and extra expense, which for some small organisations were disproportionate to what they were trying to achieve. There was an understanding of why the precautions were in place, but if anything can be done to simplify the process and make it more flexible without losing the certainty that money is not being misappropriated, that will be widely appreciated by the partners with whom we are engaging.
There was considerable concern about the extraction of diamonds and the ownership of those diamonds by people very close to the President, and the apparent inability of the Kimberley process to function. One or two of the interlocutors we engaged with said this might be the single issue that would give ZANU-PF the mechanism to destroy the Government of national unity and to re-establish itself as a dominant one party in control, so it is important that they—whoever they may be—are unable to trade illegally in illicit diamonds and thereby secure funding for programmes of expropriation and violence that threaten the state itself. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could say what action is being taken if not to enforce the Kimberley process, then to isolate the illicit diamonds from Zimbabwe and deny them access to the markets, where they could be used to fund the undermining of the current arrangements.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
The House has been done a great service by the Select Committee’s report. What my right hon. Friend has just mentioned raises a dilemma for everyone involved with Zimbabwe. We want to persuade the international community to start to invest in Zimbabwe and to get financial institutions to start to engage with it, but responsible companies, investors and financial institutions are clearly going to be very concerned about engaging with the extractive industries and some of the other key industries in Zimbabwe, for exactly the reasons that he just outlined. How does the Committee see us squaring that circle of encouraging responsible investors to get back into Zimbabwe but doing so in such a way as not to prop up or enrich those who would continue to subjugate Zimbabwe for their own political glory?
Malcolm Bruce
That is a very relevant and pertinent question. The practical thing that people can do is talk to our ambassador, because he has both views on this and indications about what to do.
The next item that I was going to discuss was investment and selective sanctions. The first thing to make clear is that it suits the ZANU-PF dimension of the Zimbabwean Government to make out that the economic failures of Zimbabwe are entirely a result of the application of selective sanctions and that they are targeting the poor people of Zimbabwe and preventing economic activity. The point that the ambassador made is that only one in 70,000 Zimbabweans is at all affected by the sanctions. Of course, he also points out in his statement today that the economy of Zimbabwe has been growing since dollarisation was reinstated. So that particular argument has been nailed. I shall return to my hon. Friend’s question, but I just wish to say to the Minister that I understand that some dialogue with the EU is taking place about selective sanctions and it would be helpful if he could update the House on the current position and what the UK’s engagement is. My impression is that there is no general view, apart from among the obvious sources, that those sanctions should or deserve to be lifted. However, to be fair, Morgan Tsvangirai said that they were a constant source of friction when he was trying to engage with his ZANU-PF co-Ministers.
There is no restriction on investment in Zimbabwe. There is nothing to prevent companies from outside Zimbabwe investing, apart from one thing that was introduced earlier in the year: the “indigenisation” of business. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could update us on the position that has been reached. That measure fundamentally said that people could not do business in Zimbabwe other than through a company that was 51% owned by Zimbabweans—those Zimbabweans would, of course, be those approved by the stronger part of the Government. That may not be a total cast-iron restriction, as there is a Government of national unity and there are Ministers who are trying to offer, with some success, a growth strategy, a development strategy and a rebuilding strategy for Zimbabwe. Businesses may therefore have opportunities to find partners who are not going to subvert the money, but clearly nobody could invest in Zimbabwe without having an assurance. The Minister may be able to provide that or our excellent ambassador may be able to give advice. My instincts are that doing business is difficult, but may not be completely impossible.
That raises an interesting dilemma in the whole issue of development. We engage in states where there is conflict, in post-conflict states and in states with dysfunctional regimes, and the easiest thing is to say, “Let’s have nothing to do with them.” Yet the one thing that might just break the cycle of poverty, repression and tyranny is some kind of economic opportunity. I do not have an answer to that point, but I am sure that we should not say that there should be an absolute block on doing businesses with countries with dubious regimes. We should find out whether there are ways of doing business that are reputable and safe.
Let me make a somewhat exaggerated comparison. People do business in Russia, which has huge question marks over it and vies with the Democratic Republic of the Congo in terms of corruption. There are probably business opportunities in Zimbabwe that have less risk and they might be worth exploring.
I believe that we should ask people to understand that there will not be a quick and easy solution in Zimbabwe. The Committee’s observation was that, imperfect though it is, engagement with the Government of national unity was able to deliver health, education and infrastructure improvements to significant sectors of the people of Zimbabwe who were denied them before. Frankly, that Government are the only thing that stands between Zimbabwe and chaos and we must use whatever influence we have to try to persuade people, wherever they are, that there is a better place for Zimbabwe to head for than back to where it was.
We might need to acknowledge that not everybody in ZANU-PF is entirely self-seeking—we met one or two of them—and that some of them realise that their country has a place to go and that they need to be part of it. That was the other issue that was made quite clear to us. Experience in government, knowledge, contacts, communication and political capacity are mostly controlled by ZANU-PF and not by the MDC. The MDC’s members might have learned something in the past year and a half—I hope and am sure they have—but if Zimbabwe is to have a longer-term future, some of the people who have been part of the problem must be part of the solution.
That point was made to us on a few occasions and at the same time it was pointed out that, for example, every Minister was allocated a 24/7 personal “bodyguard” appointed by the President. I am quite certain that that was not an entirely comfortable experience. Interestingly, one politician said that the funny thing about that was that it created a dialogue between two groups of people who had had no connection or communication with each other before and some started to understand that the other side had a more multidimensional aspect. The avenues of communication are only beginning to open. The report from the ambassador today does not suggest that things have changed very much, and they could get worse.
What is clear is that we should not collude in any early rush to an election. An early election would almost certainly bring the present inadequate partnership to an end in favour of something worse. It could not be free and it could not be fair. The measured words of the ambassador disguise the fact that there is no electoral register, which means that those who control the polling stations can write their own register. That is no basis for any kind of election. It would be a total fiction.
In conclusion, the Committee came away impressed that good things were being done that were bringing real benefits, that it was possible to reach people, that the longer we could create such space the more chance there was of people seeing a better future, and that we had to put up with setbacks, pitfalls and compromises and not walk away. Nothing can be guaranteed, but we must do nothing that allows this troubled partnership to be brought to an end and the re-establishment of a one-party state. That would set back not just Zimbabwe but the whole of southern Africa for another generation.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I, too, thank the House for this brief opportunity to debate some of the International Development Committee’s reflections following our visit to Zimbabwe in February. I endorse what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said about it being important that we went. Before we went, there was nervousness in some quarters about whether we would be sending mixed messages simply by going there. We were conscious that if things went wrong our visit could be seen as some kind of endorsement of the Mugabe regime or a weakening of the international community’s resolve; we were firm that we could not let that be the case, and I do not think it was.
It is important that we have a clear position on the gross abuses of human rights that went on there and are still going on, and that we make our position absolutely clear. However, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and as the report underlines, Zimbabwe has huge potential as a country, but also has huge needs in human terms. In October, the United Nations Development Programme released its annual human development index, which puts the country last on the indices of education, health and the income of nations. According to UNICEF’s mid-year report, which was published in July, Zimbabwe had the most severe health-related emergency of 2010—a major measles outbreak in which there were 7,754 suspected cases and 517 people died. That was reported in 61 of the country’s 62 districts. The report states:
“Basic social services, such as access to safe water and coverage of immunization programmes, remain a cause for concern.”
We spent some time looking at those areas when we were in Zimbabwe in February. The report also notes that although schools remain open, the quality of learning “continues to be compromised”, often by
“teachers’ low morale, lack of teaching and learning material, and the poor infrastructure of most schools.”
In a whole range of areas, it is absolutely clear that the country has considerable needs.
UNICEF projects a final funding gap of $44,260,863, which is 40% of its needs. It states:
“If funding requirements are not met the following critical activities may not take place: improving the management of pneumonia and diarrhoea in children under five years, community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM), nutrition surveillance, emergency safe water and sanitation, life skills for HIV/AIDS prevention and health promotion in schools, and the protection and promotion of the rights of children within IDP and migrant-sending communities.”
Zimbabwe is an area of massive need and the evidence of our eyes suggests that we are right to be in there. We have made some suggestions about how the Department for International Development’s programmes could be improved or tweaked, but by and large the impact there is positive and we are focusing on the right things.
Let me endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the protracted relief programme. We saw various projects for which funding had started through that programme and it is clear that an impact is being made, but a number of interlocutors we came across were clearly concerned about the administration and costs of the programme. They had other concerns too, and this is where our report almost argues against itself. It says that we want to be clear that the audit procedures for the programme are robust enough, but one concern that was raised with us was whether, given the use of intermediary organisations, funding was being mediated in the right way and whether the voices of grass-roots community organisations that really know what needs to be done, and how it should be done, are getting through the bureaucracy so that programmes can be approved and money got to where it is needed. I do not think we have any great pearls of wisdom that enable us to say this or that must be done to the protracted relief programme—overall, I am comfortable with the shape of it—but I hope that DFID looks at whether the mechanisms for operating the programme are as good as they should be and whether they are getting resources to the places they need to go, and in the best way.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I have only just arrived in the Chamber and realise that this issue may already have been addressed. While in Zimbabwe, what information did members of the Committee garner from the ambassador about the potential for the neighbouring states to increase their role in effectively achieving a better solution for Zimbabwe? Those states are nearby and have a deep interest in doing exactly that.
Richard Burden
I hope to conclude my remarks by saying something about neighbouring states, because their role is crucial. The hon. Gentleman asks about the ambassador’s views on the matter. He has provided a briefing, but I have to confess that I have not seen it. Perhaps the Minister will give us a few ideas about the ambassador’s views during his winding-up speech. I shall return to some of the issues on the role of neighbouring states.
We need to engage and we are engaging. By and large, the focus of that is positive. However, it absolutely must be accompanied by our ensuring that measures are taken that express the international community’s—I was going to say displeasure, but it sounds a bit weak—views on what the ZANU-PF regime has been doing and continues to do. We must be clear about that.
Again, the right hon. Member for Gordon made it clear that this is an area where Mugabe uses the media inside Zimbabwe completely to distort what the measures that the international community is adopting are all about. While we were there, it was put about time and again that, somehow, the international community is taking action against the people of Zimbabwe. In many ways, the term “sanctions” is a misnomer for what we are doing there. There are targeted measures against individuals and organisations with a direct and responsible role in what goes on. Large amounts of cash and aid go in—probably not enough, as we have heard from UNICEF—that are directed, in the best way we can achieve, to assisting the people of Zimbabwe.
It is important that the measures taken against individuals who are responsible for some quite ghastly acts in that country remain in place and should be removed—indeed, there is an argument that they should be increased—only when we see clear and demonstrable steps towards democracy and respect for human rights. All the indications are that we are a long way from that.
Many of us who had not been to Zimbabwe before were quite surprised that in many ways we did not see the chaos that we perhaps thought we would see. Not only does that country have massive natural resources and massive potential, but we could see in Bulawayo and elsewhere that if the country were able to get itself together, had an economy that worked and had the right kind of governance, it could turn around really quickly.
The infrastructure that had been built up over many years was still there in many instances. There have been major steps forward. Since the dollarisation of the economy, the work of Tendai Biti has been really useful in putting Zimbabwe’s economy on a more rational basis. However, again, there is a dual view of what is going on there: the chaos that perhaps some of us expected to see was not there, yet we could see that the impact of the land seizures had undermined the economy and caused genuine suffering on a scale that is unacceptable. Just before we went to Zimbabwe, some Committee members saw the film “Mugabe and the White African”, which I recommend to hon. Members because it very graphically illustrates the human cost to and, indeed, bravery of some Zimbabweans in standing up to the Mugabe regime.
The land seizures continue, and a recent report by ZimOnline exposes the reality of them. The President and his wife Grace are said to own 14 farms, spanning at least 16,000 hectares. All ZANU-PF’s 56 politburo members, 98 MPs and 35 elected and unelected senators were allegedly allocated farms, and 10 provincial governors have seized farms, with four being multiple owners. Sixteen supreme court and high court judges own farms, too.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Not only is there violence against farmers but all farm workers have been driven away, so there is now almost no production on those farms which, like Zimbabwe, were massively productive. I urge the Government, wherever we can, to help to obtain an audit so that we can get those farms moving. The issue is not only who owns those farms but getting production going, because Zimbabwe should not be starving when it is such a fertile country.
Richard Burden
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The way the land seizures have worked is wrong in so many respects. It makes make little economic sense, for the reason that he mentions, and it goes under the title of “land reform”, which is another huge misnomer. It invokes an image of land being taken from people who should not have it, do not use it properly or got it illegitimately and then redistributed to the people of Zimbabwe, but all the evidence is that that has just not happened. It has been redistributed to an elite, who have not used the land’s capacity as they should.
All that does not take away from the fact that land reform is a real issue, and that it needs to be confronted. I suspect that if my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will say something about that, because the all-party Africa group has looked in some depth at the complicated questions of what land reform needs to be, and at the challenges that we have to face.
The land seizures are unacceptable, wrong and, as we saw in the film to which I referred, in many ways inhuman both to the owners of the land and, yes, to the workers who owed their livelihood to it. That is a challenge for us in the international community and, to return to the point that the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) made, to Zimbabwe’s neighbours, in particular. When Mugabe just ignores and cocks a snook at the decisions of the SADC tribunal, that is a problem not just for the people whose farms and livelihoods have been taken away, but for southern Africa as a whole and for the credibility of SADC itself. SADC countries need to face up to that, but most of all South Africa needs to face up to the fact that, in terms of securing leverage and change in Zimbabwe, its role is absolutely crucial. So far, it has not exercised that role as assertively as many of us would like.
Zimbabwe is a country with massive potential, and I endorse what the right hon. Member for Gordon says about elections. I want to see elections in Zimbabwe, but they must be free and fair. We are a long way from that, and it is not always easy for everybody to talk about the impediments to it. In September, an article in The Guardian mentioned how in a recent interview Morgan Tsvangirai seemed to have rather more confidence in the coalition of which he was a part than the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal Democrats has in his. It was quite an amusing article, but it had a serious point, which was that Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC have to walk a tightrope. In the ministries for which they are responsible, they must deliver for the people of Zimbabwe as best they can. Walking that tightrope keeps them there and active, and for some of their supporters and members, it keeps them alive. They must work with people who have been responsible for their persecution for many years and, at the same time, they must retain their independence, build their base and try to build a functioning democracy in Zimbabwe. That is a pretty fearsome tightrope to have to walk. They and the people of Zimbabwe need our help to do so.
I am convinced that we must maintain the dual approach that we have adopted of targeted measures that are appropriate and effective against members of the ZANU-PF regime that have brought the country to ruin, combined with an aid and assistance programme that focuses on the real needs of the people. That programme must be responsive to the voices of the people of Zimbabwe and must address their very real humanitarian problems. It must boost the economy of Zimbabwe so that it can achieve its potential. If Zimbabwe achieves that potential, its role in southern Africa will be very positive and it really should have that role. It behoves us all to do what we can to ensure that that happens.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am delighted to follow two people who have visited Zimbabwe pretty recently and who have guarded optimism about its future, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). It is good to hear from people who have a lot of knowledge of what is happening now.
The attention of the global community has recently been drawn to the forthcoming referendum in Sudan, which in all likelihood will create a new country. However, while the international community looks towards Sudan, the problems faced by other African countries continue. That is particularly true of Zimbabwe.
There is a southern African proverb that states, “Don’t look where you fell, but where you stumbled.” When reviewing the recent tragedy seen in Zimbabwe, it is right that we should look to where the country stumbled, before we look at where it now lies. Disgruntled war veterans invaded a small number of farms in the run-up to 2000, because they were annoyed with Mugabe’s progress towards his promise to redistribute the land back to the people of Zimbabwe. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), not only were white South Africans chucked off the land by Mugabe, but many Zimbabweans lost their jobs. A few months later, Mugabe passed a law to make it legal to take land without compensation.
I believe that it was the violent events at that time that led to Mugabe’s legislation between 2002 and 2006 that entrenched his position. The media were stifled by the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Opposition were stifled by the Public Order and Security Act, the Criminal Law Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act, which worked together to curtail the activities of organisations that posed a threat to the President. Most worryingly, that legislation allowed police and persons assisting the police to use all necessary force to stop all unlawful gatherings. Finally, the Private Voluntary Organisations Act impinged on the freedom of domestic and international non-governmental organisations to carry out vital aid work, which led to many NGOs leaving the country.
Since 2000 we have seen the breadbasket of Africa turn into the basket case of Africa. The commercial farming sector and the economy have collapsed, even though Zimbabwe used to export produce all over the world, and to neighbouring countries, as well as feed all its people. It is a tragedy that that situation is not returning at the moment. The lack of food resulted in the spread of chronic poverty, with about 2 million Zimbabweans depending on food aid. At poverty’s highest point, more than 80% of the Zimbabwean population were living on less than $1 a day. With cholera, malaria and HIV/AIDS at the worst level of any country in Africa and on the rise, and with Zimbabwe’s infrastructure on a sharp decline, the country fell into dictatorial despair.
The Movement for Democratic Change has done well in fighting elections against the ZANU-PF Government, despite the unfair playing field and its internal split in 2005. The international community has condemned the Zimbabwean elections as undemocratic, and cited the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s bias in set-up and actions, and we must do more to entrench democracy in Zimbabwe, as we have heard today.
Zimbabwe stumbled in 2000, and for almost a decade it carried on falling. We must hold our hands up and admit that we and the rest of the international community did not do enough to stop it. Even the Zimbabweans’ closest ally, the President of South Africa, achieved very little via his quiet diplomacy.
Thankfully, Zimbabwe has had something of a bounce in recent years, and switching currency has meant goods returning to the shops and the economy making a slight but important step towards recovery. I even note that property prices in Harare are increasing, and many displaced Zimbabweans are returning home.
The global political agreement and the resulting Government of national unity represent a step in the right direction. Some critics have said that the GPA was badly drafted legislation, but the GNU was the only option that offered Zimbabwe a lifeline out of crippling economic and social poverty. The GNU have remained working and—if I may be so bold as to say so—stable for more than a year, and green shoots of recovery really are visible. Schools and hospitals are reopening, and the cholera epidemic that claimed more than 4,000 lives has been brought under some control. Government-led human rights abuses have dramatically reduced, and a new short-term economic recovery programme has been well supported by the international community and the Bretton Woods institutions. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how Britain intends to support that programme, if indeed it intends to do so.
Despite continuing political trouble, including internal power struggles in both ZANU-PF and the MDC, and unemployment that is still at 80%, the creation of the GNU and the change in economic fortunes, although small steps to recovery, are indeed steps. Zimbabwe and the international community must now see what led Zimbabwe to stumble in the past, so that it does not fall again in the future. I am sure that the Department for International Development will play a central part in rebuilding Zimbabwe, and I should like to outline what I see as the key roles that it can play.
It is well documented that President Mugabe loathes Britain. He is documented as having said:
“we must dig a grave not just six feet but 12 feet and bury Mr Blair and the Union Jack”.
Despite his reluctance to accept help from the UK, I agree with DFID’s assessment that the formation of the GNU has changed the balance of risk and opportunity and justified a structured and incremental re-engagement with Zimbabwe. I am very happy that the UK continues to be one of the top three donors to Zimbabwe, having donated $89 million in overseas development assistance in 2008, but it is slightly concerning that that is a reduction of almost $5 million on the 2007 commitment, and that there has been a decrease of almost 10% in our commitments to overall donor aid since 2006. I hope that future donations from the UK to Zimbabwe will increase year on year until Zimbabwe’s crisis issues are dealt with. Increasing our commitments to Zimbabwe would demonstrate to its people that although we will not work with Mugabe, we have not forgotten them.
It is not how much money we spend, but how it is spent, that will make a difference. The Secretary of State has said that a lot since taking office. Between 2004-05 and 2008-09 the balance of DFID bilateral aid to Zimbabwe shifted. At the beginning of the period, most aid was delivered by NGOs, but at the end, most was delivered via multilaterals. The optimist in me hopes that that shift was made not out of choice but out of necessity, and that aid spending via NGOs has decreased as a percentage of bilateral aid because more and more NGOs have moved out of Zimbabwe. Will the Minister tell us whether that trend is likely to continue, or whether, as NGOs such as Voluntary Service Overseas, whose first staff will relocate at the end of this year, return to Zimbabwe, DFID will look to spend more via them? NGOs are often better able to access communities on the ground and spend money where it is really needed.
Although I recognise the importance of the co-ordination that multilaterals such as the UN offer, I agree with critics who cite inefficiencies at ground level. I hope that as NGOs move back into Zimbabwe, we will see the role of multilaterals change from humanitarian to crisis management to overall strategic country growth. It is not often that I agree with the TUC, but I concede that as Zimbabwe’s economy grows and the need for humanitarian relief declines, DFID should look to move away from humanitarian relief and towards core development-oriented interventions.
With that in mind, and with the NGO community returning to help to solve Zimbabwe’s humanitarian problems, will DFID consider future engagement with the private sector to help to develop the economy? The Secretary of State has on more than one occasion said that economic growth is the foundation of development. It is a major concern, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon mentioned, that an Act was passed by the President in March that requires white-owned companies with an asset value of more than $500,000 that want to invest in Zimbabwe to surrender 51% of their shareholdings to black Zimbabweans. That is not a great inducement for people to invest. Britain must take an active role in trying to repeal that Act, which was passed without consulting the GNU, because it creates a vacuum of foreign investment. Without that, Zimbabwe’s economy will inevitably falter. The British Government have a big challenge on their hands to promote investment in Zimbabwe to support the work of Britain, civil society and the international community.
At the moment the UK spends 43% of its aid on the provision of basic health programmes, which Zimbabwe desperately needs. I commend that spending and recognise that it has been crucial in the past decade, because the state’s finances could not cope with need. However, I hope that as the overall health of Zimbabwe increases, DFID will move away from health and towards other long-term aspects of development. I also hope that health spending will move from direct health aid to building the capacity of the Zimbabwean health system.
One of the two most important ways in which DFID can help with the redevelopment of Zimbabwe is helping to fund the land audit. The GNU Finance Minister has allocated $30 million for a future audit, but previous Zimbabwe Government land audit findings have not been released, and I am sceptical that without the international community’s involvement, the findings will be unfair. It is not for me to suggest what conditions the international community should impose on funding for the land audit, but as the DFID Minister at the time of the International Development Committee report stated, a land audit would be the first step towards reform, but it cannot be carried with the current President and his cronies blocking international efforts.
Finally, DFID has a role in developing the political system. I understand the view that the inclusive Zimbabwe Government is not yet the partner that we require to sustain a full development relationship. The global political agreement and the resulting GNU are steps in the right direction, but unfortunately, as Tsvangirai pointed out, things have not radically altered, and Mugabe continues to act without consulting other GNU members. As a result, I believe that DFID’s strategy on providing technical assistance and policy support will strengthen the political process in Zimbabwe. I hope that the desired outcome of political change will take place, but if the recent Act concerning white-owned businesses is anything to go by, we have some way to go, as we heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon.
I also applaud the Department’s drive for the GNU to adopt policies in line with The Hague principles. Strengthening democracy in Zimbabwe is the key to getting Zimbabwe back on its feet, but I fear that President Mugabe will fight the changes all the way. In 2008 he was quoted in a paper as stating:
“We are not going to give up our country for a mere X on a ballot. How can a ballpoint pen fight with a gun?”
While the President remains in a position of power, I fear that Zimbabwe’s future will remain on the precipice. However, if the political institutions of Zimbabwe are strengthened, I hope that unrestricted democracy can flourish. If this is so, the UK and the international community can take greater strides towards building stronger, more long-term development policies in league with the truly democratically elected Government of Zimbabwe.
The problems of Zimbabwe are so varied and complex, and I shall finish where I started. Since 2008 Zimbabwe has started to pick itself up from where it fell. It is right that we should now take this opportunity to see why Zimbabwe fell in the first place, and ensure that the work carried out on behalf of the UK is channelled into programmes that will help to bring true democracy, a stable and diverse economy and, most importantly, a healthy and poverty-free society to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has a long way to go, but I hope our actions can help get it there.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I concur with the comments made about the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the excellent work of his Committee, including on its visit to Zimbabwe in February. I have long taken an interest—since my arrival in the House in 2001—in events in the African continent. There is universal good will from political parties across the United Kingdom towards Zimbabwe and a hope that matters will improve there. However, the problems that Mugabe has created in Zimbabwe continue, as he enters his 88th year in a couple of months and shows no sign of being about to release his stranglehold on the Zimbabwean people.
Some of the facts and figures have been outlined by other hon. Members, and the helpful documentation supplied today shows us that while life expectancy is improving generally in sub-Saharan Africa—albeit, of course, from a very low base—it has actually worsened in Zimbabwe in recent years. It is difficult to obtain reliable and well informed statistics, but between 80% and 90% of the citizens of that nation state could be described as being unemployed.
Some comment has been made about what might be regarded as a precipitate move towards elections, which are due to be held at some point in the next six months. A referendum date on the new constitution is scheduled for 30 June next year. However, the portents are not good. We hear that the Commercial Farmers Union in Zimbabwe has said that intimidation is increasing.
I shall just mention a couple of examples from within the past month. A prisoner who spent two months with his intestines hanging out has finally been taken to hospital for treatment. The Harare remand prison superintendent said that the suspected bicycle thief was given medical assistance after his condition was noticed during an appearance in court, and the chief superintendant said that the suspect was shot in the stomach when police tried to arrest him in September. He has been using colostomy bags to cover his intestines, and taking painkillers. His trial has now been postponed. That report is dated November 2010.
Another report—similarly, from within the past eight or nine weeks—suggests that 1,000 adults are newly infected with HIV every week in Zimbabwe. A similar number of people are dying of AIDS. DFID is doing excellent work, particularly in funding the work of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, to reduce transmission from pregnant mothers to their babies, so that children can be born HIV free and can go on to lead healthy lives. The scale of the problem is quite staggering. I have given two examples to demonstrate the massive problems in Zimbabwe and the scale of the task that lies ahead.
We understand that the EU’s restrictive measures come up for renewal in February next year. Various hon. Members have outlined the scale of our assistance to Zimbabwe. It is important that we try to ensure, as far as possible, that the aid is well targeted. It is difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that every last dollar—or every last cent or penny piece—of the $90 million or $100 million of aid to Zimbabwe is not misappropriated by the regime. In so far as practical steps can and have been taken, such an approach needs to be continued to ensure that the regime does not take advantage of the assistance being offered.
Figures show that Zimbabwe is way off target in reducing child and maternal mortality rates. Despite all the efforts of DFID and others internationally to ensure that the carefully targeted assistance reaches those in need, statistics prove that the situation has improved only marginally in the past year or 18 months. I am reminded of an example that was used some time ago in relation to Zimbabwe. If the United Kingdom had an average household debt of £100,000 and it was reduced to £95,000 would it be argued that things were improving or would people say that we had a long way to go? Unfortunately, that appears to illustrate the position in Zimbabwe.
There has been a marginal improvement, but whatever steps and measures we take—at least one, if not two, hon. Members have made this point—neighbouring states can bring considerable influence to bear on Zimbabwe. It is absolutely clear that however much we rail and rage against Mugabe, he is impervious to the protest, the opposition and the condemnation heaped upon his head. There are neighbouring states with which we can have considerable influence, and we need to ensure that such influence is deployed constructively to get a better conclusion.
South Africa bears a considerable responsibility in trying to ensure that Zimbabwe moves in the right direction. We have influence with South Africa and other neighbouring states. I trust that the good work that DFID has been doing—and will continue to do—will receive the widespread endorsement of Members across the Chamber; indeed, I have no doubt that it will. However, we need to remain focused on the fact that the problems in Zimbabwe are monumental. They are of Everest-like proportions, however insignificantly they have been reduced in the past year or two. We must keep the pressure on through those third party nation states that are close to Zimbabwe and that can apply pressure. We must do what we can to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe have a better future than they have had a past.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
We have heard a lot this afternoon, and about a number of issues. As the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, it is important not to ignore the politics of Zimbabwe in our debate today. The global political agreement—the GPA—was a step in the right direction for Zimbabwe, but, as a number of speakers have acknowledged, it was not ideal. A lot more is required from the Government of Zimbabwe on addressing the health care and education problems that were so eloquently outlined by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell).
The right hon. Member for Gordon also pointed out that the people of Zimbabwe have a tremendous capacity for resilience. That is absolutely right, and it has already been shown. He mentioned the example of the hospital in Bulawayo, but there is another issue that we have to acknowledge in this debate. The infrastructure of Zimbabwe—a country that had one of the leading economies in southern Africa, boasting some of the best universities and hospitals—has been destroyed and degraded by Mugabe over a number of years. Although we want to see teachers, doctors and nurses returning to Zimbabwe, whatever we do with our aid, the key challenge is to help to rebuild that infrastructure, and particularly that university and hospital infrastructure. We still see a great rural-urban divide in health care—something that I want to talk about a little more—especially in women’s health, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry also mentioned.
Other Members have talked about the need for a southern Africa-based solution to the problems in Zimbabwe, and that is absolutely right. Other countries, particularly South Africa, have a role in addressing the issues in Zimbabwe and taking responsibility for their region. However, we have to be wary of that, given the example of what happened in the Congo. We must ensure that those African countries are not exploitative in their interactions with Zimbabwe. Although it is absolutely right that those countries should take a more active role, there are examples from history, including in the Congo, that indicate that such interest from neighbouring countries is not always benevolent.
One thing that we need to stress is that all the aid to Zimbabwe from DFID needs to be results orientated and target driven. We need to ensure that the aid gets to the people. The right hon. Member for Gordon mentioned Zimbabwe’s indigenisation restrictions, which prevent many companies and organisations from taking an active role in helping to build up the Zimbabwean economy, because of the need for the state to have a 51% share in those companies. That forms an important backdrop to the debate, because the restrictions prevent the engagement and interest of overseas companies in the Zimbabwean economy. When we focus our aid and our attentions through DFID, it is important to look at where that aid can be effectively targeted. A particularly important aspect of that is health, which I want briefly to talk about now.
As Members will be aware, I have a background in obstetrics, and I have always taken a keen interest in improving women’s health, not only in the United Kingdom but overseas. The leading cause of death among women in many countries in Africa is the problems associated with childbirth, including haemorrhage and eclampsia. The single most important focus of intervention in any health care system in many African countries is to ensure that assistance is available at the time of delivery. The World Health Organisation tells us that one of the great problems in Zimbabwe, particularly in rural areas, is the fact that, since the collapse of the health care system, the infrastructure of midwives and obstetricians has been completely degraded and destroyed. If we are going to focus aid effectively, we need to ensure that we provide assistance around the time of childbirth.
I want to highlight a few of the problems that exist. The WHO tells us that, in 1997, the maternal mortality rate in Zimbabwe was 700 per 1,000 live births. In 2005-06, it had more than trebled to 2,500. That is a significant increase, and it dramatically demonstrates the degradation of the health care service in Zimbabwe. Rates of HIV are also increasing. The hon. Member for East Londonderry made the point very well that some of the targeted interventions are working when dealing with the vertical transmission of HIV from mother to child. The rate of contraception use, particularly in urban areas of Zimbabwe, is also rising. Having said that, the HIV rate in Zimbabwe is 15.3% at the moment. The life expectancy for women in many parts of Zimbabwe is only 47, and the primary reason for that is HIV and AIDS.
I alluded earlier to the rural-urban divide. The problem is particularly pronounced in many rural areas of Zimbabwe, where women—and people generally—have difficulty accessing health care. Part of the reason for that is the breakdown of the hospital structure, but there is also a need to improve people’s knowledge about health care services through education.
We have seen models of health care developed in many other countries in Africa, such as Rwanda, where maternity and other health care services have been built up. Part of that has involved insurance coupons schemes that people can buy into in order to insure themselves against ill health. Another part of the access to health care involves teaching the population to have an awareness of when someone is ill—for example, in maternity, when someone is having an obstructed or difficult labour—and when they need to go to hospital or seek further help. Even when they do that, however, we need to ensure that the vital expertise that they need is available in hospitals. That involves not only supporting the development of the universities but ensuring that doctors and nurses feel safe enough to travel back to Zimbabwe to work there. At the moment, despite all the efforts, that is not happening.
Although we can agree that the Government in Zimbabwe are better than they were, that having a joint Government is a good thing and that steps are being taken in the right direction, a lot still needs to be done. Having a global political agreement is all very well, and it is good that the economy is improving, but the health and education infrastructure is still very much lacking. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the targeted aid that goes into Zimbabwe will be focused on the health infrastructure, and particularly on issues such as maternal mortality and training midwives in rural areas, as they will really make a difference to the people there.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
This has been a good debate, with lots of well-informed speeches, but I particularly admire the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who spoke with a great deal of knowledge as an obstetrician. What struck me most about his speech was his understanding that health problems in Zimbabwe are fundamentally constrained within the political environment, and that unless there is a political solution to the crisis that Zimbabwe faces, basic human needs will continue to be poorly met.
I spent a great deal of my time in the 1970s campaigning for change in southern Africa. I was a member of the executive committee of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. I spent quite a bit of time standing outside Rhodesia House, as it was then called, demanding an end to the unilateral declaration of independence and calling for true independence for the country.
I am delighted that Zimbabwe is free and has been free for 30 years—independence in Zimbabwe gave a significant boost to the momentum for independence in Namibia and South Africa—but I am sad that true freedom, human rights, the rule of law, peace and, above all, prosperity for the people of Zimbabwe are yet to come.
The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) mentioned a southern African proverb: “Don’t look where you fell, but where you stumbled.” That is good advice. She talked about one stumble being the cave-in by Mugabe to the unreasonable demands of the so-called war veterans and the subsequent land invasions, but we would misunderstand the situation in Zimbabwe if we felt that that was the first stumble that took place.
The British colonial period did not cover our country in glory. The Jameson raid was a putsch by a white colonial adventurer. The independence process in the late 1950s and 1960s was botched and led to UDI in 1963. Then there were 17 years of an illegal regime—in defiance of this country, the legitimate authority. That delayed independence and created very serious problems for an independent Zimbabwe in 1980—not least a legacy of nearly two decades of war.
The problem of human rights abuse in Zimbabwe was clearly illustrated in the remarks of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). The country is still plagued by appallingly bad governance and by an absence of the rule of law. When Morgan Tsvangirai as Prime Minister seeks to challenge illegal and unconstitutional appointments to top jobs—for example, the appointment of Gideon Gono as director of the central bank of Zimbabwe—he is unable to use the courts to set them aside and make new appointments, despite the fact that the official procedures should allow that.
Unemployment in Zimbabwe is currently about 90%. The country used to be better off than most African countries. The latest figures I have been able to dig out show that gross domestic product per capita stands at some $450. That figure is several years old and it is possible that the position has improved, but that $450 per person in Zimbabwe compared with $618 per person in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole.
The HIV infection rate, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, is extremely high—one of the highest in Africa and about three times the average for sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. Some 15% of the population are infected compared with a still appallingly high average for sub-Saharan Africa of 5%. Life expectancy at 44 years has fallen dramatically from more than 60 years, which applied at the time of independence. Again, it compares unfavourably with other sub-Saharan countries, for which the average is 52 years.
Dr Poulter
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Swaziland in the early 1980s the HIV infection rate was about 1%, but by 2000 it was nearly 40%? Although we live in an age when there is better access to HIV drugs, even in many parts of Africa, targeted interventions to deal with HIV—given the high rate in Zimbabwe—should form an important part of any aid strategy for the country.
Hugh Bayley
Yes, I strongly agree with that. During the Committee’s visit to Zimbabwe in February, we spent some time looking at HIV counselling and testing programmes and other measures funded by DFID that were delivered largely by NGOs. Most certainly, we should be providing aid. Even with a framework of poor governance, it is possible for British aid to make a difference. The availability of antiretroviral drugs, for instance, has improved because of the help of outside donors, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Some indicators are good. Health expenditure in Zimbabwe is higher than the average for sub-Saharan Africa, as are sanitation rates. In Zimbabwe, 69% of mothers are attended by a skilled childbirth attendant, compared with 46% elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, Zimbabwe has the capacity to recover, when it finds the political leadership to enable it to address problems of catastrophically bad governance. Some of its infrastructure—literacy levels, for instance, are better than in many other countries in Africa—provides the country with the opportunity to bounce back.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for his work on the all-party Africa group. He talks about the country’s great potential, but the problem is its political system and governance. Unfortunately, the depressing fact is that what comes after Mugabe may be no improvement. Is it not the case that the urgent issue to address is what South Africa and other neighbouring countries can do to deal with the country’s political governance?
Hugh Bayley
That issue must be addressed by all the neighbouring countries—South Africa being the biggest and most powerful and having the most interdependent economy, given that many South African companies still have plant and operations in Zimbabwe. As the country with the greatest number of Zimbabwean refugees on its territory, South Africa also has the most to gain from achieving political progress. We should do everything that we can to encourage and support the South African Government, and the Governments of other neighbouring states, in their efforts.
It would be wrong, however, to make it sound as though nothing has been achieved. After the last election, the global political agreement was brokered and delivered by political pressure from South Africa and neighbouring states.
Several Members have mentioned the catastrophe in agriculture. In 1998, commercial farmers’ output was 2.3 million tonnes of beef, grain, tobacco and other crops. In 2007, after the farm invasions, that had fallen to fewer than 1 million tonnes. Equally important, however, is the collapse of rural peasant agriculture. The staple crop in Zimbabwe is maize, and average production throughout the 1990s was 1.7 million tonnes a year, but in 2007-08 it fell to only a third of that—650,000 tonnes. As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire and other Members have said, Zimbabwe went from being a food-exporting country to a food-importing country.
The Zimbabwean people show tremendous courage and resilience, as members of the Select Committee saw during our visit. We saw nurses getting on and providing health services in a remarkable way. The hospital that our Committee visited looked and felt better than many hospitals I have seen in Africa. Ultimately, what makes a good hospital is good, well-trained staff who are well managed and well led. Wards are clean, and equipment is repaired.
We also saw good local government officials looking at ways of extending sanitation systems, and brave performers and artists at the Book café in Harare who were prepared to challenge the regime in ways that they could get away with—through culture and music.
The last election was, of course, deeply flawed. Independent observers appointed by other African countries—members of the east African community, the East African Parliament and the African council of churches—reported that it was fundamentally flawed. Morgan Tzvangirai received more votes than Mugabe in the first round, but then the level of intimidation was such that he was driven out of the country and did not compete in the second round. As I said earlier, the global political agreement that was created after the election would not have been created had it not been for pressure from neighbouring African countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is some concern about Mugabe’s appointment of six ambassadors —that is, six tribal leaders—across Rhodesia, which will clearly give him some clout in next year’s election. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with many of us who are present that if that election is to be fair and democratic, and if the democratic process is to be transparent, the leaders appointed by Mugabe must be removed?
Hugh Bayley
I think that there will be an election next year, and the international community needs to prepare for an election next year. I believe that other countries need to put observers in place now, rather than a month or two before the election, to report on what is happening on the ground, and that those observers need to come from Africa. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) protesting, but I still think that they need to come from Africa. [Interruption.] No doubt my hon. Friend will have more to say when she makes her own speech.
Those who delivered the damning reports on the intimidation and violence that took place during the last election were, by and large, African observers, because they could get into the country to observe and others could not. If it is possible to obtain a wider range of observers, that is fine: I would strongly support such a development. However, there is clearly more traction politically when Africans from the region blow the whistle than there is for Europeans who do not live in the region year in, year out—notably those in this country—and who have colonial baggage. It is important to ensure that resources are available to enable observers from non-governmental organisations and other bodies in the region to get into the country, get there early, and start giving us their reports.
The global political agreement was a fragile compromise. It was the best that could be delivered after the last election. However, it has provided a window of opportunity. Zimbabwe is not well governed under the unity Government, but it is governed a great deal better than it was under a ZANU-PF Government. The Ministries that are led by MDC Ministers are much better managed than those that are still led by ZANU-PF Ministers. I hope that the people of Zimbabwe will support the parties whose Ministers are delivering palpable improvements, and that they will be allowed to show that support in an election.
Malcolm Bruce
Does the hon. Gentleman, who is my colleague on the Select Committee, not recall that Zimbabwe’s Minister for Health and his permanent secretary were from different parties—the MDC and ZANU-PF—but they were working very effectively together as they had gone to the same school? People from the two parties are delivering results in some areas, therefore; it is just unfortunate that that is not apparent in many quarters.
Hugh Bayley
I am glad to be reminded of that; yes, it is true. In order to create a good future for Zimbabwe, every opportunity must be capitalised on, and some people from the ZANU-PF political tradition have a great deal to contribute to the future of Zimbabwe.
The UK has always been a large donor. In 2003, we gave some $59 million to Zimbabwe, and by 2008 that had risen to $89 million, an increase of 50%. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the Select Committee, told the House that the figure has now risen to $100 million. When we were in Zimbabwe, we saw that aid being used to good purpose, such as in health care as both I and the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich have mentioned, and in humanitarian relief. A very small amount of aid goes to the Government to support two or three advisers in the office of the Prime Minister, but almost all the aid is channelled through the United Nations or non-governmental organisations as there is still not sufficient confidence to channel it through the Government of Zimbabwe. DFID ought now to be planning for that to change, so as to be ready to provide aid through the Government when conditions allow.
The global political agreement following the last, flawed, election set a timetable for the approval of the new constitution and stated that a fresh set of elections should be held after the constitution had been agreed. The process is behind time; consultation on the new constitution ended behind schedule, in October. The consultation process was flawed—the security forces were intimidating people—yet it provides a platform for elections to take place.
Robert Mugabe is threatening to end the global political agreement in February next year, prior to an election, because that is when it formally comes to an end. Our country, and other countries in the region, should be saying that the unity Government must continue until there has been a referendum on the new constitution, and if the referendum approves the new constitution, until there is an election. Any manoeuvring to force MDC Ministers out of the Government before an election would hinder a process through which a freer and fairer election could take place.
I do not know whether the UK should be optimistic or pessimistic, but DFID and the Foreign Office must act on the assumption that there is an opportunity to make political progress. If we were to do otherwise, it would become a self-fulfilling prophesy and make a setback more likely. To have got to a position, after decades of single-party rule and catastrophically bad governance, where there is a power-sharing arrangement within the Government, provides an opportunity.
We should be using aid to support a process of reform and change. I do not know whether it will work, but we certainly should not pull the plug. I was pleased that the new Government responded to the report that the Select Committee wrote before the general election, and I am glad that they understand and support it very well. We should be planning to expand our programmes of assistance, so that if there are opportunities, following an election, for a different kind of governance in Zimbabwe, we will be in a position to move quickly and show that a different style of government delivers tangible benefits for the people.
One thing that we should be addressing is the question of land reform. A report by the all-party group on Africa last year went through some of the history and, I hope, challenged some of the myths, which are widely believed in Africa. One such myth is that Britain failed to deliver on promises to pay billions of pounds for land purchases. Such promises were not made, although Britain has put in official development assistance money for land reform. The programmes of land reform that we funded, before the farm invasions made it an impossible thing to do, were relatively effective. Funding land reform cannot be left to Britain alone. We should be talking with other donors, in particular the World Bank. We should encourage it to set up a trust fund especially for this purpose, and we should seek to win support for it from others in the EU and from the donor community more widely. We should do all that we can to remain a good friend of Zimbabwe during its troubled times and to prepare to expand our programmes of assistance as soon as we get signals from the country that the money will be well spent.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who knows so much about this subject, and indeed the many other distinguished contributions from right hon. and hon. Members today.
I wish to speak briefly about agricultural development in Zimbabwe. Many speakers have outlined the political situation, which is obviously critical and indeed is pertinent to agricultural development. However, although agriculture might not have the profile of mining or tourism, it has always been vital, as hon. Members have said, to Zimbabwe’s economy, as a food producer, exporter and employer. I have some personal experience of the very fine quality of Zimbabwean coffee through my employment in the coffee trade over the past 25 years.
I firmly believe that as the political situation is resolved—as it must be—Zimbabwe will begin to resume its place as an agricultural powerhouse of sub-Saharan Africa. That it was a powerhouse is beyond doubt. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned the 1980s, throughout which a newly independent Zimbabwe provided food security for the region, regularly exporting its surplus maize to Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia. Zimbabwe also supplied countries further afield, such as Ethiopia. Indeed, it was the place from which donor agencies bought food supplies to send elsewhere as aid. In 1986, the country had a maize reserve of nearly 2 million tonnes after a record harvest of about 3 million tonnes. To put that into context, as the hon. Gentleman did, the production level in 2008 was about 470,000 tonnes. This year, there has been an improvement and the figure is expected to be 1.3 million tonnes, but that is still less than half the level of production in 1986. So, this year, Zimbabwe will still be dependent on grain imports, although to a lesser extent than in the recent past. The welcome deregulation of the market will make it easier to meet the deficit.
I shall leave it to others to trace the history of that decline—the changes in marketing, an increase in land devoted to cash crops, serious falls in productivity and, in particular, land seizures—as I would like briefly to address the way forward for agriculture. The Select Committee’s report states:
“Land reform in Zimbabwe is a complex issue. It is also a highly-charged political issue between Zimbabwe and the UK. However, resolution is essential for political stability and continued economic”
growth. I certainly do not intend to wade into those deep waters—that is for others with far more specific knowledge of the situation. All I would say is that although I have followed events in Zimbabwe from afar, I have spoken with those who were very closely involved on more than one occasion. They filled me with great sadness about what has happened. Reform was desperately needed, but it could have been achieved in a very different way.
I will offer my personal experience from Tanzania, which might show a way forward for Zimbabwe in certain circumstances. In 1973, many commercial coffee farms in Tanzania that belonged to British, Greek, German and other nationals in the Kilimanjaro region were nationalised. For more than two decades, they were then owned and run by local villages and co-operatives, which were generally unable to invest. Production and quality declined so that by the mid 1990s, production was about 10% of what it had been in the early 1970s.
The Tanzanian Government wanted to see a revival of the farms but were conscious of the vital issue of land ownership. They considered two models: joint ventures and long-term leases. I was somewhat involved in the discussions in my capacity as secretary and then chairman of the Tanzania Coffee Association. We advocated leases and the Tanzanian Government, to their great credit, chose that route. We felt that that was the best way forward because, unlike with joint ventures, ownership of the land remained firmly in the hands of the local people, villages and co-operatives. The lease allowed the investor to develop the farm for the long term, paying a rent to the village or co-operative and employing local people while remaining the tenant.
The leases—I declare an interest, as I am involved in one—have so far worked reasonably well. Previously, the land brought almost no income to the community and little employment, and now it brings a healthy rent that has been used by the local communities to build school classrooms and much else. Many smallholder farmers in the surrounding area can supplement their income through employment.
I do not claim that such a model would work perfectly or that it would work in every situation. I am very much aware that there is justifiable anger over the leasing to new tenants of farms that were seized violently from those who had built them up over decades. By contrast, in Tanzania former owners were often encouraged to lease back their former properties and the ownership was in the hands of community groups, not powerful individuals. Such leasing arrangements are a way to put land ownership and its use to work for the benefit of the whole community while attracting investment and skilled management.
One objective of the Zimbabwean Government in recent years has been to transfer land to small-scale farmers. I welcome the objective, although not the manner in which it has often been carried out. My experience of smallholder agriculture, however, is that without good infrastructure to support it, it will be at best subsistence farming and certainly will not fulfil its potential. The infrastructure needed is physical—rural roads, storage, equipment, seeds and fertilizers—and, just as importantly, it involves training.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has not at any stage indicated that out of the 4,000 farms that were seized from white farmers, 2,000 are lying destitute and in ruins. Does he see a role for those white farmers who have had their land seized in perhaps looking after that land again or does he see that land being reinstated to them? I would like to hear his ideas, because their expertise and energy could rejuvenate those farms.
Jeremy Lefroy
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman; in fact, in the example in Tanzania that I gave, two or three of the farms were taken back on long leases by the farmers who had developed them in the first place.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The need to improve the ailing infrastructure for water and sanitation is referred to frequently, as it has been in this debate, in relation to the need to provide clean water to prevent disease. My hon. Friend makes a good point about infrastructure: we need to invest in it to support the nation’s agriculture. I hope that DFID will consider how to promote the development of infrastructure in a way that involves good governance and accountability, thereby instilling confidence in the partners who need to involve themselves in such large infrastructure projects.
Jeremy Lefroy
I entirely agree. DFID and aid agencies that give bilateral and multilateral support can play an important role in supporting infrastructure. I have discussed infrastructure in relation to agriculture, and I would add irrigation to that, but infrastructure for sanitation, health and education is also important.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although it is good to get land into small farms and perhaps to start up the co-operatives again, it is vital to have an incentive on pricing? The prices of products must be right so that those people can make a living and so that things do not fall apart again. DFID needs to consider that aspect and to ensure that there are returns on products, many of which, as he will know from his experience, are excellent.
Jeremy Lefroy
That is why I welcome the opening up of agricultural markets in Zimbabwe, which has been one of the most important Government reforms.
The need for rural infrastructure is shown by the figures on maize yields. The area planted to maize in Zimbabwe this year is 1.8 million hectares, which compares with 1.37 million hectares in 2000, but 300,000 fewer tonnes of maize will be produced as yields decline from 1.18 tonnes to 0.74 tonnes per hectare. How can yields be improved? The Select Committee report discusses conservation agriculture, which is supported by the protracted relief programme that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) mentioned. As the report states, Christian Aid recognises that
“DFID’s consistent support to this area despite initial reluctance by other key stakeholders”
has been vital, highlighting that it
“had been particularly beneficial to vulnerable communities”
and that it was
“proven to lift households out of subsistence poverty”.
I congratulate DFID on its support for that programme under both the previous and current Governments and on taking the lead on it.
Conservation agriculture teaches people how better to manage their land and how to get a profitable harvest. According to Christian Aid, it enables households to get at least two, three, five or, in many cases—I could hardly believe this—10 tonnes of maize per hectare. That is quite incredible and I welcome the Select Committee’s recommendation that DFID should explore how conservation agriculture could be extended to other parts of sub-Saharan Africa where it could be used. I also welcome the Government’s positive response to that suggestion and I ask the Minister to ensure that that support continues.
The ordinary people of Zimbabwe have suffered grievously over the years, but they have shown, as many speakers have said, extraordinary resilience and courage. There is no doubt that the country can once again become the agricultural powerhouse that it should be. Proper land reform, not arbitrary seizure and settlement, is an essential part of that, as is effective support to the growing number of smallholder farmers. I welcome the Committee’s report, DFID’s response and the Government’s continuing commitment to the people of Zimbabwe.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I intend to call the wind-ups at half-past 6 and about four Members wish to participate in the debate. If hon. Members show some self-restraint on time, that will be very useful and will allow more Members to get in.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I apologise for having had to leave the debate for a short while. I had an 88-year-old constituent, Mary Gentry, coming up today and I had to have a cup of tea with her.
I welcome the report very much. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) persevered although I know there were times when he felt that he would perhaps never get the Committee to Zimbabwe. That was due not necessarily to what was happening in Zimbabwe, but to things at this end. I welcome the fact that he was able to go and welcome in particular the fact that the report highlights the generous assistance given—quite rightly, in my view—by the people of the United Kingdom to the people of Zimbabwe, despite all the lies and the venom that Mugabe and ZANU-PF have directed at us.
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe, I am glad that we were able to give some little help to the inquiry and to members of the Committee in planning the programme for their visit to Zimbabwe. As the House knows, during the period when it was almost impossible for UK parliamentarians to visit Zimbabwe, I undertook several undercover visits to that country to see at first hand what was happening on the ground. Things have improved, because on my last visit I was able to go in bona fide as Kate Hoey, Member of Parliament, which was quite nice. However, it is sad that, despite the resilience of those pressing for reform in Zimbabwe, there is still some way to go before conditions will be right for normal engagement by the UK in rebuilding the infrastructure, economy and institutions of Zimbabwe.
Just last week, on 29 and 30 November, our Minister for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), represented Her Majesty’s Government in Tripoli at the third EU-Africa summit. Six topics were dealt with at plenary sessions. Of those topics, two in particular were relevant to creating the right conditions for engagement and progress towards development in Zimbabwe. Topic No. 4 covered peace and security, while topic No. 5 looked at governance and human rights. I very much hope that the Minister here tonight will give us details of commitments made and undertakings given on specific human rights issues by participants at the summit. I am sure he will have been briefed by the Minister for Africa and hope he can mention those subjects.
Unfortunately, Mugabe attended that summit, which in itself is rather outrageous and has been a cause for concern. I hope the Minister can tell us that Mugabe’s own record of political violence and human rights abuse was raised during discussions in Tripoli. In February 2002, the European Council imposed restrictive measures on named Zimbabwean individuals, following the expulsion of the head of the EU observer team covering the presidential elections. The Council said at that time that the
“EU remained profoundly concerned at the continuing political violence, the serious violations of human rights and the restrictions on the media in Zimbabwe.”
The specific reference to restrictions on the media was significant. Now, nearly nine years later, there is still grave cause for concern—not only at the lack of progress towards freedom of the press, but because there is still no genuinely open and depoliticised state broadcasting network. People could watch a television news bulletin in Zimbabwe and think that the Movement for Democratic Change and Morgan Tsvangirai did not exist.
Recently, the all-party group on Zimbabwe was addressed by Foster Dongozi. Foster is secretary-general of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists and president of the Southern Africa Journalists Association. He gave a very sobering account of the continuing difficulties facing members of his profession in Zimbabwe and a bleak assessment of the general political environment in the country, rather similar to our ambassador’s report.
Dongozi gave examples of abuses of human rights, which sadly continue to be very widespread. Relentless harassment and political persecution are meted out to those who campaign for reform and stand up to the political and economic bullies of the ZANU-PF elite and, increasingly importantly, the military high command.
The country-wide process of consultation on constitutional reform, which should have started but had not done so when the Committee visited, has been severely impaired by violence. There has been a deliberate intimidation programme throughout the country, very carefully planned by those who see reform as a threat to all their entrenched political and economic privilege. That intimidation is reinforced by the many repressive laws that remain on the statute book. They deny Zimbabweans freedom of association and freedom of expression. Foster Dongozi mentioned a number of statutes that particularly need to be repealed or radically amended: the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Public Order and Security Act and so on. He drew attention to the recent detention of Dumisani Sibanda for reporting that the police force was recruiting Mugabe loyalists, so-called war veterans, in preparation for elections next year, which it is. Mr Sibanda is president of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists and works for Zimbabwe’s Newsday and The Standard. Earlier this month, the freelance journalist Sydney Saize was beaten up in Mutare, and on the same day in Harare two other freelance journalists, Nkosana Dlamini and Anderson Manyere, were arrested, detained and then charged with “criminal nuisance”.
Roy Bennett, whom we all know very well in this Parliament, a very brave Zimbabwean whose great-grandfather, interestingly enough, came from Coleraine in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), has had to leave Zimbabwe again and go to South Africa, because he has been told very clearly that the police are after him. He spent many months in prison. There is even a warrant out for the arrest of Wilf Mbanga, who edits The Zimbabwean from exile here in the UK, so I hope that the European arrest warrant does not apply. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government use every opportunity to raise those cases directly with the Government of Zimbabwe and with other Southern African Development Community Governments, who stood as guarantors of the global political agreement.
The International Development Committee’s report makes one reference to the worrying developments surrounding the recent discovery of diamond deposits in Zimbabwe. Since the Committee’s visit, the impact in terms of human rights abuses against those engaged in mining has been widely reported and become a huge issue. The wider impact in terms of corruption and a distortion of the political landscape should not be underestimated, either. It will have a direct effect by undermining efforts towards economic and social development.
The Kimberley process group, at its recent meeting in Jerusalem, could not reach agreement over whether Zimbabwe had complied with the conditions to allow diamonds from Marange to be certified for sale. Despite the deadlock, and in what seemed to be a rather irregular intervention, however, Abbey Chikane, the Kimberley process monitor for Zimbabwe, intervened personally to certify rough diamonds from Marange for sale. The auction raised $160 million, but when the sale came to light Mr Chikane’s actions were overruled by the Kimberley process chairman, Boaz Hirsch.
I have expressed my concern before to the UK Government about the behaviour of Mr Chikane, and I hope that in responding to this debate the Minister will be able to say something more about that important issue. The Kimberley process group is currently chaired by the European Union, so we as an EU member state have some traction and a real responsibility to ensure that the key commitments in the agreed joint work plan are met by Zimbabwe—perhaps even more so, given that the Zimbabwean Minister for Mines and Mining Development announced that Zimbabwe would boycott the most recent meeting of the working group on monitoring in Brussels. From what I have said on press freedom, intimidation over the constitution outreach programme, elections preparation and diamond mining, it is clear that in many areas human rights violations continue.
Paragraph 64 of the Committee’s report points out that international donor re-engagement will be determined by two key benchmarks: the extent to which the global political agreement is implemented in Zimbabwe, and progress towards The Hague principles. Owing to the lack of time, I shall not go through those principles, but they clearly state that several things must happen, so I urge the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the UK brings the issue to the attention of our EU partners, because, importantly, in February they will consider the renewal of restrictive measures on certain named Zimbabweans.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) quite rightly said that those are not sanctions but restrictive measures, and, although the restrictions, including a travel ban and assets freeze, have been widely misrepresented in Africa, the measures are targeted only at those closely associated with the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe. It would be foolhardy to lift them on the promise of good behaviour in future, but I worry that behind the scenes somewhere in the European Union people might well be discussing that.
The restrictions must be lifted only once reforms have been implemented on the basis of the undertakings that Mugabe made when he signed the global political agreement. I am sure that ministerial discussions are already under way, because I know that these things take time, and I hope that the Minister takes from this debate a clear message to our EU partners that the targeted measures must be maintained against those who still impede reform in Zimbabwe. I cannot stress how important that is. It is absolutely crucial, because those restrictions continue to play an important part in supporting those who struggle for human rights.
Finally, we all know what an amazing country Zimbabwe is, particularly those hon. Members who have just visited it for the first time. It is a country full of resilient people. It is a country that was once very prosperous and could be prosperous again. The people just need the opportunity to elect, in free and fair elections, a Government who respect the rule of law and the human rights of every Zimbabwean. There cannot be free and fair elections without a new voting roll, a new constitution and genuinely independent election observers. If, along with the EU, we donate to and help Zimbabwe, there must be monitoring of its elections beyond that of the African Union. The Commonwealth must be involved and there must be commitments from all the countries that have been so supportive. Our new Government, who I am pleased are sticking to what the previous Government did, must keep reminding the Zimbabwean Government, South Africa and the African Union of their responsibilities. South Africa said formally that it would endorse, support and monitor the global political agreement. That must be done, and Parliament will continue to give as much support as possible.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I support what the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said. In 2000, I was an election observer in Zimbabwe. I was banned by Mugabe because I was so critical of the regime—I said that it was destroying democracy and the country.
Regardless of the good or bad of the colonial past, Mugabe is now a dictator, and as such, he needs something to attack. He has therefore attacked white Zimbabweans. Like other hon. Members, while I was there I noted how much respect there was between white Zimbabweans and black Zimbabweans. The issue is a political one that was brought about by ZANU-PF and Mugabe. That concentrates the mind on how he has destroyed the country.
I endorse the Minister’s view that the issue is one of governance. Whatever we do in Zimbabwe, unless we get the governance right, most of the money will be frittered away.
As many hon. Members have said, Zimbabwe is not a country that is poor in resources. Speaking as a farmer, I know that it has some of the most benign and beautiful land anywhere in the world. When it was settled many years ago, two crops of wheat could be grown a year. The resources are therefore there. This was not only about sharing out land, but about having commercial farming so that Zimbabwe can produce real resource.
The way in which Mugabe and the ZANU-PF regime destroyed the farms in Zimbabwe did not affect only the people who owned the farms; there were medical centres and schools on the farms, so as the farms were destroyed, the infrastructure was destroyed along with them. Those things must be rebuilt.
The regime now wants to take control of all white-owned businesses. What Zimbabwe actually needs is internal investment. It is good that we can provide investment, but if we could get the political situation right, investment would come to Zimbabwe because it has the potential to build its economy quickly, as many hon. Members have said.
Zimbabwe is an interesting country, because it is—or certainly was—one of the most educated countries in Africa. For a man who wants to run a dictatorship, perhaps that was the greatest mistake: Mugabe educated the people of Zimbabwe so that they could see a better way and a better future. That is what brought about the MDC.
As we help and support Zimbabwe, we must ensure that we do not further the regime of Mugabe and ZANU-PF and that we see real change. It was with great sadness that I and many hon. Members watched that great country being destroyed. It can rise again, and I believe that it will. As the Minister considers support for Zimbabwe, I hope he will bring about real change, and I am sure he will. We must not forget that ZANU-PF and Mugabe do not believe in democracy and do not understand it as we understand it; they just believe in intimidating and persecuting people and ensuring that they vote for them. Anything that we can do to bring about democratic change will also bring about economic change and a prosperous Zimbabwe in future.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I should like to bring to the House’s attention the plight of former public sector workers in Zimbabwe, when it was Southern Rhodesia. Their pensions have not been paid for some considerable time—almost eight years, since 2003. Today I ask the Minister to consider what he can do for the aid fund to help those individuals, UK citizens among them, to regain their pensions.
The Minister will be familiar with the history of the case. Between 12 December 1979 and 17 April 1980, Southern Rhodesia was ruled directly by the UK. The pension fund that then existed was a consolidated revenue fund with no trustees. That meant that Her Majesty’s Government, who effectively took on responsibility for the fund when they were in government in Southern Rhodesia for that very short period, had a duty of care. On Zimbabwe’s independence, the UK Government were concerned to ensure that appropriate provisions were made, and they believed that there were full safeguards in the new constitution for the pension arrangements of former public sector workers. The reality, however, was rather different.
In February 2003, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe failed to make foreign currency available for those pension payments, which was in breach of paragraph 2(1) of schedule 6 and section 112 of the constitution. A number of requests have been made to secure the restarting of the pension payments and, as I understand it, in September 2009 the director of the Zimbabwean Government’s pensions office indicated that $3.5 million might be available and asked for applications from previous public sector workers now living in South Africa, Australia or the UK. So far, 850 applications have been received from those now living in South Africa and 350 from individuals in the UK. They are represented by a body called the Overseas Service Pensioners Association, which for many years has been championing the cause of getting the pensions payments started again.
OSPA has tried to establish how many individuals are affected across the world, and the best estimate is 1,200. There are different estimates, but OSPA believes that that is the right figure. That is relevant because until we understand how many people are affected, it is hard to quantify the figures that we are talking about and therefore reach a ballpark estimate of how much help we are seeking from the Minister and his aid budget.
Having reached that number and examined the applications already received, OSPA has calculated that if it allows for a reduction of one third for options of commutation, which most pensioners have taken up, and then uprates the figure to reflect the increase in the retail prices index, the appropriate annual figure to cover all individuals affected would be £4 million. It has made the same calculation for the back payment, which comes to £26 million. OSPA is realistic and recognises that there is no real chance of getting the back payment, but it would like some support from the Government to help it at least to reinstate the old pension amount.
OSPA would like the Government to work with the Zimbabwean Government to identify whether they really do now intend to make sums available, and to consider setting up a review of what the Department for International Development can do, using its aid budget or any other source of funds, to put the individuals affected back in pocket. They are ageing, so if we do not do something shortly, the money will not have the value to them that it should.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I should like to make three points to the House in the closing moments of the debate. First, it was extraordinarily helpful that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chair of the International Development Committee, brought the House up to date with the views of our ambassador in Harare. That is a good precedent. Some time has passed since the Committee visited Zimbabwe in February, and it would be helpful if in future ambassadors or high commissioners shared with the House an open letter or report to bring the House up to date on their views before such debates. We are now much more used to open diplomacy, and I would have thought that that would be a genuine benefit to the House.
Secondly, the views of the three members of the Committee who went to Zimbabwe were also a great benefit to the debate. Sections of the Poujadist press seek to portray any overseas visit by right hon. and hon. Members as some sort of a jolly, but having spent a Parliament chairing the International Development Committee, I must say that there is nothing jolly about witnessing other people’s chronic and enduring poverty, or seeing people suffering from HIV/AIDS, or talking to people about the deplorable conditions in which they live because of poverty. The House benefits enormously from the first-hand experience and testament of those who have witnessed—in this case—Zimbabwe. The work done by members of the Committee is much to be appreciated, because when they go to places such as Zimbabwe they spend a week away from the House and are unable to do their constituency work, so when they return, the burden on them is even greater.
My third point has not been touched on in the debate, which is why I am keen to make it. I suspect that many right hon. and hon. Members have not insignificant Zimbabwean communities in their constituencies. Many of those people have for some time been in limbo. Comparatively few of them were granted refugee status, but for perfectly understandable reasons, successive Home Secretaries decided not to order those who were refused refugee or asylum status to return to Zimbabwe. Those people have therefore been here in limbo, and many have been unable to take up work.
I am sure that other hon. Members know of people in the same situation. I am talking about teachers, trade unionists and farmers—people who have real skills. One tragedy of conflict-affected countries is the flight of intellect, as much as the flight of capital. Such people could make a real contribution to life in Zimbabwe again. I therefore hope that Ministers will consider this proposal. There will come a time—hopefully—when those people will increasingly want to return to Zimbabwe. I do not think that we should look at my proposal in terms of giving people money to go home, because those people have real skills. Given that the total aid budget for Zimbabwe is $100 million, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the possibility of an endowment fund, whereby talented Zimbabweans resident in the UK could apply to DFID for an endowment to return to undertake a specific project or work, whether health care for nurses, teaching for teachers, or farming for those with farming skills? That would be a positive encouragement to people. Their talents could be acknowledged and recognised, and they could go back to Zimbabwe with the finances first to give them the confidence to return, and secondly, to make a real difference.
Otherwise, we—the NHS and so on—will benefit from their talent, skills and education, but for a generation all that talent, knowledge and expertise has effectively been stolen from Zimbabwe. That is another piece of collateral damage inflicted upon Zimbabwe by its political situation. I suspect that many of those who are here—especially as they have not been granted refugee status, and given the continued unsettled nature of their lives here—would welcome the opportunity to make a contribution in their own country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and colleagues in the Home Office will give some creative thought to how we can enable Zimbabweans to return to Zimbabwe to make a positive contribution, rather than feel that they have to cling on here because they have no future back home.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the hon. Members who have thanked the Committee for this excellent report. It has given us a good foundation for our debate today, and I am sure that the House will agree that we have had a particularly well-informed debate because of the expertise shown by many hon. Members across the House, both from their work on the Committee and from previous work experience in Africa and elsewhere.
The key question which faces the Government, and which faced the previous Government, was how we can provide development assistance to Zimbabwe and support for reform and a return to democracy while at the same time ensuring that we do not provide succour for the hard-line repressive elements of the regime. That is a delicate path to tread, but it is our view that the only way forward is to pursue that twin-track approach. We must seek to help the people of Zimbabwe who have suffered so much in recent years, but at the same time we must maintain the pressure for reform, democratisation and an end to brutality and terror by those in the Government who want to maintain their power and corrupt rule.
In the debate, hon. Members have spoken about the poverty, the degradation of the health service, the state of the economy and the political repression in Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) spoke about the repressive legislation over many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) reminded us that the UN human development report placed Zimbabwe last out of 169 countries in its most recent index. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) reminded us that the unemployment rate in Zimbabwe is between 80% and 90%. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), using his experience and expertise, told us of the collapse of the health infrastructure, which has caused a massive increase in the maternal mortality rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) reminded us of the continuing intimidation of the opposition media in Zimbabwe despite the global political agreement.
As several hon. Members have said, Zimbabwe did not need to be in its present position. The cause of the people’s suffering is the actions—and sometimes the inaction—of the regime. The country still has the potential to be one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, as the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) reminded us. It is because of the magnitude of the problem that the Labour Government instituted a substantial programme of assistance to Zimbabwe. In 2009 UK aid was worth £60 million, the largest ever programme of UK aid to Zimbabwe. As the right hon. Member for Gordon, (Malcom Bruce) who chairs the Select Committee, reminds us, that assistance and those programmes of assistance from other countries have produced results. He told us of his visit to a hospital that had begun to operate very effectively as a result of the assistance given under the programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) also reminded us that with investment and improvements in the infrastructure, the education and health systems could once again provide an effective service in many parts of the country.
The Committee report refers to the protracted relief programme supported by DFID, which—it points out—has already reached millions of vulnerable people in Zimbabwe and has been praised by the NGOs who take part as an “innovative flagship programme” of which DFID should be proud. The Committee recommends that the Department explore the option of scaling up the programme in Zimbabwe, and we support that recommendation.
The report also raises some questions about the operation of the protracted relief programme and makes some recommendations to make it even more effective. I note that that Government’s response says that they will consider those issues in their annual review of the programme, and we support that, but it should not be taken as detracting in any way from the overall achievements of that successful programme.
Alongside direct development assistance, the UK has also provided support to the office of the Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, to enable him and his office to fulfil the functions set out in the global political agreement on policy design and implementation. Again, the Select Committee proposes that such support should continue, and we agree with the recommendation. We also agree with the recommendation that such support should be offered to other reforming ministries in the Government.
There are, of course, many question marks over the future of a power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe, not least because ZANU-PF has substantially retained much of its hold on power. The Select Committee report points out that Mr Mugabe and ZANU-PF have not fulfilled their undertaking and have sought to undermine the MDC’s ability to deliver even in its limited areas of Government. Nevertheless, as the report also points out—and as has been made clear by a number of hon. Members—there has been some progress since the agreement. That is one of the reasons why it is right to continue with the DFID programme of assistance in Zimbabwe. That programme should be along the general lines of the existing programme, although we could make changes to it to draw upon the experience of the programme to date.
I note, for example, that the Select Committee raises the issues of maternal and child health, and suggests that the Government should consider the need and the opportunity for more support to rebuild the health system to provide improved quality of care, especially for pregnant women and children under five. That support would certainly be most welcome. It would be useful to hear from the Minister how the Government will consider implementing the recommendation relating to that aspect of the Select Committee report.
One suggestion that I would certainly commend to the Government is that DFID should commit itself to help to fund the removal of user fees for health services in Zimbabwe. That has produced amazing results in places such as Sierra Leone. We must also consider ways of supporting civil society organisations more directly, particularly in the run-up to the planned referendum on a new constitution. It must be emphasised that there has to be real progress towards that constitution, which was a crucial element of a global political agreement. A new constitution should have been adopted before new elections were held, and that should certainly still be our objective.
One other question that the Minister might be able to answer is that raised by the Select Committee about the Multi-Donor Trust Fund. Again, that has been widely recognised as providing a way of giving assistance without the risk of funds being diverted away from their intended purpose. The Government do not say anything specific about their attitude to the future of the fund in their response to the Committee’s report. I hope that the Minister will confirm the UK’s continued support for that type of initiative.
In my opening remarks I said that there must be a twin-track approach. The first track is to provide direct assistance to benefit the people of Zimbabwe and to ensure that that does not in any way provide sustenance to the hard-line repressive elements in the regime. That type of direct assistance must continue, and we endorse the Select Committee’s recommendation that the UK should give a high priority to Zimbabwe not only through the work of DFID but through that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and other Departments where relevant.
Given the obvious reluctance—to put it mildly—of ZANU-PF to share power in a genuine way, the second track is to ensure that pressure for change is maintained. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, a key role has to be played by Zimbabwe’s neighbours. The Zimbabwean Government must comply with the rulings of the Southern Africa Development Community tribunal. The economic decline and instability in Zimbabwe has damaged all its neighbours in southern Africa, and we hope that those neighbours will continue their efforts to bring about reform and the full implementation of a power-sharing agreement. I would be interested to hear the Minister say, if he can, what recent contacts he has had with SADC tribunal members to make the point about the need to provide continued pressure on the Zimbabwe regime.
The entire world community must also play its part. We certainly endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee that
“progress on human rights and democracy must be demonstrated before all the EU’s restrictive measures placed on named individuals and organisations…can be lifted.”
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said about that. There needs to be a flexible approach to the application of such measures, and they need to be kept under review to ensure that they are targeted most effectively. One example concerns the export of diamonds. Hon. Members have raised concerns that the proceeds have been diverted into the pockets of leading figures in ZANU-PF. That situation, and the evidence of forced labour and of the torture and harassment of miners, means that it is right that Zimbabwe should not be allowed a full resumption of the export of diamonds at this stage.
As I have said, ordinary Zimbabweans have suffered awfully over the past decade. We know that not just from what we see in the media or from the conclusions of reports such as the one that we are discussing today, but from speaking to Zimbabweans who have come to the UK. Like most Members, I meet them in my constituency. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made some important points about the role that they could play while they are resident in the UK. Zimbabwe has all the potential to become once again an economic and agricultural powerhouse for southern Africa. We believe it right for the UK not just to provide humanitarian assistance in the short term, but to assist with the reconstruction of the country. However, that can be achieved only once there is genuine political reform—a democracy in which all parties compete on a level playing field, a free press, an end to the abuse of power and to violence, and the firm establishment of the rule of law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
I extend my thanks and congratulations to the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), on arranging this debate, which allows the Committee’s excellent report on its important visit to Zimbabwe earlier this year to gain wider exposure in the House. The visit was extremely welcome, and was regarded as an important and excellently conducted process, not least by the Chairman. That was the feedback that we received from all those who came into contact with him and his Committee. It is unquestionably the case that he set the right tone, so ably and so sensitively, in leading this debate, on a country where we all want to see great improvements for the people, while also recognising that there are great sensitivities that we have to respect and therefore work our way around. It was absolutely right that the Committee should have gone to Zimbabwe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said. Such visits count enormously in ensuring that we are well informed in this House and as part of the decision-making process.
I wish to place on record my admiration for those, from all parts of the House, who have made such thoughtful contributions to this debate, including those who sit on the International Development Committee, and in particular those who sat on it in advance of the general election. I am grateful both to the Committee, for the time and effort that it has put into reviewing my Department’s assistance to Zimbabwe, and, similarly, to the all-party Africa group, of which I was formerly a member, for its insightful and authoritative report on land in Zimbabwe earlier this year, which was debated in Westminster Hall. That debate was notably led by the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who spoke knowledgably, passionately and pragmatically.
I need to declare a sort of interest. Although I was born up the road from Zimbabwe, in Tanzania, and was raised there and in Kenya, my parents lived in Harare in Zimbabwe in the mid-1980s.
The Committee’s inquiry into the DFID programme came at an opportune time. It was published about 15 months after the inception of the global political agreement and nearly a year after the formation of the inclusive Government—the Government of national unity. The GPA created the necessary space, as it has rightly been defined, to allow that necessary, but admittedly not perfect, situation to arise. I welcome the report and thank the Committee for its understanding not only of the challenges that Zimbabwe unquestionably faces, but of the significant potential to rebuild the country. The Government, and my Department in particular, greatly appreciate the fact that the report roundly endorsed the UK’s work in Zimbabwe and commended many of our programmes.
I am also pleased that the Committee acknowledged that DFID spending—about $100 million—is effective and reaches the intended beneficiaries, and that we have therefore helped to reassure hon. Members and others who may have had questions about taxpayers’ money being well spent. DFID, along with its donor partners, is effective in Zimbabwe at reaching the poorest and most vulnerable people. UK support saves lives, builds livelihoods, helps to restore the foundations for future growth and provides basic services. As has been mentioned, it is equally important to recognise that private sector development activity, both internally and through foreign investment, can help towards achieving the critical aim of generating the necessary conditions for confidence. I should add that the report has been helpful in informing the ongoing bilateral aid review that my Department is undertaking. All the spending plans for each country, including Zimbabwe, are under active consideration, and as the ministerial team member covering Africa, I can testify that this has been an incredibly time-consuming, intense, detailed and rigorous process, but also a very rewarding one.
Since the formation of the inclusive Government, our programme has shifted from one primarily focused on humanitarian support to one focused on the provision of basic services, especially in health, education, water supply and livelihoods, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) pointed out. This evolution towards longer-term programmes that tackle the underlying causes of poverty and vulnerability was endorsed by the International Development Committee.
DFID has a high-quality, professional team on the ground, led by the DFID head of office, Dave Fish, and I pay a very warm and respectful tribute to him and his team. I note with genuine respect and gratitude the Committee’s conclusion that the DFID team has played an important leadership role in creating opportunities for joint efforts by like-minded donors. I am also pleased to note how the various parts of Her Majesty’s Government are working extremely well together in Zimbabwe, co-ordinating, collaborating and complementing each other. Tributes have already been paid to Her Majesty’s ambassador in Zimbabwe, Mark Canning, who continues to play an absolutely critical role.
The UK led the establishment of the educational transition fund, managed by UNICEF, which will provide a set of core textbooks to every state primary school student in Zimbabwe this year. The UK also led the negotiations leading to the creation of a multi-donor trust fund that will provide funding to meet critical infrastructure needs, which partly answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). UK aid to Zimbabwe has achieved substantial results and brought real benefits to Zimbabwe’s people, particularly some of its poorest and most vulnerable and the hardest to reach. It operates without political prejudice, with beneficiaries selected solely on the ground of need, not of political affiliation. One point that came out of the debate was how we need to respond to the demand that is coming up from the people of Zimbabwe, rather than looking at the matter from the top down. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) rightly pointed out that the needs of those people are monumental.
In order to update the House and the Committee on progress, I shall give a few examples of the impact we have had. In 12 months, the UK, focusing very much on results and outcomes, has helped to provide essential medicines to 1,300 primary care clinics and rural hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made some important points about that. We have also distributed 43 million condoms and delivered 41,000 antiretroviral treatments. About two thirds of ARVs go to female beneficiaries, and about one third to men. The important work in this area was also mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
The UK has refurbished infrastructure in six key public hospitals in cities and large towns across the country: Harare, Mpilo, Bulawayo, Mutare, Gweru and Masvingo. We have supported 256,000 smallholder farmer households, covering about 1 million people, with seeds and fertilisers in a flagship livelihoods programme, and helped 20 urban councils to provide their residents with access to clean water, reducing the impact of cholera and other water-borne diseases. We have also supported the Ministry of Finance to produce a cash budget for 2010—the first credible budget in years. It is vital to recognise that the health element is a key lever in what we are trying to achieve, along with livelihood programmes in the rural areas.
As all this suggests, the UK has played a leading role in restoring essential health and other services to the people of Zimbabwe, which had collapsed almost completely by late 2008. DFID’s support is provided through the most effective mechanisms available in any given sector, and our work with UNICEF and others played a major role in addressing the cholera outbreak in 2008-09.
Phase 2 of the protracted relief programme was mentioned; the PRP is now reaching about 2 million people. It is effective, and we hope that, with gradual economic recovery, PRP beneficiaries will start to be able to meet their own needs and graduate from donor support. We have a series of refreshed and innovative monitoring and evaluation processes in Zimbabwe. We recognise the concerns of some non-governmental organisations about the scale of the PRP, and we have met them regularly, including through issuing open invitations to quarterly meetings with the head of the DFID office. The vast majority of PRP funds go to the recipients on the ground, and to help to keep local NGOs running and operational.
Following the establishment of our coalition Government here in the UK, the Secretary of State initiated a thorough review of all bilateral aid programmes. As this process is not yet complete, it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt it by anticipating the final conclusion. However, for as long as the UK is able to achieve results and value for money in Zimbabwe, I would anticipate continuing to provide it with substantial support, given the scale of ongoing need and growing demand. This is in line with the conclusions of the International Development Committee inquiry across a number of its recommendations.
For example, the IDC has tasked DFID with doing even more on maternal and child health—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich—and I am pleased to say that this chimes well with the development priorities of the coalition Government. I simply ask the House to be a bit patient and await the outcome of the review; we can aim for more precision at the end of that process.
Although the revenue of the Government of Zimbabwe is increasing, little money is available for recurrent or development activities once the public service wage bill has been met. The finance Minister there is conscious of the need to maximise Government revenue, particularly from mining. Clearly, all the people of Zimbabwe, not just a corrupt few, should benefit from rich resources.
The issue of diamonds was raised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and others, not least the right hon. Member for Gordon. Zimbabwe will not be able to export diamonds legally from Murange under the Kimberley process. We and our EU partners have put measures in place to prevent non-Kimberley-process-compliant diamonds from entering our markets, but we call on Zimbabwe to maintain a firm commitment to the process and to continue to take action to bring all operations into compliance with it. That would facilitate contributions to Zimbabwe’s economic development. We note with disappointment that the Zimbabwe Minister for mines, Mpofu, declined to attend the Brussels meeting on 23 November. The Brussels working group on the Kimberley process permits exports from compliant mines—Mbada and Canadile—and ensures that exports from mines that are not compliant do not enter EU markets.
Zimbabwe’s inclusive Government, which took office in February 2009, have made considerable progress since they started stabilising the economy. The economy is growing for the first time since 1997—by 7% in 2010 and by an anticipated 8% in 2011. Inflation is low and basic education and health services have been pulled back from the brink of collapse. It is fragile and complex, however; it is certainly not quick and easy.
Returnees—whether they be from South Africa or, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury urged, from the United Kingdom—are an important potential source of the consolidation of the economic reforms. I point out to my hon. Friend that the international health partnerships provide a significant opportunity and that those Zimbabweans without legal status in the UK who decide to return to Zimbabwe voluntarily are already entitled to a package of financial assistance from the Home Office. I hope that provides him with some encouragement. Clearly, the skills are necessary to ensure the economic underpinning.
The same applies to workers who were driven off farms. Another important aspect of our debate has been the importance of underpinning the economic confidence that we require and hope to see develop, which comes from the sensitive complexities of the land reform process.
I was asked what we are doing, above all, to help UK or other businesses to invest in Zimbabwe. Confidence is all, given the real difficulties that exist, not least in the agriculture sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised that issue and he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Confidence about land tenure is important, and can be achieved either through licensing or by ensuring access to infrastructural developments, whether they relate to irrigation, storage or distribution through transport networks. The fund that we discussed earlier is important and we need to give a cautious welcome to the inclusive Government’s decision to review the indigenisation process. It at least sends out a signal in respect of businesses with a 51% so-called indigenous ownership. That is now being reviewed, which we welcome, and it is an important part of the context of the points raised in debate.
Nothing will move in Zimbabwe without recognition of the political context. Progress in stabilising the economy still leaves power in the hands of hard-liners, whether in the military, the police or the intelligence services. With an unequal power-sharing agreement, things are difficult. Many Members were right to raise the issue of how neighbouring states, and especially South Africa and the Southern African Development Community, have a genuine opportunity and responsibility to lead engagement with Zimbabwe, hopefully resulting in the brokering of an agreement, which we anticipate will benefit the greatest possible number of people in Zimbabwe. That was the main point made by the hon. Member for York Central. As guarantors of the global political agreement, South Africa and SADC are in an important position, which we wish to support. We stand ready to do what we can to support that process.
I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) about the pensions issue. I must declare an interest, as my father is in a similar position, having been denied much of his pension from his overseas civil service career.
To give time to the Chairman of the Select Committee to reply to the debate, I will finish my remarks by reminding Members of the House that Zimbabwe was brought to its knees in 2008, as a result of years of economic mismanagement and a complete disregard for the rule of law and the well-being of the majority of the people. However, the potential for the country to bounce back quickly is significant. The economic prospects, notably in agriculture, minerals and tourism, are such that if the business climate improved, there should be no shortage of investors. The country’s natural assets, combined with the outstanding human capital, even after millions have left the country in recent years, still set Zimbabwe apart from much of Africa. In my belief, the creation of such organically driven conditions is in Zimbabwe’s DNA, and its potential can be unlocked once again. As a landlocked country, however, Zimbabwe and its neighbours are interdependent. In that regard, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford drew on the Tanzanian example, which is extremely important.
So much hinges on the politics and on putting in place a system of governance and accountability that allows the economy and people to thrive. I confirm that the UK is committed to continuing to be involved in a partnership in supporting Zimbabwe and its people to recover and grow. My Department stands ready to continue to play its leading role, as part of a cross-Government approach, in helping to bring that about.
Malcolm Bruce
I am pleased that you are in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I wish to put it on record that you were a member of the Committee that took part in the visit to Zimbabwe. You will therefore have had a personal interest in the debate.
The debate has been extremely valuable, and it has been well informed by Members on both sides of the House who brought a variety of expertise and special interest to bear on the matter. It is also timely, because the next few months will see developments that could take Zimbabwe in a number of directions, not all of which are good, but I hope that some will have positive outcomes. I endorse the thanks not only to our ambassador, but to Dave Fish, whom I should have mentioned in my opening speech. He and his team gave us a huge amount of support and are doing a fantastic job in Zimbabwe.
I want to make two points. On farming, agriculture and land ownership, the tragedy is that the SADC tribunal has identified a way forward, and it has deemed that the regulations being applied by the Government of Zimbabwe are racist, as is the indigenisation legislation, which defines Zimbabweans not as citizens of Zimbabwe, but as black citizens of Zimbabwe, excluding a whole section of the community by their racial origin, not their citizenship. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that SADC’s position is unenforceable in one of its own member states, and that must be addressed in the longer term.
My final point is that however difficult the situation is, the MDC has control of finance through Tendai Biti, and has produced a cash-positive budget—
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Have you had any indication of a further Government statement on changes to their plans to treble student fees? I ask because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has brought out today a report in which it confirms that graduates from the poorest 30% of households would pay back more than under the current system—a point seemingly lost on the Prime Minister today—and that the new system will generate perverse incentives for universities charging more than £6,000 to turn away students from poorer backgrounds. Given that it is now clear that the Government’s proposals for student support seem to have been written on the back of the Deputy Prime Minister’s fag packet, do we not need a statement to clarify things once and for all?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just to assist the House, I have not been given any indication that there is likely to be a statement today on that or, indeed, any other issue.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The House will know that many Members from all parts of the country have been struggling to get here, and that last Thursday they faced very long journeys back to their constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. Have either yourself or the Speaker had an opportunity to discuss with the two Front-Bench teams and, in particular, the Leader of the House whether it might be appropriate, given the very severe weather conditions and the fact that, for example, the Army has been called out in parts of the United Kingdom, to cancel tomorrow’s sitting so that we can reconvene when all Members are able to take part?
Mr Deputy Speaker
If there is likely to be any change to the business of the House tomorrow, the House will be told in the usual manner.
We shall now move on to the motion on the business of the House for Thursday. Before we do so, I ask hon. Members to look at the motion and to see how tight it is. I do not expect tomorrow’s debate to take place today; nor do I expect a rehearsal of it.
Business of the House (Thursday)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
23:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 202 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I beg to move,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 9 December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Vince Cable relating to Higher Education Higher Amount and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), on the Motion in the name of Secretary Vince Cable on the draft Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations not later than five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first motion, or at 5.30 pm, whichever is the earlier; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
The motion is sharply focused on the timing of tomorrow’s debate. It allows for the motions in the name of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills relating to higher education to be debated together and for the Questions to be put after five hours or at 5.30 pm, whichever is earlier.
Sir George Young
No, not at this stage. I will give way in a moment.
I expect to answer the business question tomorrow, but the Government have no plans for any other oral statements. We therefore expect the House to have a full day to debate and vote on the issues.
Chris Bryant
I tried to intervene at the precise moment when the Leader of the House referred to the precise words that I have trouble with: “whichever is the earlier”. Why could it not be, “whichever is the later”?
Sir George Young
If the hon. Gentleman had wanted, he could have tabled an amendment to the motion and we could have debated it. No such amendment was tabled by any Opposition Member and I therefore assume that they are entirely content to stop at 5.30 pm.
Sir George Young
I want to make a bit of progress and then I will give way.
When I announced the business for tomorrow at business questions last Thursday, no Member on the Opposition Benches raised objections to the timing or the process of the motions. The process that we are using for the debate tomorrow is set out in section 26 of the Higher Education Act 2004, under which the regulations are to be made. The Opposition will be familiar with that process, given that it is their Act that allows us to make these changes by secondary legislation.
Kevin Brennan
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Why in the motion did he choose the time of 5.30 pm? It is clear that the House’s intention is that the point of interruption on a Thursday should be 6 pm. Why is it 5.30 and not 6 pm?
Sir George Young
No representations were made through the usual channels for an extension beyond 5.30. After 5.30, I anticipate that there will be votes, which will take us to 6 o’clock, when the House usually rises.
Sir George Young
I will make a bit more progress.
Our original business plan provided for a maximum of four and a half hours’ debate.
Sir George Young
In a moment. The motion allows for the House to consider the statutory instrument and the resolution in a single debate, which removes the need for two sets of Front-Bench speeches and allows for more Back-Bench contributions.
Sir George Young
We had an Opposition day debate on the subject, when the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to debate the matter at some length. We are using the procedures set out in the legislation introduced by the Labour Government. We are following those procedures to the letter and allowing more time for the debate than was originally planned.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Paul Farrelly
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is simply not the case that no concerns have been raised about this procedure. I raised them in a point of order last week, if you remember, and they have been highlighted by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) in an early-day motion. How can the House correct the record?
Mr Speaker
May I say to the hon. Gentleman, first, that as far as he is concerned, he has just done so. Secondly, I do indeed recall his point of order, which was in fact on Monday night. I would have serious problems with my short-term memory if I did not recall it, but I do.
Sir George Young
For the convenience of the House, the Divisions will be taken together at the end of the debate, as specified in the motion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has set out previously, it is right that we bring forward the motions now, to give prospective students and universities certainty before the 2012-13 application round starts.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It has been reported in the press that Thursday was selected as the day for debating the motions because of the hope that Scottish and Northern Irish MPs might not be present. Is there any truth in that? The Leader of the House can take great comfort from the fact that we will be here, and we will be voting against the motions.
Sir George Young
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman will be here. I announced last Thursday that the debate would take place tomorrow, and no one objected once during business questions to the day that we chose for the debate.
A slower process would have been not only unfair to prospective students and their families but irresponsible, because of the need to tackle the fiscal crisis that the previous Government left behind. My intention in bringing forward this evening’s motion was to allow adequate time for tomorrow’s important debate. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support that intention, and I commend the motion to the House.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I rise to oppose the motion. I must say to the Leader of the House that I had been expecting a better justification to the House of the thinking that lay behind this timetable motion. Perhaps he is embarrassed by the shambles of the past two days. Those who read The Guardian newspaper, as many of us do, will have read with great joy about the reference to the Liberal Democrats’ hokey cokey when it comes to voting. Perhaps he did not want to be outdone and decided to have his own hokey cokey on this motion. The timetable motion was on the Order Paper for Monday and was objected to. It was on the Order Paper for Tuesday and the Government did not have the courage to move it, and it is back again tonight.
The Leader of the House says that he has not received any representations about the time that will be allocated. I have news for him: he is about to get a lot of representations, and the most important one of all will be when Labour Members all go through the Division Lobby to vote no to this motion.
The content of the motion is not surprising, even though it has changed a little since the version of yesterday and the day before. It is clear that the Government want one thing and one thing only: to spend as little time as possible on this matter, and to get it out of the way as quickly as possible.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that if only half the Members of the House wanted to take part in the debate tomorrow, that would allow only 50 seconds per Member?
Hilary Benn
I do indeed, and that illustrates a point that I shall come to—the inadequacy of the time that the House is being given to debate the matter.
Kevin Brennan
Is not my right hon. Friend’s point completely proved by the motion itself, in that the Government chose 5.30 pm as the time for the debate to end when the moment of interruption for a Thursday, voted for by this House, is 6 o’clock? Votes should take place after 6 o’clock on a Thursday, not before. That shows that the Government are not providing enough time.
Hilary Benn
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. That raises this question: what are the Government worried about in that extra half hour? The truth is that they do not want to listen to any more arguments. Given the problems that they have faced over their handling of tuition fees and their broken promises, that is not surprising. However, it is outrageous—I use that word deliberately—that the Government propose to allow the House of Commons only a few hours to discuss and consider the most fundamental change to student support and the funding of higher education that we have ever seen in this country. It is also breathtakingly disrespectful.
For proof of that, we need only to consider the fact that the debate on this business motion can continue until any hour. In other words, the Government are prepared to spend more time debating the allocation of time than they are prepared to give the House of Commons actually to debate, discuss and vote on their proposals.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend might wish to know that I have been informed that the Government Chief Whip has told the dining room not to bother to put on any extra food tonight, because this debate will be over in an hour’s time.
Hilary Benn
I do not presume to comment on the powers of the Chief Whip to see the future, except to say that clearly, in view of the problems we had on Monday evening, his powers are not all they are cracked up to be. The truth, as you will know, Mr Speaker, is that the debate will go on for as long as it takes—it depends on how many right hon. and hon. Members seek to catch your eye.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
Further to the point that my right hon. Friend makes, the Leader of the House said that he is “using the procedures”. What does my right hon. Friend think the Leader of the House meant by that?
Hilary Benn
To be honest, I have no idea what the Leader of the House was talking about. It is for him to explain his words. The truth is that the procedure that the Government are proposing to use to give the House time to discuss their proposals is completely inadequate.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Tomorrow, 45,000 students will visit London to make their views known. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving the House only five hours of debate is an insult to them?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. It shows what the Government think of all those students that they propose to give so little time to debate this matter.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only 45,000 or 50,000 students will be coming down tomorrow? Their parents and grandparents—
Robert Flello
Indeed—in some cases the great-grandparents will be here, along with siblings, nieces and nephews, because hundreds of thousands of people object to the Government’s disgraceful behaviour.
Hilary Benn
If great-grandparents are concerned, we must be talking about very young students indeed, but my hon. Friend makes a forceful point about the large number of people in this country who are profoundly concerned about the proposals that we are being asked to debate tomorrow. I am sure that they will share the concern that we are expressing at the lack of time that we are being given.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Was it not terribly unfair of the Leader of the House to imply that last week’s Opposition debate revealed that there was ample time? Had he looked at that debate, he would have seen that far more people wanted to make a contribution than the time allowed. He is now making it impossible for hon. Members to represent their constituents.
Hilary Benn
That is absolutely right, and I am sure that we will have the same problem tomorrow if the motion is passed.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in 2004, when the House had before it a seven-part Bill, containing 15,000 words, 50 clauses and seven schedules, there were many, many hours for debate? Given that the Government’s proposals are more profound—they introduce a market, which we have never had before in higher education, and the withdrawal of teaching—should we not have more time? Should our democracy not have more time to debate those changes?
Hilary Benn
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I shall remind the House later in my speech about the time that it had on previous occasions to discuss legislation to do with student support.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is it not important that we have more time to illustrate the importance of the issue, support for which, as has already been pointed out, is not confined to students? We are proud of those students who are marching and demonstrating, but in tonight’s Evening Standard reference is made to a 105-year-old person who has sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister to say that she wants to march with her 72-year-old daughter but is unable to do so because she is blind. Does not that illustrate that up and down the country adults are supporting the students because they know that the students are right?
Hilary Benn
Indeed they are. I could not have put it more eloquently than my hon. Friend.
Paul Farrelly
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there could not be a greater contrast between the way in which the coalition Government are handling this and the way in which the Labour Government handled it seven years ago, no matter on what side of the argument one stands? Then the 105-page White Paper was published a whole year before the debate and the changes were introduced only after a general election, so the British public had the opportunity to vote on them.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend anticipates the very point that I will come to a little later in my speech.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are wide-ranging proposals that will completely restructure our university system and that five hours is simply not enough time to discuss these issues? Does this not also show that the opposition are running scared of a proper debate on this issue?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend of course refers to those Liberal Democrats who will vote against these proposals—but not enough will vote against them as far as the country is concerned.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Last week in business questions, the Leader of the House said that on Wednesday next week there would be a Second Reading of “a Bill”, demonstrating some indecision on the part of the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the excuse that the Leader of the House has just given to Members from Scotland and Northern Ireland about avoiding a Thursday is paltry, because the Government could have scheduled the debate for Wednesday next week?
Hilary Benn
They could indeed have done so, but responsibility for that rests with the Leader of the House.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that students from Plymouth and the south-west have a 10-hour round trip to come up to London tomorrow, they deserve more than five hours for an explanation from the Liberal Democrats of why a pledge to the electorate is worth less than a pledge to the Conservative party in the coalition agreement?
Hilary Benn
They do indeed, and—given the inclement weather conditions—those students will probably spend more time travelling than they will having the chance to listen to the House of Commons debating the motion.
There are three principal reasons—to do with time—why the House should vote down this motion. The first is the importance and the consequence of the decision on tuition fees. When one compares the time allocated to the House when previous changes were proposed—and they were much less extensive changes to student support and the funding of higher education than those that will be before us tomorrow—we can see just how inadequate the time that is being offered is. The second reason is the fact, referred to in a point of order earlier, that this debate and vote are being arranged before the promised White Paper on higher education is published and when a whole series of fundamental questions remain about how the new world that the Minister for Universities and Science and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills propose will actually work. I shall come to some of those questions later.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
The shadow Leader of the House waxes eloquent tonight. Would it not be more credible to be honest with the House and say that stopping free education is not a smaller issue than the one we will debate tomorrow? That is what his Government did.
Hilary Benn
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Mr Speaker, but I am afraid I had some difficultly understanding the point he was seeking to make. He clearly had the same difficulty himself. I will happily give way again if he wants to have another go.
Nadhim Zahawi
The shadow Leader has just told the House that what we are debating tomorrow is of greater consequence than the reneged promise that his Government delivered upon, which abolished free education altogether. That is a wrong thing to tell the House. Will he explain himself?
Hilary Benn
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is in urgent need of a history lesson because I do not recognise what he is describing. There is a profound difference. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot have great eruptions of noise any time a Member chooses, for whatever reason, to leave the Chamber. Members will want to listen to Mr Hilary Benn.
Hilary Benn
The point is this: there is a profound difference between the previous system, which was a way of raising additional finance for our universities, and the enormous reduction in funding for our universities that this increase in fees is based upon. That is why it is completely different.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that five hours is hardly enough time for the Liberal Democrats to explain their four different positions?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. She anticipates a point I will make later. Of all the issues facing the House at the moment, it is clear that on this issue—for the reasons she has just pointed out—lots and lots of time will be required, so that Members can explain their positions. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, four different positions, at the last count, will have to be explained. There is huge public interest in the matter and, in the light of that, the time proposed is wholly inadequate.
I want to quote what Lord Browne had to say in his foreword to the report, “Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education,” which runs to 64 pages. Lord Browne wrote—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will see in a moment. I quote:
“In November 2009, I was asked to lead an independent Panel to review the funding of higher education and make recommendations to ensure that teaching”—
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks do not refer to the timings or business of the House.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am keenly attending to the debate, but I know that he—very distinguished man though he is—would not try to tell me how to do my job.
Hilary Benn
Lord Browne went on to state:
“Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively. Our recommendations are based on written and oral evidence drawn from students, teachers, academics, employers and regulators. We have looked…at every aspect of implementing them – financial, practical and educational – to ensure that the recommendations we are making are realistic for the long term.”
The most important words in that quotation are these:
“Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively.”
[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am trying to listen intently to what the shadow Leader of the House is saying, but the hubbub is too great. It is calming down now and we will hear the shadow Leader.
Hilary Benn
As I said, the quote from Lord Browne is:
“Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively.”
[Interruption.] If hon. Members will be patient, they will see what this has got to do with the business motion before us tonight. Let us compare the length of time that Lord Browne took in preparing his proposals to what is before the House tonight. The Browne committee had a year to consider what it recommended; the House is to be given five hours to consider the recommendations and dispose of them. Everybody else was consulted at length, but MPs are to be given just five hours to express a view.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me. I have been pondering whether any measure of comparable controversy has ever gone through this House with so little debate and in such a short space of time. Can he help me? Is there any example of that?
Hilary Benn
In preparing for the debate this evening, I, too, asked myself that, and I struggled to think of another example of when the House had so little time to consider something so profound.
Nobody can be under any misapprehension about the scale of the change that is being proposed. Lord Browne said:
“What we recommend is a radical departure from the existing way in which HEIs”—
higher education institutions—
“are financed…Our recommendations will lead to a significant change”.
The plain truth is that the Browne report, which is radical and significant in its implications, has not even been debated in the House yet. Since the report was published, on 12 October 2010, there has been one urgent question, when the Secretary of State was forced to come to the House and explain what was going on, and one ministerial statement, on 3 November. However, there has been no debate at all on the Browne report in Government time—none.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) seems to be turning into the hon. Member for Taunting. Is there anything that can be done to allow us to listen to the debate, rather than to his ranting?
Mr Speaker
I had been watching and listening closely, and I was conscious—I was about to comment on the fact—that a rather animated and protracted exchange seemed to be taking place between the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Whether some sort of private salon was taking place I do not know, but it must not do so. We must listen to the debate, so no taunting should take place at all. Let us listen to Mr Hilary Benn.
Hilary Benn
I think I was in the process of giving way to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
Pete Wishart
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can take this opportunity to remind the House how many hours the Labour party made available to debate tuition fees on the Floor of the House when the previous Government attempted to hike them up.
Hilary Benn
I will gladly do that. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall come to that point in a moment.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Let me point out to my right hon. Friend that there is indeed a precedent for curtailing debate, and that is where a great deal of consensus exists across the Chamber. Perhaps he can illuminate for me whether there has been some magic movement on the Government Benches in the past few hours, and whether Government Members now agree with us—and with Wales and Scotland—because then we can indeed have a shortened debate.
Hilary Benn
It would be very nice if that were the case, but I fear that on this occasion the amount of time that the Government want to allocate is in inverse proportion to the consensus. That is the difficulty that we have. The truth is that if the Government could get away with it, they would much prefer the House of Commons not to debate and discuss the proposal at all, so that they could try to get it through on the nod. I can think of no other change in student support that has been put before the House with so little scrutiny or debate.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I have to say that I find it deeply ironic that so many Members opposite are now raising concerns about the amount of time for debate. I remember that when I was president of Reading university students’ union and was raising concerns with the National Union of Students about the value for money of our affiliation fees, many Members opposite would set the fire alarms off.
Hilary Benn
I can be held responsible for many things, but I am afraid that the use of fire alarms at the university of Reading is not one of them. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are people chuntering from a sedentary position and urging the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) to name the people who set off the fire alarms. That would be entirely disorderly and we are not going to have it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are ahead of me, because I was given the impression that the culprits were present tonight. If that were the case, I was going to ask you to give them the opportunity to stand up and own up to that heinous crime.
Mr Speaker
I think that I will consider that to be a point of humour, because it certainly was not a point of order.
Kevin Brennan
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I was at university, the ones letting off the fire extinguishers were in the Bullingdon club.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know about fire alarms, but people are certainly letting off steam. They have now done so, and we must return to the important subject of the debate on this relatively narrow motion.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Sadly, I did not go to university, but during my time in the fire service, setting off fire alarms was considered to be a very irresponsible act.
Mr Speaker
We are all grateful to have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman’s experience, and for that recitation of his curriculum vitae, but we must now return to the debate.
Hilary Benn
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The sense of outrage that is certainly felt on this side of the Chamber is of course shared by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is not in his place tonight, but he has tabled an early-day motion, which many Members have signed, that makes an eloquent plea for more time.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Can my right hon. Friend seek some reassurance? Should a fire alarm be set off during the debate tomorrow, would the debate be extended?
Hilary Benn
I do not think that that is the kind of injury time that the Standing Orders would cover. I am beginning to think that my time at university was somewhat sheltered in comparison to the revelations being made on the Floor of the House this evening. The hon. Member for Leeds North West is making the point that he does not think there has been enough time. He thinks that the proposal should be put to one side so that it can be properly considered.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Earlier, the Leader of the House made the claim—I think it was simply a mistake on his part, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the House—that Members on this side of the House had had the opportunity to table amendments to the proceedings. Given that the motion was not taken last night, and appeared on the Order Paper only this morning, am I right in thinking that there has been no opportunity for us to table amendments?
Hilary Benn
What happened last night was certainly extremely unusual, and the Leader of the House did not seek to enlighten us this evening as to why the Government pulled the plug on their own proposal. Perhaps he anticipated the debate that we were going to have this evening, and the opposition to the motion that was going to be expressed on this side of the Chamber.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend really wants to help the Leader of the House to find some additional time, so I refer back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). We were given an indication last week that an unspecified Bill was going to come before the House next Wednesday. The rumour is that it is the long-awaited and much-heralded localism Bill. There is a further rumour, however, that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is more enthusiastic about that Bill than some of his Cabinet colleagues. If that is the case, can my right hon. Friend give us any more information about whether the Bill has been lost in the fog of Whitehall, and whether there might after all be time to debate this business next Wednesday?
Mr Speaker
Order. That is at the very least extremely tangential to the matter that we are supposed to be discussing, and I know that the shadow Leader of the House would not for one moment seek to dilate on the subject of the localism Bill. I know that he is going to proceed with his speech in an orderly way.
Hilary Benn
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As far as the identity of that Bill is concerned, I was going to observe only that it is a mystery. No doubt all will be revealed to us in due course.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
As one of the new Members of this House, I am uniquely placed to offer my experience of student debt, as one of the people in the House who still carries such a debt. How many people are likely to be able to speak in a five-hour debate? Newer Members are more likely to be carrying student debt, and they would like to offer their own perspectives on the matter.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for us to have more time, precisely so that the experiences of all Members can be brought to bear on this important question, which will affect future generations of students.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The fundamental issue at stake here is that there are genuine arguments for and against tuition fees and for and against the level at which the Government want to set them. I accept that there are arguments on both sides. It is not only Members who should have an opportunity to debate the details that genuinely concern us all; the public have the right to see their legislators spending a decent amount of time doing so. This is not a partisan point. On an issue as important as this, why must we restrict the time for debate? Why can we not have, purely and simply, more time to debate an issue that Members of all parties and the public are both fascinated and worried by?
Hilary Benn
It seems to me that my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I would gladly give way to the Leader of the House for an explanation. He did not explain in his speech why so little time has been allocated, so perhaps he would like to explain that now. No, he is not inclined to take that—[Interruption.] Oh, well.
Sir George Young
If the amount of time allocated for this debate is insufficient, why did the right hon. Gentleman not draw the House’s attention to it last Thursday? When I announced today’s debate on exactly these regulations, he said nothing at all.
Hilary Benn
It has been very clear for a long time that Labour Members want adequate time to debate this. The way to deal with it is to consider the proposal before us; we will vote against it tonight because inadequate time has been allotted.
Charlie Elphicke
Is it not the case that the shadow Minister failed to spot this last Thursday, failed to move an amendment and has been asleep at the wheel?
Hilary Benn
No, I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman will discover how awake we are on this side when he has to troop through the Lobby to try to vote in favour of this wholly inadequate allocation of time. The really telling comparison is between how this change is being dealt with and how the two previous changes were dealt with. That is why I shall move on to deal with points raised by Members of all parties about how these matters were handled in the past.
The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, the Dearing review, was set up in May 1996 by the last Conservative Government. It deliberated for 15 months and published its report “Higher education in the learning society” in July 1997. There was then a Government statement and a White Paper “Higher Education in the 21st Century”, followed by the publication of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. That became an Act in 1998 having been debated at proper length. Six hours were allotted to Second Reading alone—an hour more than we are to be allocated tomorrow. There were seven Committee sittings and two days on Report. There is the first comparison.
The second comparison is with the Higher Education Act 2004, which the orders that we will discuss tomorrow are designed to amend. It, too, had six hours on Second Reading—an hour more than we will get tomorrow—and there were 15 sittings in Committee, plus a Report stage.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
Are not the proposed changes as significant as the Robbins report and the transformation of universities during the second half of the 20th century? To put through the marketisation of our entire university structure within five hours is absolutely shameful.
Hilary Benn
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an extremely powerful point.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend refers to the orders under the previous legislation, which had to be debated by both Houses on the affirmative basis, following a review, before any decision could be made on future levels of tuition fees. The Leader of the House has suggested that the reason for this debate is entirely encapsulated in that particular piece of legislation. Incidentally, I was involved in assisting with the drafting at the time, so I remember it well. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the intention behind the drafting of those clauses at the time was wholly different from what is being put forward this evening, in terms of what should come up first for discussion, what evidence should be placed before Members to debate before any decision is taken, and when any decision should be taken according to the two resolutions?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The usual order is that we have a committee of inquiry; the Government make a statement; they publish a White Paper, then a Bill; the Bill is considered and then regulations are made. In this case, the process has been reversed. We are being asked to approve the statutory instruments tomorrow in just five hours, before we even know the framework for the future of higher education, because the White Paper will not be published, we are told, until the new year. The cart has truly been put before the horse.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I have been consistently against tuition fees, and voted against them the last time they were debated in the House of Commons. More importantly, I have signed a pledge with the students union that I will not vote for them to be raised, and I will honour that pledge. Surely we need the kind of debate that we had previously for a Second Reading, so that all those Liberal Democrats who will be breaking their pledge will have the opportunity to explain to students across the country why they are doing so.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It will be interesting to see how many Liberal Democrats wish to participate in the debate tomorrow.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has explained the normal Bill process, but is he aware that, as a new MP, I have not seen my postbag filled on any other issue as it has been with concerns about tuition fees? I am concerned to raise those points, so that people in Wirral can have their voice heard. Is he aware of the level of concern in Wirral?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. No Member can be unaware of the huge concern expressed through our postbags, emails and other means, about the nature of the proposals.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the media have reported tonight that, despite the Deputy Prime Minister saying that all Lib Dem Ministers will support the proposals, two of them will not be present for the vote? Apparently, however, it is all right, because they will be paired—
Mr Speaker
Order. The trouble with that intervention is that it has nothing to do with the allocation of time. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and he was very cheeky.
Hilary Benn
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) may have something to do with the length of time that it would take some of those Ministers to return to cast their vote.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Has my right hon. Friend noticed, as I have, the large number of Liberal Democrat Members who are prevaricating and indicating that they may abstain on the issue? Is there not a danger that abstention could be perceived as voting for the motion? Is that not a good argument for extending the time for debate, so that they can come to a decision?
Hilary Benn
That is a powerful point. Last week, I observed that, throughout the ages, Liberal Democrats who have been faced with a tough decision have sat on the fence. I suspect that we will see that tomorrow.
Angela Smith
Is it not the case that the proposals before the House tomorrow radically redraw the relationship between the state and the individual? Are they not predicated on an 80% reduction in funding for teaching? Is it not appalling that an SI should be used for such a radical shift in Government policy?
Hilary Benn
It certainly is. The 80% reduction is implicit in the statutory instruments that we will consider tomorrow, and it is the cause of those statutory instruments, but we will not have a proper opportunity to debate that.
Emily Thornberry
What is a member of the public switching on the Parliament channel to make of this? We could spend more time tonight debating how much time we should be allocated than we will spend debating the proposals tomorrow. How ironic is that? By making petty points about how we should have tabled an amendment here or there to extend the time, Government Members show how out of touch they are. Mothers watching television tonight, desperately worried about their children’s future, will feel that we should be ashamed. Why do we not spend tonight debating this matter, and tomorrow as well?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend, but the answer lies in the hands of the Leader of the House, who has shown a willingness tonight to devote more time to debating the allocation of time than he is prepared to give to debating the proposals themselves.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Some of us have universities in our constituencies, and many students will be coming down here tomorrow. It is no wonder that students are adopting an angry attitude in the streets when they find out we will have only five hours for the debate. When the Government were in opposition, they used to complain about our guillotines, and we always gave way on time. I am surprised that the Leader of the House, who is usually a reasonable man, has taken us down this road.
Hilary Benn
I agree. I have a great deal of respect for the Leader of the House, but I must say that I do not think he has done his job properly on this occasion.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Will we have an opportunity, in such a limited time, to raise issues that constituents have raised with us, particularly the withdrawal of funds in July next year from the excellent Aimhigher programme, which will pull up the ladder of opportunity? [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Tipton, who is shouting derisory comments—[Hon. Members: “Taunton.”] I mean the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), but perhaps he will be tipped on tomorrow. Anyway, given the limited time allotted to tomorrow’s debate, I do not believe that we will have an opportunity to raise valid concerns, such as the fact that children from disadvantaged backgrounds such as those in the area that I represent will be disadvantaged further.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. Judging by the attendance in the Chamber tonight, and because so little time has been allotted, I fear that there will not be time for all the Members who will want to participate in tomorrow’s debate to have a chance to express their views to the House.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
Although on the face of it the issue at stake is tuition fees in England, the proposal will have profound effects on students from Northern Ireland—and, indeed, those in Northern Ireland. Given the restricted time that we will have in which to debate it, it is unlikely that those of us who represent those students will be able to make our case fully tomorrow. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wise to allow us to do so, in the light of the profound implications both for students from Northern Ireland and for those who study there?
Hilary Benn
I agree. The proposal does indeed have profound ramifications and implications for students not only in England but in other parts of the United Kingdom, which is why we need more time.
Huw Irranca-Davies
In view of the anomalies that the Bill will throw up west of Offa’s dyke, north of Hadrian’s wall and so on, does my right hon. Friend think that there will be enough time for us to deal with the subject of the potential migration flows as students and their families—who know that there have always been cross-border issues over health—suddenly realise that there will also be cross-border issues over tuition fees, and that whereas Scotland and Wales are doing the right thing, the tripling of tuition fees will be rammed down the throats of students in England because of the unholy alliance on the Government Benches?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, which I am sure that he and other Members will seek to put to the Minister tomorrow. As he says, time is required for us to be able to consider all the ramifications of the proposals, and the plain fact is that we are not being given enough time to do that.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that members of all generations up and down the land will think that giving the House five hours in which to discuss the denial of access of whole generations, from whole communities, to the higher education that could change the life chances of millions of people is a complete disgrace? Should we not hasten the electrification of the railway line to Wales, so that people can have a proper opportunity to benefit from higher education?
Hilary Benn
I think that you would rule me out of order if I commented on the electrification of the railway line to Wales, Mr Speaker.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you kindly give the House—and me, as a new Member—guidance on how many important debates were curtailed to five hours by the last Government, so that we can introduce some balance to this evening’s debate?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that if the question is of interest to the hon. Gentleman, he can always undertake the necessary research. I am afraid that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to provide the answer to it tonight.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I believe that I heard a Labour Member refer to a Member on the Government Benches as “the hon. Member for Tipton”. Just in case there is any confusion among my electors, may I make it clear that I represent the beautiful town of Tipton, and that I will be supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the Opposition tomorrow?
Hilary Benn
I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents will be very glad to have heard that clarification.
Mr Lammy
Is my right hon. Friend aware that just as this House is being denied a full debate, the Minister responsible for universities, who is on the Front Bench now, has been invited to sit-ins at the London School of Economics and the School of Oriental and African Studies but has not attended? Is it my right hon. Friend’s expectation that the Minister will go and talk to the students who will be gathering in this House and outside before the debate and after it tomorrow—
Mr Speaker
Order. That may be a point of interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is somewhat wide of the terms of the motion. Mr Hilary Benn.
Hilary Benn
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that the very least the architect of the policy could do, particularly in view of the pledge he signed before the election, is go and talk to students and explain why he has changed his mind.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Many Members have tonight mentioned the fact that constituents of theirs—students and potential students—will be coming down tomorrow to lobby their MPs. Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the “#” tag “name and shame” on Twitter there is a growing list of names of MPs from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who have refused to meet the students coming down tomorrow? I suspect they are refusing to meet them tomorrow because they will be too busy attending tomorrow’s debate. Does that not suggest that we ought to postpone tomorrow’s debate so that they have time to meet their constituents who are coming down tomorrow?
Mr Speaker
Order. There is mounting evidence that Members are referring to matters outside the Chamber as a not very subtle ruse to try to get their point across in the House, but unfortunately they are then almost always outwith the terms of the motion. We have had a few examples of that, but I hope we will not have any more. Mr Hilary Benn.
Vernon Coaker
As my right hon. Friend knows, thousands of students from places throughout the country, including Nottingham, will be arriving in London tomorrow. As we shall debate this issue for only five hours, which I think most of those students and their families will find simply incredible, has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with the Leader of the House about informing all those students how this House arrived at that five-hour limit? Have any special arrangements been made to inform them about the decision that has been made to curtail the debate, so that they are properly informed?
Hilary Benn
I had hoped that in moving the motion this evening the Leader of the House would have enlightened us on that very point, but I am afraid no elucidation at all was offered as to the amount of time given to us.
I want to come on to one of the problems that we may face tomorrow. Although what is on offer now—
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way? I have an important point to make.
Mr McCann
I have a specific point I want to make about time. In three minutes’ time, constituents in the frozen Lanarkshire district, which includes my constituency, will be donning several layers of clothing and getting their ice picks and shovels out to dig their way out of their homes, so that they can meet up at their selected departure points and travel down for tomorrow’s debate. They will be leaving Lanarkshire on the M74 at about 9 pm—if they get there in time, given the horrendous weather conditions. They will be travelling overnight to get here, and they will arrive to find that, having spent over 21 hours getting here and knowing that they are going to face the same journey back, this subject will be debated for only five hours. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an outrage to our democracy?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I listened courteously, but there must be no further dilation on the subject of the motorway network. I do not think that that will aid our debate. I know that the shadow Leader of the House will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point briefly, and then develop his further arguments.
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is an outrage, as I indicated earlier.
I wanted to say something about the amount of time that we may actually get tomorrow to debate this subject. Although the five hours that we have been offered is a 30-minute improvement on the previous period allocated, it is not absolutely guaranteed. That is because although the Leader of the House has just told us that the Government do not intend to make any statements tomorrow, it is possible that some matter may arise. You, Mr Speaker, may receive a request for an urgent question, and if that is granted we would lose time, as we will if Government Back Benchers suddenly decide they want to raise numerous lengthy points of order. If either of those eventualities arose, the British public and Members of the House would be denied even the paltry five hours being offered by the Leader of the House.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
We have all noted the restraint that the Speaker has exercised as people have strayed beyond the terms of this motion. But does he not share the concern that my constituents, and I believe his, will feel when they see the House debating what they see as a technical matter and not debating what they wish us to debate, which is the principle of whether education should be the business of the state or a purely private matter, which it will become as a result of the debate tomorrow?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; indeed, she anticipates something that I am going to refer to a little later in my speech. It is about the nature of the debate that we may find that we are allowed, or not allowed, to have because we will be debating a statutory instrument rather the White Paper, which has not been published.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Many of the students who have been in touch with me recently have expressed their concern about the fact that the withdrawal of the state from education is directed particularly at people studying the arts, social sciences and related subjects. Does my right hon. Friend believe that there will be time tomorrow to discuss not only the impact of tuition fees, but the very nature of the kind of higher education that we as a society want to value?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. To answer her very direct question, I fear that we will not have enough time to examine that, and many other aspects.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said on Channel 4 that his conscience is clear—so he would presumably like to debate this subject at length—does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why this debate is being curtailed is to protect the Liberal Democrats? The clue to that lies in what Chris Davies MEP says in his blog:
“Splits weaken parties, and sometimes destroy them. The reputation of the Liberal Democrat brand is being undermined with each passing hour as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless…In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke.”
We should share that joke with this House, if we had sufficient time to debate this issue properly.
Hilary Benn
The point that my hon. Friend has just made illustrates clearly why we need more time tomorrow to examine the position of the Liberal Democrats, in all their splendour.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Is there not a wider and more profound issue at stake here? It relates to legislation, or changes in the law, that are railroaded through this House without adequate time for debate, and what happens when the public outside do not believe that this House has been doing its job properly and scrutinising those changes in the law. When such legislation—the classic example of which was the poll tax—is carried, it will never command the support of the public and the public will never believe that it is being instituted for the right reasons. Are the Government not in real danger of repeating the disaster of the poll tax with this ill-conceived, railroaded piece of legislation on tuition fees?
Hilary Benn
My right hon. Friend speaks with unique authority and force on that subject. He is giving the House a very clear warning, because if people do not feel that the House of Commons—their elected representatives—has been given adequate time to debate this very profound change, they will be even more angry than they are already.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I was the principal of a sixth-form college until recently, and I have spent my lifetime working with young people—16 to 19-year-olds. The message being given to young people about how decisions about their future are made in this House disturbs me. What does it say if we cannot give the right amount of time to this, and cannot give them the right message that this really matters, that we care about them—and care enough to share our views in full fashion, over as much time as it takes to make the right decision?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a good point: the House would be setting a very bad example to young people if it were to pass the motion tonight.
Clive Efford
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why it is dangerous for Back Benchers on both sides of the House, and particularly on the Government side, to allow the Executive to truncate debate or the consideration of a Bill is that it limits the scope of Back Benchers to influence Front Benchers? He will recall that when we were setting the cap that we will discuss in the debate tomorrow—the debate—which we are now debating, it was Labour Back Benchers who threatened not to support their Government, and made them set it lower. We are not hearing anything of that sort from those on the Government Benches tonight. If the desire is there to make a change, it is up to Government Back Benchers, especially Liberal Democrat MPs.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Tomorrow the eyes of the House will be on Liberal Democrat Members in particular. Everybody knows that how they choose to vote will determine whether this proposal goes through or not.
Hilary Benn
Indeed. Back Benchers have the opportunity tonight to decide whether the motion will be passed. That is why I hope that as many as possible will join us in the Lobby to vote it down.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Leader of the House has ignored the moment of interruption in his motion, by setting 5.30 as the time for the end of the debate tomorrow, is there any procedure by which a manuscript amendment could be tabled during the course of this debate, to extend tomorrow’s debate up until the normal moment of interruption, when any debate on a Thursday should end?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is open to any Member to table a manuscript amendment. Whether the amendment is selected is a matter for the Chair. The Chair would consider a manuscript amendment if and when it were submitted. That is the situation.
Hilary Benn
I am sure that the House is extremely grateful for that guidance, Mr Speaker.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that one of the greatest achievements in recent years has been extending participation to young people from disadvantaged communities? Salford university takes 45% of its students from the local area, and that includes many young people who otherwise would not have the chance to go to university. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the curtailment of the debate tomorrow will mean that the voices of those particularly disadvantaged young people will not be heard?
Hilary Benn
That is the case. With five hours, there will be an opportunity for only a relatively small number of Members to participate in the debate. The number of Members who have sought to intervene in this debate tonight is a pretty good indication of the number who will want to speak tomorrow.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I am new to this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is therefore difficult for me to differentiate between posturing and principle, but I think I am getting a lesson in it tonight from the right hon. Gentleman. The idea of debate is not only to make one’s own point but to listen. Too frequently in debates, right hon. and hon. Members make their points and then leave the Chamber. Will the shadow Leader of the House assure us that the Opposition speakers in tomorrow’s debate will be in their places for the entire five hours of the debate? Or will there be a lot of popping in and then popping out when they have made their posturing points?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Even interventions must be relevant to the debate that we are having this evening. The subject of who will attend tomorrow is not a matter for Mr Benn.
Hilary Benn
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point was indeed irrelevant and, I think, inconsequential.
Robert Flello
I am grateful yet again to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and for the generosity that he has shown in doing so. I am following his speech with great interest. I look forward to taking part in the debate tomorrow, if I should catch the eye of Mr Speaker or of one of the Deputy Speakers—and, indeed, if there is time. Does my right hon. Friend wish to comment, however, given the short amount of time that will be available, on how much time—should I be able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair and make my point, along with other colleagues—the occupants of the Government Front Bench will have to respond to the points made by Opposition Members? How will the Government be able to answer the points that we raise, given that there is such a short time for the debate?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The large number of matters that Members will undoubtedly wish to raise tomorrow will only add to the pressure on time, if Ministers are even to begin to attempt to answer them all.
Emma Reynolds
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who expressed the concern that she has many potentially disadvantaged students in her constituency; I do too, and I should like to have the time to represent their concerns tomorrow. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the House was disingenuous in suggesting that we had sufficient time—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady should accuse the Leader of the House of being disingenuous. I am sure she would like to rephrase that.
Emma Reynolds
I apologise to the Leader of the House. He said only moments ago that we had sufficient time to debate these issues in the Opposition day debate, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Government made a statement on that day, tomorrow will be the second time they have tried to curtail the time allowed to debate this issue?
Hilary Benn
That is indeed the case. The Leader of the House’s idea of sufficient time is not our idea of sufficient time.
Mr Tom Harris
In my right hon. Friend’s considered opinion, what would have been the chances of the Deputy Leader of the House supporting this programme motion had it been moved by a Labour Government? Should not this Damascene conversion to the value of the programme motion at least be counted in the top-10 Liberal Democrat U-turns of 2010?
Hilary Benn
There are many U-turns fighting to get into that top-10 list, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. Had the roles been reversed, the Deputy Leader of the House would have been fulminating from the Dispatch Box about how outrageous it was. He could have the opportunity to do so now, but I see that he simply wants to remain in his place.
I should like to make a suggestion about how we could guarantee even the inadequate amount of time given so far. We have just had very helpful guidance from the Speaker about making manuscript amendments, and the Leader of the House could amend his own motion to ensure that there would be injury time if an urgent question were to be granted or if extensive time were taken up with points of order. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not a fan of injury time and I suspect that is because the coalition Government are not terribly keen on having a full and open debate on the matter in hand.
There is another reason why more time is required. The measures we are being asked to vote on tomorrow cannot be described as the original proposals of Lord Browne. That is why my earlier quotation was relevant. When Lord Browne produced his report, he said that his proposals had to be considered together, but we now know that the Government’s plans differ from those of Lord Browne. That is very pertinent to the argument about why more time is required, especially when one bears in mind that the Government have had no debate in their own time on Lord Browne’s proposals.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made, would not a greater amount of time and a longer process allow Back Benchers on both sides and the official Opposition to make alternative proposals so that at the end of the process there would be much greater consensus, as there was in 2004?
Hilary Benn
That is indeed the case. Hon. Members are being denied that opportunity because the Government have chosen to put the cart before the horse.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration that the Deputy Prime Minister came to my constituency the day before the election to reinforce his pledge not to raise tuition fees, but that because of the lack of time tomorrow I will not have the opportunity to challenge Liberal Democrat Members on why they are breaking that pledge?
John Robertson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There seems to be a lot of chuntering from a Government Whip, making remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). Is that in order, and is he allowed to do it?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I did not hear any remarks myself, and there is quite a lot of noise in the Chamber, which makes it difficult for all Members of the House to hear. It would be best at this time if we could proceed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing this matter to my attention, but I do not think that it is a point of order.
Hilary Benn
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to give way—
Robert Flello
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you please clarify something for me? Are Government Whips entitled to take part in debate? My understanding is that they are not. If they are not entitled to take part in debate, why is that happening?
Madam Deputy Speaker
As I understand it, any Member is entitled to speak in a debate in the House. There may be conventions that are normally followed, but remarks, comments or shouting across the Chamber from a sedentary position in order to disrupt the debate are not permitted. I am sure that nobody will do that.
Hilary Benn
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to respond to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham. Yes, many people in the country have watched the video that the Deputy Prime Minister made in which he uttered the pledge. [Interruption.] It has to do with the time because we need to hear from Liberal Democrats—perhaps we will be lucky and hear from the Deputy Prime Minister in tomorrow’s debate, but who knows?—and we need time for an explanation of what exactly happened between the making of that pledge and the U-turn that he has performed in introducing these proposals tonight.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need more time to get the information about the various proposals that have been trailed through the press this week, which the Government suggest would justify to the House and to the public an increase in fees? Tomorrow’s debate would enable that if there were time. A number of suggestions have been made—for example, on those students who might get financial assistance. Do we not need time to hear the details of that before the House is asked to vote?
Hilary Benn
We do indeed. One of the big problems that Members will face tomorrow is that we do not yet have a lot of the information, and a lot of the questions that have been asked have not yet been answered. How on earth is the House meant to make up its mind on a fundamental part of these proposals in the absence of all that?
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats will never be knowingly understood? If we locked two Lib Dems in a room, we would get three political opinions coming out. Five hours is not nearly enough time to try to work out what the Lib Dems think.
Hilary Benn
I fear that even five days may leave us none the wiser as to the position of the Liberal Democrats, but we live in hope.
Huw Irranca-Davies
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Pursuant to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), may I ask you to explain the tabling of a manuscript amendment? There are many new Members here in the House, and people will be watching and listening to the proceedings. Not everyone will be familiar with the tabling of a manuscript amendment, so it would be of great benefit to the House to know how difficult or how simple it is.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful for that point of order, but rather than take up time in the debate I suggest that any Member who needs clarification on how to table a manuscript amendment should go to the Clerk to ask for guidance. Perhaps we can return to the debate.
Kevin Brennan
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I also recommend “Erskine May”, which is lying on the Table and explains fully how to lay manuscript amendments—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you—[Interruption.] Thank you very much, Mr Brennan. I am eternally grateful. I would like us to focus now on the debate.
Hilary Benn
I happen to have a copy of “Erskine May” and am very happy to lend it to my hon. Friend, as long as he gives it back to me, because I intend to quote from it a little later.
Thomas Docherty
I think I heard the Leader of the House correctly when he appeared to indicate earlier that the Government Front Bench might be prepared to restrict the amount of time they take when opening tomorrow’s debate. The concern that many Opposition Members will have, however, is not only that the Business Secretary will not have time to use his fancy footwork to explain exactly how he has made such a U-turn, but that Opposition Members will not have the opportunity to tease out of the Government exactly what their policies mean. It is simply unacceptable to use that substitute in order to avoid difficult questions.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is, indeed, right. The Leader of the House could indicate now what self-denying ordinance or otherwise Ministers will adopt in order to give Members as much time as possible for debate. There is a fundamental problem, however, because Ministers want to say a lot on the matter, and they should rightly have that opportunity, but Members want to raise a lot of points, too, and we cannot fit it all into the five hours for which the motion provides.
Emily Thornberry
On the issue of time, and for the 10,000 students who live in halls of residence and attend university in my constituency, I should like to put it on the record that I sat all the way through the previous Opposition day debate, hoping to be called, and would very much like to be called tomorrow.
Hilary Benn
I am sure that the occupant of the Chair will have noticed that advance bid, but I fear that tomorrow many Members will end up disappointed because not enough time has been allocated for the debate.
Paul Farrelly
Is my right hon. Friend aware of all the details of the business due to come forth tomorrow? Can he satisfy himself that we will actually get five hours and not fewer?
Hilary Benn
That is the point I advanced a moment ago, because whether we get the full five hours depends very much on what happens before the debate. I fear that we might not, which shows just how inadequate the motion is.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will recall that before the election the then Opposition objected very strongly to non-English MPs voting on matters such as tuition fees. Has he had any indication or representation from the Government on whether they still hold the same position?
Hilary Benn
I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend any guidance on that at all. Perhaps a Minister on the Treasury Bench would like to answer his question. I would very happily give way if they wanted to inform the House.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Perhaps one reason why there is no objection to Welsh and Scottish Back Benchers debating the issue is that we in Wales, through the Assembly Government, have not only ensured that students do not suffer the draconian decrease in university course funding, but very importantly decided to cut the teaching grant not by 80%, but by only a very small 38%, improving Welsh universities and providing opportunities at them for higher degrees and research.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point about why we need the time to debate at length the impact that the change will have.
Steve McCabe
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The clock in the Chamber is not working properly. Is that another device to con us out of more hours for debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The clock seems to me to be working fine. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem, perhaps he will come to the Chair. I am sure that Members are riveted by the debate and time will fly by.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that clock. I fancied that I had been speaking for slightly longer than four minutes, but who knows?
Huw Irranca-Davies
Time is indeed flying. I think that I have worked out how we will have enough time. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) said earlier that if all hon. Members were to speak, we would have roughly 50 seconds each. From the showing tonight, there is no indication that Government Members want to take part in the debate. We will therefore have about one and a half or two minutes each. Does my right hon. Friend consider two minutes to be adequate to reflect the postbags of Opposition Members?
Hilary Benn
It is completely inadequate. We have, however, found a solution for tomorrow, because if we could ensure that that is the clock by which the debate is timed, all right hon. and hon. Members might have the opportunity to participate.
Mr Tom Harris
Further to the points of order made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Chair were to accept a manuscript amendment, how much time would be allocated to debating that change, and would that time be added on to the time that we already have for tomorrow’s debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is a hypothetical question. We should wait to see whether there is a manuscript amendment, and for Mr Speaker’s subsequent decision.
Kerry McCarthy
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it is in order for you to reveal to the House how many people have applied to speak tomorrow? That is pertinent to how long we need for tomorrow’s debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That would not be in order. I therefore suggest that we return to Mr Hilary Benn’s comments from the Dispatch Box.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify—this point is pertinent and not hypothetical—whether a manuscript amendment that is tabled tonight will be discussed tonight or tomorrow?
Madam Deputy Speaker
If a manuscript amendment were tabled and it was selected for tonight’s debate, it would be debated tonight. As one has not been tabled, the hon. Gentleman is still asking a hypothetical question.
Hilary Benn
A moment ago, I was pointing out that the proposals that the Government have decided to adopt are different from those made by Lord. He said that student numbers should rise by 10% over the next three years, that there should be clawback to deter unnecessarily high fees and that there should be the right to go to university, determined by academic qualifications. We need more time to discuss the report, precisely because the Government have not adopted all his recommendations. We have not had a chance to debate that matter.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Is it my right hon. Friend’s view that five hours is enough time to address the points that have been put to me by staff and students at the university of Glasgow, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin)? Indeed, I believe that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was a lecturer at that institution some years ago. I am not sure that he would get a very warm welcome if he went there tomorrow. The staff and students put important points to me, such as the cut of £400 million in the Scottish block grant, the increase in the number of EU students and the hugely damaging effects that there will be on social mobility for a generation of Scottish students. Does my right hon. Friend think that five hours is enough time to discuss those important points?
Hilary Benn
Undoubtedly, it is not enough time. My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me on whether we will discuss student bursaries in tomorrow’s debate? I believe that should be the subject of its own debate and not be crammed into the five hours that we will have tomorrow. If bursaries are paid for by universities, universities that draw from the poorest people in the population, such as the university of Bolton, will be badly disadvantaged. There will be no similar effect on universities such as Oxford and Cambridge.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Whether that would be in order is a matter for the Chair. Mr Benn is addressing today’s debate, so perhaps we can get on with it.
Hilary Benn
I will respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) before I take any further interventions. She raises precisely the type of matter that needs to be explored properly and fully in the debate tomorrow. The fact that we will have inadequate time means that we run the risk of its not being addressed.
Angela Smith
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As most of us do not have the benefit of having the time to look at “Erskine May” during the debate, may I ask for your guidance on whether a manuscript amendment would have any impact on any attempt by the Government to move the closure of the debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have already explained to Members that if they want specific advice on the tabling or effects of a manuscript amendment, they should speak to the Clerks. Then they will get the answers to their questions about how such an amendment may or may not affect the debate.
Hilary Benn
I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter).
Mr Slaughter
As the debate goes on, does it not become obvious how grotesquely short five hours is? It took the Liberal Democrats an hour and a half in Committee Room 11 yesterday to narrow down their voting options to four. It will take five hours for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to explain the different positions that he has taken in interviews over the past week. My constituents want us to get on to the real issue, which will not happen in a five-hour debate.
Paul Farrelly
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now only 21 hours, give or take a minute, from now until the moment of interruption tomorrow? Depending on how long the debate goes on tonight, Members may need some time to recover so that they are in full possession of their wits for tomorrow’s debate. Would it not be better to delay tomorrow’s debate until next week at least?
Hilary Benn
A very powerful case has been made this evening for providing more time, and given where we are now, the only way in which more time could be provided would indeed be for the matter to be put off until another occasion.
Nadhim Zahawi
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that ending the debate tomorrow at 5.30 pm will provide ample time for the Leader of the Opposition to join the protestors outside?
Hilary Benn
The Leader of the Opposition needs no lectures from the hon. Gentleman about talking to students and, more importantly, listening to what students have to say—a problem from which Members on the Government Benches are suffering.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I happen to have in my hand a piece of paper that has miraculously appeared. According to the Speaker’s office, 26 Labour Members have so far applied to speak tomorrow and, we are told, a lot more from the Government side of the House have done so too. Is that not a clear indication that five hours will not be enough time for people to have their say?
Jim Sheridan
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following on from the comment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), tomorrow thousands of students will be coming to the capital of the UK from all over the country, wishing to get access to their MPs, because many MPs have temporary notices up in their constituency offices. Can you assure us that those responsible students who come to the House tomorrow seeking access to their MPs will be given access, and that those MPs will be notified that people are looking for them?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am assured that proper arrangements will be made, as always on these occasions, by the Speaker and the House authorities.
Hilary Benn
I am not in the least bit surprised that so many Members have put in to participate in the debate tomorrow. The information that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has just given the House demonstrates the complete inadequacy of the time that we are being offered, because it is very hard to see how all those Members will be able to participate in the debate.
Robert Flello
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his continued generosity and his superb speech. Will he give some thought to the fact that we are expecting unprecedented levels of security tomorrow in and around the Palace of Westminster? Right hon. and hon. Members may have difficulty getting to the Chamber to take part in the debate, and some Members who have a burning desire to be here to represent their constituents might take considerable time to get here. Five hours therefore might not be adequate.
Hilary Benn
It is very important that Members of whatever party have full and ready access to the House, particularly tomorrow, given the importance of the subject of the debate and the significance of the vote that we will cast—if the business motion is passed—at about 5.30 pm tomorrow.
Mr McCann
My constituents will be making their way down for tomorrow’s debate from the frozen north, but may I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to an article in The Daily Telegraph last Thursday on the constitutional implications of having such vastly different tuition fee arrangements in the different parts of the UK, and the difficulties that that will create? Does he think that five hours is enough to discuss those issues?
Hilary Benn
Undoubtedly, that is not enough time. If the number of Members who have already indicated that they want to speak is anything to go by, they could have, depending on the length of speeches by Front Benchers, about four minutes each or even less. How can any Member advance a reasonable argument in that inadequate amount of time?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government’s proposals will deter poorer students from going to university, but allow less able students from public schools to do so because of their financial means. Does he agree that Government Members who have not-very-able children in public schools should declare an interest? Will there be time in five hours to make all those declarations of interest?
Hilary Benn
I am not sure that the current Register of Members’ Financial Interests extends that far. Hon. Members will want to make a lot of points in tomorrow’s debate. Indeed, as this evening progresses, we will hear from other hon. Members who will want to speak tomorrow. That reinforces the point that the Leader of the House has now perhaps taken on board; namely, that it would have been much more sensible to have given us enough time to debate the proposals than to debate the problems tonight.
Gavin Shuker
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) advanced the point that 26 Labour Members have placed a note with Mr Speaker, but it occurs to me that that may not reflect the true number of those who want to speak in that five-hour period. Both Government and Opposition Members may want to indicate their wish to speak tomorrow as we discuss the provision of time tonight.
Hilary Benn
Indeed—that may well be the case. As the evening wears on and as the sense of anger grows among Opposition Members at the inadequacy of the time, more Members will probably be encouraged to go to Mr Speaker’s office to indicate that they wish to take part in tomorrow’s debate.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Is it not instructive and illustrative that we will have just five hours tomorrow to debate the Government’s proposals? Does that not tell us, as we heard from the Leader of the Opposition today, just how extraordinarily out of touch the Government are with ordinary working people in this country? The measures will be a strong disincentive to those people to go to our universities. That is why the debate deserves far more than five hours. It is not us who deserves more than five hours, but those students.
Hilary Benn
I shall make a little progress and give way later.
The Government of the day would normally have published a White Paper before asking us to vote on such proposals. I have inquired at the Vote Office, but it does not have a White Paper, because the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary has not yet published one. On reflection, that is quite extraordinary. We will be asked in a few hours—less than 21 hours—to take a decision that will pre-empt the whole of the Government’s policy on higher education without our having a chance to find out what that is. It is interesting that the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010 states:
“The Regulations raising the basic and higher amounts are the first elements in the reform package to be presented for Parliamentary approval. Without prejudice to their subsequent proper Parliamentary consideration, the Government believes it is appropriate to refer in this Memorandum to the other elements of the funding and finance package in the context of which the new basic and higher amounts are made.”
These are not the first elements: these statutory instruments are the consequences of other decisions that the Government have already made.
Tristram Hunt
Is not that very much the point, because what we face tomorrow is a bridgehead for an extraordinary revolution in higher education on which we deserve a full debate about the consequences? Five and a half hours will not begin to do justice to the issue.
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for an hour and a half. Does he feel like stopping? As we have only five and a half hours tomorrow, will he promise not to make another speech like this one?
Hilary Benn
That is a trifle ungenerous, because I am trying to assist the House so that it will have enough time tomorrow to debate this.
Paragraph 8.1 of the explanatory memorandum on the consultation outcome is germane, because it states:
“These Regulations are informed by Lord Browne’s review which took evidence from students, teachers, academics, employers and regulators over a period of almost a year. The need to provide clarity for students and universities about the contributions they can expect to make and receive means that the timetable for laying the Regulations has been highly compressed, and this has prevented a separate external consultation exercise on the Government’s proposals.”
Highly compressed? It is more like “cut and run”, because that is what we are dealing with tonight.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I just put on record how important it is for me that this motion is opposed and we have proper time to debate? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), I put my name down for the Opposition day debate on higher education as a result of the hundreds of families in Walthamstow who have contacted me because they are deeply concerned about the increases in tuition fees. I am serving on the Public Bill Committee considering the National Insurance Contributions Bill tomorrow and so will not be able to participate during the meagre five-hour debate. If we do not have proper time to debate this issue, I fear that I will not be able to raise the concerns of the people of Walthamstow, so I hope that my right hon. Friend is successful.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. I am sure that her constituents, like those of other hon. Members, would wish their representative to have the opportunity to participate in the debate tomorrow.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend may not be aware that the number of Labour Members wishing to speak in the debate tomorrow has now swelled to at least 28. I am one of those Members who sought to speak in the debate last week, but I was unable to catch Mr Speaker’s eye because of the lack of time. In view of the importance that my constituents place on this issue, does my right hon. Friend agree that allocating only five hours is totally inadequate to allow me and my right hon. and hon. Friends an opportunity to articulate the concerns of our constituents so that they feel that their views are adequately taken into account?
Hilary Benn
I certainly do. I hope that the force and the number of interventions that I have taken this evening will have some impact on Government Front Benchers and, even at this late stage, they will think again about the time that they have allocated.
Steve McCabe
I am another of those who have been denied the opportunity to represent their constituents by the Leader of the House. Should it not be abundantly clear to him now that his motion does not reflect the mood of the House? Will not the watching public suspect that a fix has been attempted because the Government cannot defend the policy that they are about to impose on young people?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The number and strength of the interventions that we have heard this evening are for a specific purpose—to try to win for this House enough time to debate this issue. The fact is that the number of Members who are in their places, especially on the Opposition Benches, is a sign of the anger and outrage that is felt about the amount of time that has been allocated. It is in the Government’s hands to bring this particular debate to an end by saying that they will go away and think again. I hope that the Minister will do so.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Many constituents have contacted me because they want me, as their MP, to put forward their views about the future of higher education. Given that so many hon. Members will want to speak in tomorrow’s debate and will not be able to do so, is not such a compression bringing Parliament into disrepute? If the people of this country cannot have their Members of Parliament raising their concerns on an issue of such importance, there are much wider implications.
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. People look to the House of Commons to speak for them and they look to us as Members to represent their views. They want us to consider in appropriate depth and with adequate care the proposals that come before us. The number of people who are concerned about what we will be asked to consider tomorrow should find expression in the number of voices that are heard in this Chamber. We will be denied that opportunity because of the inadequacy of the time that is being offered.
Kevin Brennan
Is my right hon. Friend aware that journalists in the Committee corridor last night were reporting that the Lib Dems had as much time as they liked in their meeting and could speak for as long as they wanted on the matter without any timetabling of it in private? However, in public and in this Chamber, they are seeking to limit the debate to a mere five hours. Is that not a very telling point?
Hilary Benn
It is. If such an approach is good enough for Liberal Democrats in private, it ought to be good enough for the House of Commons in public. We are the voice of the nation.
Nic Dakin
My right hon. Friend is being most generous tonight in giving way. The fact that the Government are not listening to people’s voices—we are hearing about that and reflecting that in our contributions tonight—and want to constrain a debate to just five hours or less completely flies in the face of the new politics that the country asked for and the fresh approach that it welcomed.
Hilary Benn
It certainly does. As my hon. Friend says, there is a serious issue here. If the public do not think that we have properly considered the matter, it will not build their trust and confidence in Parliament, and it certainly will not build their trust and confidence in the Government—it will damage it.
Mr Slaughter
Does my right hon. Friend know that the Deputy Prime Minister is now on Sky News saying that he would love to get rid of university tuition fees, but that he lives in an imperfect world? He says that he hopes that tuition fees will go in the future and blames the Labour party for not supporting him in the past. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party would be happy to vote with him tomorrow against the motion? Should the Deputy Prime Minister not be—
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened very patiently to this entire debate. I seek your guidance on whether we can hear repeated any more outbursts on what is happening in corridors and on Sky News, which has nothing to do with the timetabling of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that I am following the debate very closely. If contributions are not in order, I will say so.
Hilary Benn
The Deputy Prime Minister will have to explain his imperfections and I hope very much that he will participate in tomorrow’s debate, because many hon. Members will want to intervene on him.
Mr Slaughter
I am sorry that the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) had the discourtesy to interrupt me in that way. The point I wished to make is that it is a discourtesy to the House for the Deputy Prime Minister to be on television doing a mea culpa and trying pathetically to justify himself, rather than being here and explaining why we have only five hours to debate the matter.
Hilary Benn
Indeed. Given the number of things that the Deputy Prime Minister has had to say about the tuition fee increase that he intends to vote for tomorrow, the very least he could do is to come into the debate. I hope that he might be able to participate, because many people would like to hear how he explains the change in attitude—the 180° turn—that he has performed in a very short space of time.
Paul Farrelly
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ground keeps shifting from day to day? The coalition Government have now admitted that deterrence because of debt is an issue, and they have announced a national scholarship fund. Does he consider five hours to be sufficient time in which to debate all the details of the proposals and to examine whether the Government are, in effect, just making policy up on the hoof?
Hilary Benn
It is clearly not sufficient time to debate those matters, which brings me to the second reason why more time needs to be found, which is the nature of the change that the Government wish to make. The proposals on fees that we are being asked to consider tomorrow cannot really be seen in isolation from the wider Browne proposals or the Government’s spending review. The truth is that they are intimately bound up, one with another, which is why the House needs proper time to consider both. As we know, the huge fee increase is a result of the Government’s decision in the spending review to impose on universities not the average cut that they have been applying—a cut of 11%—but an unprecedented 80% reduction in university teaching budgets.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend consider five hours to be enough time in which to debate the £50 million that I understand will come out of the economy in Hull, owing to the changes that will be introduced tomorrow afternoon if the proposal goes through? My constituency, which is a disadvantaged community, relies heavily on the university of Hull. I am concerned that five hours will be insufficient to debate fully the impact on the local economy in my constituency.
Hilary Benn
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration, because one of the things that we need time to debate tomorrow is the consequence of the fee increase, which is the result of the 80% reduction. What will that mean for some universities? That is a perfectly legitimate question that Members may wish to ask tomorrow.
Charlie Elphicke
In the spirit of assisting the House, let me point out that the right hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for an hour and a half. That is fine, but I invite him to consider allowing Back Benchers to make speeches as well.
Hilary Benn
Because of the generosity of the Leader of the House, who has said that debate can continue until any hour, there will be plenty of time for Back Benchers to contribute to this debate.
Hilary Benn
And judging by the number of Members who wish to intervene, this is probably just a prelude to the speeches that they will make.
Clive Efford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you were listening intently to the intervention from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who called for more time to allow Back Benchers to participate in this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order. I am sure that everybody heard exactly what the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said.
Mr Tom Harris
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Two amendments have now been submitted—the first from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), asking for the debate to be continued until 6 o’clock tomorrow, and the second from me, in an attempt to be popular with my Scottish colleagues, asking for the debate to be continued until 10 o’clock tomorrow evening. Can you tell the House when Mr Speaker will make a decision on whether those amendments will be accepted and say how that decision will be communicated to the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: Mr Speaker will make a decision on those manuscript amendments in due course, and I am sure that he will ensure that the House knows when he has decided. I call Mr Hilary Benn.
Hilary Benn
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley).
Barbara Keeley
My right hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way this evening. Let me touch on the point that he made about the impact on universities. We have already heard a little about Salford university this evening, and about how many local young people attend it. Indeed, there are two Salford graduates on the Labour Benches listening to this debate, and we are very concerned indeed about the possibility of our course—politics and contemporary history, which we both did at Salford university—disappearing. Will there be time in five hours to consider not just the future of social science courses such as the politics and contemporary history course at Salford—which was an excellent course, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) will agree—but the future of this House? Where are the future Labour and other candidates going to come from if these politics and contemporary history courses disappear?
Hilary Benn
The importance and the power of a university education is indeed to give people the chance to understand where we come from. If we do not understand where we come from, it is difficult to work out where we should be going.
Hilary Benn
Speaking of an understanding of history, I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend.
Robert Flello
Further to the previous point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Two manuscript amendments have been tabled and are currently with Mr Speaker. Is there a way for the House to convey to Mr Speaker just how strongly we feel that the suggestion of continuing the debate until 10 o’clock would be the better of the two?
Madam Deputy Speaker
No. Mr Tristram Hunt was about to make an intervention.
Tristram Hunt
As a new Member of the House, I am finding the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) a complete tour de force. We are learning a great deal from him tonight, and it would ill behove him to rush. On the broader point of the time limit for tomorrow’s debate, is he aware of the numerous protestations that I have received from academics, students and postgraduates in the humanities community, who are worried not only about the situation facing history and modern politics but about what could happen to classics, divinity, theology, social anthropology, archaeology, anthropology and many other subjects? We could not possibly deal with all those concerns in five hours.
Hilary Benn
I bow to my hon. Friend’s expertise in these matters. He illustrates the point that many people are interested in all those subjects, as well as others that he did not have the opportunity to mention. They want us to have the chance to debate these matters tomorrow.
Mr Bain
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since he began his speech, it has been reported that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change might not be in the House tomorrow to attend the debate or to vote? Does not that reinforce the argument that five hours will not give him enough time to explain whether he is abstaining or simply hiding in Cancun?
Hilary Benn
I have followed with interest the various reports of the movements and non-movements of the Climate Change Secretary who, in fairness, is doing very important work in Cancun because we need a global climate deal. Having seen some of the newspaper reports that we should have offered him a pair, however, it seems to me that the easiest thing would be for him to pair with one of his colleagues who is going to vote on the other side. There is no need for him to come to seek our assistance.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend recall the debates on the national minimum wage, when we sat up all night because the Conservatives were determined to oppose the proposals and fought them every inch of the way? Does he agree that we should be equally willing to fight this legislation, and that we should stay up all night if necessary?
Hilary Benn
The determination of Opposition Members to do everything we can to ensure that we get a proper amount of time to debate the issues and the chance to vote the proposals down is evident. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
Emily Thornberry
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me on this point. Is the reason that we can have only a five-hour debate tomorrow the fact that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, finds it difficult to stay awake? I can see him sleeping on the Front Bench—
Ian Paisley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he will know, these measures will also have a considerable impact on the devolved region of Northern Ireland. One in every three students from Northern Ireland attends a university here in England, and if the Government push through a change in the legislation, the Assembly in Northern Ireland will have to pick up the tab for the increase in fees for those who study outside Northern Ireland. The figures indicate that, on top of the current spend of about £90 million on students travelling from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom, an increase of between £30 million and £60 million will have to be found to cover the fee increase. Where is that money going to be found, given that the Government are already asking the Assembly to cut back in other areas? We do not—
Mr Speaker
Order. First, my strong impression is that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is beyond the scope of the debate. Secondly, it is longer than is desirable or acceptable. Interventions need to be shorter from now on.
Hilary Benn
I wish I could help the hon. Gentleman by answering his question, but I cannot. One of the people who could help him is sitting on the Government Bench, but I do not know whether he will want to intervene on me to give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks. This provides another powerful reason to have more time tomorrow to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question and many other questions that right hon. and hon. Members will want to ask.
I shall make a little more progress. One issue that the House will need more time to debate tomorrow is the potential financial consequence of the fee increase, which is presaged on an 80% reduction in funding for institutions that right hon. and hon. Members have the honour to represent in their constituencies. We still do not know for certain by how much each university is going to be affected by the introduction of the near-trebling of fees, particularly when universities are also going to be affected by other changes. For example, we know that the regional development agencies are being abolished, that the funds for regional development, some of which have been used in partnership with institutions of higher education, are being reduced and that the local economic partnerships have not been properly established in many places because of the state of chaos. Universities do not know how much they might have to find in the current financial year, never mind the impact that these tuition fee changes will have. This could affect students this year and in subsequent years as the transition from the current to the new system is managed. These are all questions that we need time to debate.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is discussing fees, and the university in my constituency of Bolton South East is one of 20 widening participation universities. As a result of the Browne review and tuition fee changes, it is expected that those 20 universities will collapse and will be unable to carry on serving the needs of the most vulnerable students in our society. Is five hours enough time to discuss the fate of the 20 universities that are likely to collapse?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point—one that I am addressing at the moment: the potential financial impact of these changes on a number of universities. That is precisely one of the points that we need to debate tomorrow, but we have been denied sufficient time to do so on the current arrangements.
Chris Williamson
My right hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way this evening and I am very grateful to him for his kindness in giving way to me on this occasion. Does he agree that restricting the debate to five hours will give scant time for me to raise the concerns that I know exist in Derby in respect of Derby university? It has been calculated that, as a result of the 80% reduction to which he referred, that university will have a financial black hole of about £30 million. It will find it extremely difficult to increase tuition fees to the level that would be necessary—
Mr Speaker
Order. First, there is the issue of scope. Secondly, I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very well-behaved man, would not seek to make a speech when he is supposed to be making an intervention. [Interruption.] Order. He has registered his point, to which I know the shadow Leader of the House will want to respond.
Hilary Benn
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend should have the opportunity tomorrow precisely to put that question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Angela Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Sheffield Hallam university could lose about £70 million because of this decision. Is it not imperative that Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and myself make a contribution tomorrow, especially given that the Deputy Prime Minister has refused to meet the local student union to discuss the matter?
Hilary Benn
I am surprised and concerned to hear that news. It seems from what my hon. Friend says that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to spend more time in the television studios describing the changing positions of his party than he is prepared to spend talking to students who are going to feel the consequences of what he is proposing
I turn to a difficulty that might arise for all Members tomorrow, because all we are discussing—I say “all” in a contextual sense—is two statutory instruments. Here I seek guidance from the Leader of the House and possibly from you, Mr Speaker. The House will be aware of the rules governing the scope of debate on statutory instruments. A little while ago, I promised that I would quote from “Erskine May”, and page 681 states:
“Debate on any statutory instrument, whether subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, is confined to the contents of the instrument, and discussion of alternative methods of achieving its object is not in order. Where the effects of an instrument are confined to a particular geographical area or areas, discussion of other areas is out of order. Nor is criticism of the provisions of the parent Act permitted.”
Mr Speaker, does that mean that Members will be restricted tomorrow in what they can discuss and what they can say? Does it mean, for example, that Opposition Members who would wish to argue the case for a graduate tax cannot raise it in the debate? Could they be ruled out of order? If right hon. and hon. Members want to refer to the implications of the proposals for other parts of the United Kingdom, will they be ruled out of order? Were that to be the case, it would show how improper is the Government’s decision to bring the statutory instrument before the House tomorrow. If that interpretation of “Erskine May” is applied—
Mr Speaker
Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I am not sure whether his inquiry was a genuine one or a rhetorical one, but he has referred to the fact of the motion and the narrow terms of the statutory instrument, and he raises the concern about how much scope there will be for Members fully to develop their points. It might help him and the House if I point out that the two—the motion and the SI tomorrow—have been conflated for the purposes of the consideration, and the intention of the Chair would be to adopt a broad and generous interpretation of what could legitimately be said in the debate. I hope that that is helpful to Members in all parts of the House.
Hilary Benn
It was a genuine inquiry, Mr Speaker, and I am extremely grateful to you for your guidance. When I read that section in “Erskine May”, I was genuinely concerned that Members might be denied the opportunity to have the full debate that we require tomorrow.
Thomas Docherty
Has my right hon. Friend noticed, as I have, the silence and lack of activity from Government Members? Is it his view that they agree with us that this is a horrible stitch-up by those on the Government Front Bench, or, as Government Members have suggested, do they also wish to contribute speeches tonight? Does my right hon. Friend look forward to many of them joining us over the next few hours, as we debate this important matter?
Hilary Benn
If we do hear this evening the voices of Government Members, I hope that they might persuade the Leader of the House to change his mind about the proposal that he wants us to vote for tonight. We have no intention of doing so.
Dr Whitehead
Notwithstanding the clarification about the scope of tomorrow’s debate, does my right hon. Friend accept—bearing in mind that the White Paper relating to the orders will come along later and that details of changes will follow—that if a student got the results of the exam first, then the exam paper, and finally the lecture notes, it would be a rather strange way to go about their university education?
Hilary Benn
It certainly would be, although reflecting on the scenario that my hon. Friend sets out, there might be certain advantages, especially for students who had not been applying their minds to their studies. He makes the point, however, that the Government are going about this matter in completely the wrong way.
I am sure that a large number of Members wish to take part in this evening’s debate, as well as the very large number who wish to take part in the debate tomorrow. The third reason that I wish to advance for our need for more time tomorrow is the fact that, as we have already established this evening, Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament on their own could occupy the whole five hours by explaining the multiple positions that they are adopting notwithstanding the efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Albert Owen
Following your helpful confirmation, Mr Speaker, that we will debate all the issues, is it not imperative for us to be given an extended period allowing us to discuss the points made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and others about the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish perspectives, involving those who are domiciled in their own countries but come to England to study? Is there not a greater imperative for the time to be extended now that we are clear about the boundaries of tomorrow’s debate?
Hilary Benn
It is indeed important for the time to be extended to allow full debate. We need time to hear the views of not just the Liberal Democrats who have decided to break the pledge and vote for the fees increase tomorrow, but all the Liberal Democrats who are going to abstain.
We know that the Liberal Democrats have wrestled with their consciences over the last few months, and we know that that has been difficult for them. I think that the House owes them a chance to seek to catch your eye one by one, Mr Speaker, so that they can explain why they have chosen to sit on the fence, and why they believe that that will absolve them of what they have done and clear their consciences. No doubt many Members on our side will seek to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, in order to point out that abstaining will do no good at all, because a betrayal is still a betrayal whenever it is undertaken.
Robert Flello
I look forward to catching your eye myself shortly, Mr Speaker, so that I can make my own contribution to the debate.
Does not what we have heard tonight—and what we have had to rely on as a statement from you, Mr Speaker, about the need to widen the scope of the debate—merely underline the shoddy and appalling way in which the measure is being railroaded through the House? Is this what the Deputy Prime Minister meant by “new politics”?
Hilary Benn
If it is the new politics, heaven help us all.
This is a defining moment for the coalition Government. It is the moment when the bonds of that coalition will be sorely tested. The trebling of tuition fees, the debt that will be incurred by future generations, the threat to the finances of some universities—all those will be at stake in the debate tomorrow. If that is not an argument for the House to be given proper time in which to debate such matters, I do not know what is. The truth is that the Government have treated the House with contempt, and I urge the House to reciprocate by treating the motion with the contempt that it deserves and throwing it out.
Mr Speaker
Order. Two hon. Members have submitted manuscript amendments which I myself saw a matter of a few minutes ago, and which, to my certain knowledge, have been submitted within the last hour or so. It is right that I give the House a verdict on the matter. I have not selected either of the amendments. There was plenty of time in which manuscript amendments could have been submitted: they could have been submitted much earlier in the day, but that did not happen.
It may also be helpful if I point out that the House is having—I emphasise the words “is having”—a very full debate on all the relevant issues relating to time. There has been, and continues to be for as long as the debate continues, a very good opportunity for Members who wish to argue for particular allocations of time to do so. That is the situation, and we must now move on.
Paul Farrelly
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you tell us whether you have received any amendments to tomorrow’s motion other than from the Opposition Front-Bench team, and in particular whether you have received a cross-party amendment to the motion?
Mr Speaker
I was slightly perplexed and taken aback by that attempted point of order for the simple reason that we are not discussing tomorrow’s motion, and I am not going to get into the subject of amendments thereto. I was focusing simply on manuscript amendments tabled tonight by, I believe, the hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). It is with that, and that alone, that I was, and am, concerned.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise us whether it is in order for Members to seek to speak in this evening’s debate if they were not present for the whole of the opening two speeches?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. [Interruption.] Well, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is applying to make a speech, so I do not think he is caught by his own stricture. I consider it to be a general courtesy applying to all debates that if a Member wishes to speak he or she should be present for the opening speeches, and that is the basis on which I work. I hope the hon. Gentleman is content with that response.
Mr Speaker
I will take a small number of further contributions of this kind, but I will want to get on with the substance of the matter soon.
Robert Flello
I am not sure whether you were in the Chair at the time, Mr Speaker, but earlier in the debate the issue of Members who have other business in the House was raised. I am concerned that there may well be Members who are unable to attend the opening speeches tonight or tomorrow because of other duties in this House. They may be delayed and they may therefore not be able to catch your eye, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I have a sense that that is a continuation, and perhaps even a development, of a point that was made earlier, not least by the hon. Gentleman himself, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Before we get on with any continuing debate, I will just emphasise that the Chair will have the very keenest regard to the closeness to the motion that Members demonstrate in their speeches. There has not yet been a Back-Bench speech, and I am happy to hear one, as they are important, but Members must stick to the terms of the motion, and I will be focusing very intently on whether that is being done, and on the economy displayed in developing the arguments.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I rise to oppose this evening’s motion tabled in the name of the Leader of the House and the Minister for Universities and Science. It is interesting that it is two Conservative members of the coalition who have put their name to the motion, and that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who was here earlier, has not put his name to it. Earlier on, he was sitting in his place with a face with which the funeral industry beckons because of what he had to sit through tonight.
We are here to discuss a business motion that is another example of something we have already seen this week: how the Government have attempted to restrict debate on this vital matter for many thousands of not only our constituents now but future generations. Tomorrow’s debate will, in five hours, change the relationship between people and the state and how we provide higher education in this country. To do that in five hours is totally unacceptable.
Angela Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that the House should put on record its grateful thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for having done such a grand job in defending the rights of the House and of the people of the country in how he led tonight’s debate?
Mr Jones
I would always agree with that. My right hon. Friend is a very good friend and he has done an excellent job in defending the rights of Back Benchers and the House.
Later, I will remind some Members on the Government Front Bench how eager they were in opposition to argue, on the subject of programme motions, that we needed to have more debate. That is especially true of the Deputy Leader of the House, although he is not in his place. I remember having to listen to hours of his droning on about why—
Steve McCabe
Is my hon. Friend at all concerned for the well-being of the Business Secretary? If he cannot bear to sit through this debate about the time required to discuss the issues, how on earth is he going to cope with the criticism of his policy tomorrow?
Mr Jones
I do not wish to get off the subject of the debate, and my hon. Friend tempts me to do so. Clearly, Mr Speaker would rightly pull me up if I were to start talking about the health of the Business Secretary, which has no relevance to this debate. However, I must say that the Business Secretary is a very nice gentleman, so we should all be concerned about his health and the difficulty that he is clearly going through on this policy.
Mr Slaughter
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is relevant that barely 10 Liberal Democrat Members have been in throughout the debate? The latest estimate is that 100,000 students will be coming tomorrow, yet nobody on those Benches has the courtesy to listen to the debate. Five hours seems to be as long as they are prepared to give to this issue tomorrow. Is that not hugely disrespectful to all our constituents, who care about this issue?
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend reminds us that we must return to the motion, so what does he think of the Government’s practice of setting the time for tomorrow’s debate to finish at 5.30 pm and ignoring the moment of interruption, which this House democratically voted to put at 6 pm on a Thursday?
Mr Jones
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has got good eyesight or was reading my mind, because that was exactly the point that I was going to make next. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) says that he is “Mystic Kev”, and clearly he is. An important point is at issue, because when the Leader of the House made his opening remarks he was asked why the debate was going to finish at 5.30 pm and not 6 pm tomorrow and we are still waiting for an answer. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) tried to tease out with his manuscript amendment. Clearly, Mr Speaker, you have ruled that that is not in order, but we have still not heard an explanation of why 5.30 pm was chosen.
We have seen a strange thing this week, because this motion allows us five hours for the debate tomorrow, yet a matter of a day ago a motion proposed that we have three hours for that debate. No explanation has been given of why two hours have suddenly been conjured up—I will allow people to intervene on this. If we can suddenly, in a day, conjure up two hours, why can we not conjure up more time, as is clearly needed for this vital debate?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am hoping to catch Mr Speaker’s eye tomorrow in the debate and I have much that I wish to say about this very important matter. If I cut to the bone what I wish to say, I will need at least 20 minutes to do any justice to the subject. What prospect does my hon. Friend think I have of having 20 minutes in which to speak tomorrow?
Mr Jones
The point has been made that if everyone spoke, they would get about 50 seconds. I know that my hon. Friend speaks very eloquently and, on occasion, can go on at length, as we all can, but I am sure that he could get his remarks down to fit the timetable. However, the fundamental point tomorrow is that we will have five hours in which to discuss these vital points.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I do not wish to rain on his argument, but he is constantly referring to the five hours allowed. He might want to check the motion. If we have an urgent question or if business questions overrun—they are always popular thanks to the charm of the Leader of the House—we will have less than five hours to discuss this issue.
Mr Jones
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. When the Leader of the House opened the debate, he gave an assurance that the Government would not make any statements tomorrow that would eat into the time. My hon. Friend makes a good point, though: issues might arise overnight to do with the weather in Scotland and other parts of the country, or to do with the demonstration tomorrow, or with something else. An urgent question might be sought and Mr Speaker might allow it. A statement might have to be brought forward. If that happens, that will eat into the five hours that we have been allocated.
Paul Farrelly
Given the number of applications to make a speech—there has been a running total throughout the debate—may I tempt my hon. Friend to inquire of Mr Speaker whether he has decided that there will be a time limit on speeches?
Mr Speaker
Order. Perhaps I can be helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. The time allocated for the consideration of these important matters tomorrow is specified and protected time. Any concern that the hon. Gentleman might have of the kind that he has just expressed is almost certainly unfounded. I think it would be better if he were to develop his argument on other fronts. In the process, may I gently remind him that I am having some regard to the economy of speeches? I am interested to hear voices, but there must be economy.
Robert Flello
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Forgive me, but I am in some confusion. I am looking at the order paper, which reads
“not later than five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first motion, or at 5.30 pm, whichever is the earlier”.
How does that mean that that is protected time? Will you clarify, please, if you would not mind?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman was justified in being confused. I was speaking off the top of my head and I suffered from the disadvantage of being wrong. I thought I was right, but I was wrong, and people should admit when they are wrong. The hon. Gentleman’s concern is justified and I apologise to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). My point and stricture about economy, however, still apply.
Mr Kevan Jones
I think we have seen an historic moment tonight, Mr Speaker. I did not think it was possible for you ever to be wrong. The way in which you handled that is a credit to you.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend considered this matter in the historical context? The last time we had such a considerable change to the funding system for higher education was in the 1940s. The Education Act 1944 was considered by many people to be the key reform in higher education and it was debated for a full year before the 1945 election. Has my hon. Friend taken that into account in considering his remarks tonight?
Mr Jones
I do not really want to go back to 1945, but I shall make some references to the Higher Education Act 2004 that are relevant to the time that has been allowed.
I want to ask the Leader of the House about the change that happened this week, from allowing three hours to allowing five. The motion was not moved last night and two hours were added to the debate. I think that everyone welcomes that, but it still gives inadequate time to cover the points that we have to make in the debate tomorrow. Whether that was another great concession wheedled out of the coalition by the Liberal Democrats I do not know; I am sure that if it was, we would have heard about it by now.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that rather than looking set to fall asleep, Liberal Democrat Members on the Government Benches would be well advised to be on their feet pleading for more than the five hours that has been allotted to the debate so that they can tell their constituents and the nation how they have got into this appalling mess and perpetrated this betrayal of their constituents’ trust?
Mr Jones
I do not want to intrude on the personal grief of the Liberal Democrat party. As with any other Member of the House, in the limited time available tomorrow, Liberal Democrats can try to catch the Speaker’s eye to make their points. I am sure that those who signed the pledge during the election but will vote in favour of the increase tomorrow will want to come to the House to explain why they have changed their minds. It is entirely open to individuals to do that.
Nic Dakin
I calculate that we have had about two and a half hours of debate, in which only three people have spoken, on an issue that might seem unimportant to people outside—whereas tomorrow we will have only twice as much time as that to debate something of great importance. I think that tells the story.
Mr Tom Harris
Given the severe and absurd restriction on the time that we have to debate this issue tomorrow, is it not likely that both Labour and Conservative Back Benchers will be given slightly more time, in the likely event that the Liberal Democrats have difficulty mustering Back-Bench speakers? They are unlikely to get the number of their speakers even into single figures!
Mr Jones
We will have to see what happens, but a very important point was raised earlier about the amount of time that will be available for Government Front Benchers to reply to the debate tomorrow. If we have a packed House with a lot of speakers, there will be limited time for Ministers to explain to the British public the policy that they are putting forward.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow north-east MP for giving way. Tonight I have spent some time with the North East of England Process Industry Cluster, which tells me that it recruits many graduates in the north-east. I am sure that it will share my concern that those graduates—its feedstock—may not be available in future if these student fees are imposed. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is another good reason why we need more time to debate this important issue?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I told the Whips tonight that I was giving up the opportunity to dine with people from north-east industry, so I have given up that very nice dinner and an opportunity to discuss with those individuals, who are very important to the north-east, higher education and other issues.
Kevin Brennan
The Government’s response to the debate is a key factor, is it not? If they had simply allowed the debate to extend to the normal moment of interruption on a Thursday, there would have been half an hour for them to respond, but as things stand, we will probably have only something like five minutes each at the end.
Mr Jones
I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not think that an extra half hour would give the House enough time to debate this issue. The words of the Leader of the House in his opening statement are important. As a reason why the statutory instrument needs to be rushed through this week, in a matter of five hours, he said—I wrote this down—that otherwise we would slow the process down, and that the fiscal position we are in is important. That exposes the truth of why this measure is being driven through. It is nothing at all to do with higher education or ensuring that Members can have a debate tomorrow. Rather than the Government thinking about the future of the country and its educational needs, they are saying that future generations will have to start paying now, to try to help them in the financial position in which they now find themselves.
Julie Hilling
Does my hon. Friend agree that tomorrow we will be debating an issue of such importance for all young people in this country that we owe it to them to spend a reasonable time having a reasoned discussion, in order to make a decision on something that will live with them until they reach retirement?
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
As somebody who is not doing a U-turn, I ask the hon. Gentleman: if you are spending more time tonight debating the issue of how long tomorrow’s debate will be than that debate will take, why, at 7 o’clock tonight, did you vote not to discuss this at all?
Angela Smith
I have looked around me and seen on this side of the House at least four Members who once worked in higher education. They have the expertise that could be brought to bear on the issue in a Public Bill Committee. Should this legislation not be in a Bill, and be considered on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend takes me on to my next point, which is about the decision to debate the issue in five hours tomorrow. That is to ensure that the measure will be dealt with before the framework document is in place, but it seems ludicrous to have the discussion tomorrow and fundamentally change the funding of higher education in this country before we have the full framework policy document. That should be in place, not only to reveal how what is decided tomorrow may be interpreted, but to allow some newer universities a debate about their financial future. It is clear to me that some of them will struggle when these measures are implemented.
Mrs Moon
Is it not one of the risks that we are running that many universities in England will find it more attractive to bring in overseas students paying, yet again, higher fees? English students will not be able to afford to go to university. We are going to debate the issue within five hours, but the structure of education in Britain is to change dramatically. We need more than five hours to discuss that.
Thomas Docherty
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am struggling to hear my hon. Friend because of the large number of conversations taking place on the other side of the Chamber. Is there anything you can do to ensure that I can hear my hon. Friend?
Mr Speaker
All Members, including those in the Chair, should exercise a self-denying ordinance in these matters. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it would be good if the decibel level went down. [Interruption.] Order. Mr Ruane. [Interruption.] Order. Mr Roger Williams, you should not be chuntering away in a private conversation when I am trying to give a helpful ruling. It would help if the decibel level went down and we could hear the speeches.
Mr Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made a good point, because tomorrow is not just about raising the cap. It is about the consequences of raising the cap, which will have an effect through the recruitment of foreign students. Earlier, a point was made very eloquently by a Northern Ireland Member about the effect on Northern Ireland students. Tomorrow we will have to cover a range of issues, which will be difficult to do in the short time that we have.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Hon. Members have referred to Northern Ireland, but the regulations are specific to England. Of course, we are concerned about the whole United Kingdom, however, and we are talking about a variable geometry over the United Kingdom. Is it not right and proper, therefore, that we should have plenty of time to compare and contrast the situation in England with that in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Naomi Long
At the Northern Ireland Grand Committee yesterday, we were advised that the Barnett consequentials of the anticipated decision tomorrow, and of any bursary or student support arrangements that may or may not be introduced, have already been passed on to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the block grant. I would presume that it might take more than five hours simply to understand how such a calculation could be made.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. My right hon. Friend’s central message was that tomorrow we need to discuss, and will discuss, those complex financial implications. There are implications not just for universities and individual students, but, as the hon. Lady quite rightly says, for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Paul Farrelly
I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest, but I fear from the smile on the Government Chief Whip’s face that he is considering when to cut my hon. Friend off in his prime. If a closure motion is called, would it be remiss of Liberal Democrats to vote to curtail the debate?
Robert Flello
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, whose speech I am enjoying greatly. I am also looking forward to making my own speech in due course, so I hope that there will be no closure motion. Owing to the joys of modern technology, Members in the Chamber can monitor their e-mails and see the constant stream of communication from students and their families who are worried about what will happen tomorrow and the amount of time we will have to debate this matter. Has he too received a huge number of representations, in his e-mail account and otherwise, from people concerned about the time we will have tomorrow?
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a matter of some great contention, and we know—indeed, you will be aware, Mr Speaker—that in the previous Parliament a disturbance during proceedings on the Hunting Bill debate caused the House to be suspended. In the unlikely and absolutely dreadful event of that being repeated tomorrow, would the five hours be protected, or would any suspension of the House eat into that time?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that he is raising a hypothetical question, and my attitude is best encapsulated in the wise words of the late Lord Whitelaw, who famously said that on the whole he preferred to cross bridges only when he came to them.
Mr Jones
It is important to put this business motion into context. It is a Government motion that seeks to regulate the business and sitting of the House, and page 368 of “Erskine May” sets out the details about such motions clearly, stating:
“Such motions, which do not have precedence…are normally moved by the Leader of the House and invariably require notice”.
We have clearly had notice of tonight’s motion. Indeed, we had notice of an alternative motion this week, but unfortunately the Government did not move the first motion that they tabled.
“Erskine May” continues by stating that the motions regulating business are, first,
“those…referred to specifically in Standing Order No 15 (exempted business), which are moved at the interruption of business”.
The second type is also described on page 368.
“Erskine May” continues:
“Under recent practice, such motions are more commonly moved in the ordinary course of the day’s business in relation to the business proposed for a future day, in which case notice is given as for any other notice of motion. Typically, such motions may set a time limit for a future debate”—
that is clearly the intention of the Government’s motion tonight—
“and may provide for the putting of questions by the Speaker after a certain period or at a specified time.”
That last point relates to the limit of 5.30 pm tomorrow. It goes on to say that such motions “may be complex”. According to “Erskine May”, the purpose of such a motion may be
“To give precedence to government business over private Members’ business either on a particular day or days or for a period, for example, until the end of the financial year.”
Mr Slaughter
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is moving towards the recommendation of a specific time limit. If he is, I urge him to consider that eight hours might be more suitable than five, because according to a poll by The Sun, eight hours would allow one hour for every 1% of support that the Liberal Democrats now have among the people of this country.
Mr Jones
I note my hon. Friend’s wit, for which he is not famous. He has obviously worked very hard on that intervention, and I congratulate him. However, I will not go down that route.
“Erskine May” suggests that other purposes for such a motion might be
“To give precedence to specified business…on a particular day”,
“To provide for a Saturday sitting”,
or
“To provide for adjournment at a stated hour”
on a sitting day. As is eloquently laid out in “Erskine May”, the effect of motions such as the one before us is to limit discussion. In this case, it will limit discussion on a vital piece of legislation to five hours.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that will make life difficult tomorrow for those of us who wish to speak on behalf of our constituents is that the context in which the statutory instrument sits is changing all the time? For example, today there were yet more changes concerning part-time fees. That makes it impossible to work through the impact of the changes.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, representing a university city as she does. I remember working hard to get her elected in 2005, when we had to put up with more nonsense from the Liberal Democrats about tuition fees. No doubt my hon. Friend and I will remind them of that later this week when they are deciding how to vote.
Fiona Mactaggart
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am concerned that he, like others, has suggested that the motion will give us five hours to debate the principle tomorrow. In fact, Standing Order No. 16, to which the motion refers, protects debate on statutory instruments. There will be two statutory instruments before us, which under the Standing Order will take up three hours of the debate. There will therefore be only two hours left to debate the fundamental principle of how we fund higher education.
Mr Jones
I must tell my hon. Friend that she is technically not correct. Mr Speaker explained that the statutory instrument and the general principle will be put together to allow five hours’ debate. The effect of tonight’s motion will be to limit debate. It will clearly not provide enough time to discuss the issues that have been raised in the House tonight. It will dismay the many thousands of electors who will be affected by the measures now or in the future, that a fundamental change to education in this country can be decided and voted on in five hours.
Emily Thornberry
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on the concessions that are being made, is my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), as an experienced Member of this House, confident that there will not be a Cancun concession tomorrow that will also have to be debated, so that there will be another last-minute change?
Mr Jones
Indeed, or delay the debate until another day.
It is important that people who signed the pledge, as they called it, have the opportunity to come here tomorrow and take part in the debate. It was interesting that in last week’s Question Time the Deputy Prime Minister refused on several occasions to indicate how he or his party intended to vote. We were told earlier tonight that the Liberal Democrat group had unlimited discussions the other night to try to get some consensus on how they would vote, and they still could not come to a decision.
Helen Goodman
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has calculated this, but had the proposal gone through a normal legislative process, we would probably have had 170 hours’ debate. We are to have precisely 3% of the amount of time that we would have had. Has he also noticed that the motion before the House this evening specifies when the matter will be debated, Thursday 9 December, and has—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat. It is absolutely understandable—I have said this so many times—that Members look behind them when they think they are addressing a colleague behind them. The hon. Lady must address the House. Secondly, the intervention is rather long, and I feel sure that it is coming to an end. In fact, I think it has probably reached its end, has it not?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the specific day that the Government picked for the debate. We have seen changes to the motion this week, and it would be interesting to know why the motion for a three-hour debate was not moved the other night. I return to the point that I have yet to learn the justification for why we got the extra two hours. If we can allow two extra hours, I am sure we can allow more.
Albert Owen
My hon. Friend is making a strong point. The Leader of the House has been here throughout the debate, and he is very courteous and usually very helpful. He could clear the matter up by coming to the Dispatch Box and explaining to us why we have a 5.30 pm cut-off. I am dismayed that he has not taken up the opportunity. [Interruption.]
Mr Jones
I am sure that the Leader of the House—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I think that barracking the Leader of the House is wrong, because he is a very courteous individual who respects the House. I am sure that in his winding-up speech, he will want to explain why we have the extra two hours.
We have already explained how the motion before us tonight relates to “Erskine May”. It is the same principle as a programme motion.
Sandra Osborne
Does my hon. Friend recall the regular songs and dances in the previous Parliament from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats about programme motions, and about how if they got into power they were going to do away with them? Does he think that is consistent with what they are doing tonight?
Mr Jones
No, and my hon. Friend is another Member who has read my mind, because I was just about to come on to that. The Deputy Leader of the House, who has now resumed his place, used to give long lectures on why programme motions were so evil, but the effect of tonight’s motion will be to limit the time for debate in a similar way to a programme motion.
I do not intend to go through the entire history of how we came to have programme motions, because that would lead us away from the point, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said, in the last Parliament we were regularly told how evil programme motions were. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) set out his views clearly on many occasions about why programme motions, or limiting the time for debate—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that, as I think he knows very well, he has a well honed technique of informing the House that he is not about to talk about something, before proceeding to do precisely that? He said that he would not rehearse the history of programme motions, and he is absolutely right, he will not. I hope that he will now focus on the specifics of the motion as, presumably, he is drawing his remarks to a close.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
He’s still talking about programme motions!
Mr Jones
Programme motions are very similar to the motion that we are debating. If the hon. Gentleman had been here, which he quite clearly has not, he would be following the debate rather than chuntering from a sedentary position.
I should like to compare this situation with the two previous occasions when the House debated changes to the system of tuition fees—before the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 introduced the £1,000 fee for students, and before the Higher Education Act 2004 introduced variable top-up fees. In 1998, the Government introduced a number of programme motions. A report said that nobody objected to them, but six hours was allowed to debate amendments. No one spoke against or resisted those programme motions.
It might help if I set out in terms on the Floor of the House the consideration of the 2004 Act. Far more than five hours was allowed for debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said, in 2004, there was more time on Third Reading and Report and otherwise to debate amendments, and the Government also ensured that there was a full debate on the implications of variable top-up fees—we will discuss increasing the cap on top-up fees tomorrow.
On both those occasions, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats spoke against limiting the time—the generous amount of time—that was allowed for debate. It is important to remember that there is some inconsistency in what the coalition Government are proposing, because when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were in opposition, they opposed programme motions on the ground that they limited time, but they are tonight going to go through the Division Lobby to allow only five hours to debate the increase in the cap on tuition fees.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is reflecting on the 2004 Act. He will recall that at the end of the lengthy discussions on that, a sunset clause was inserted that required any suggested increase on the cap on tuition fees to be the subject of a full debate on positive resolutions in both Houses. Does he consider that the hours allocated for tomorrow discharges that clause?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend played a key part in that legislation, and he makes a good point. If we are to have a detailed discussion on the implications of the Government’s proposals, we need time. That was not the case in respect of the discussion on the 2004 Act. Time on the Floor of the House was given for full discussions on the implications of the measures. I also remind the House that many Labour Members at that time made key points to try to get concessions out of the Government, including my hon. Friend, to ensure that poorer students were protected.
Steve McCabe
Is my hon. Friend aware that since this debate began, a further 23 Members have applied for permission to speak in the debate tomorrow, taking the total to more than 70? Does that not show that it would be ludicrous for the Leader of the House to stick to his current position? Now is the time for him to recognise the mood of the House and agree to an extension of the time.
Mr Jones
It is not only the mood of the House: it is also the mood of the country. As with many things that this Government are doing, they are rushing things through. If we had pushed through legislation and ignored the House to this extent, we would have been rightly criticised. Sometimes we did not allow the House enough time for true debate and we were criticised in the press. The point has already been made that curtailing debate also leads to bad legislation, because the implications are not scrutinised either on the Floor of the House or in Committee.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend knows that this House has taken a few knocks to its reputation in the last couple of years. Will not the public be staggered when they find out that not only will the debate tomorrow be limited to five hours, but that the Government are not even proposing that the House uses up the time that it normally has available on a Thursday and finishes at half-past 5 instead of 6?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend has made that point eloquently for the third time. I know that repetition is important, but I do not want to repeat points that have already been made well. It is true that we still have not had an explanation for the finishing time from the Leader of the House.
In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “More!”] I could start from the beginning if people want me to do so—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has been chuntering from a sedentary position all night. I do not know whether he actually wants to make a contribution to the debate tonight or tomorrow, but as he has given up his principles for his red box and car, perhaps he should explain why.
In conclusion, five hours is completely inadequate to discuss the important implications of the motion tomorrow. It will affect not only thousands of students who are now in university, but thousands in the future. It will change the relationship between the state and higher education. It is not acceptable to rush that motion through in five hours without any justification for why three hours was okay two nights ago and five hours is adequate now. I urge hon. Members, especially those Liberal Democrats who still have their backbones in place, to vote with us and object to this programme motion tonight.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I have a great deal of affection for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable)—and the stadium in his constituency. He is usually a reasonable man, but in this case he is in an unreasonable hurry.
While the focus has been on the Liberal Democrat position, I fear that five hours will not give us enough time to look at the more interesting views of some influential Conservatives. For example, I would like to have more time to consider this view:
“Some people will, apparently, be put off applying to our elite institutions by the prospect of taking on a debt of this size. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is all to the good. The first point that needs to be made about the so-called deterrent effect of a…loan is that anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university…if you’re such a fool that you don’t want to accept that deal, then you’re too big a fool to benefit from the university education I’m currently subsidising for you.”
Those words were written by the Secretary of State for Education, when he was a columnist on The Times in 2003. Of course, the level of debt will be double or more if these proposals go through.
The Government have admitted that debt deterrence is a factor, but as the ground shifts I am not sure that we will have time tomorrow—in five hours—to debate the new national scholarship fund that the coalition are introducing. Very sketchy details have been given to the House about that. We need time to debate that fund and the evidence on which it is based.
Steve McCabe
As well as discussing the reasoning behind the piece of writing my hon. Friend mentions, could we not also ask the Minister for Universities and Science, to explore what has happened to his thinking? He wrote a book called “The Pinch,” which describes how our generation is robbing today’s teenagers. He is now setting out to do the exact opposite to his book’s conclusions.
Paul Farrelly
I agree with my hon. Friend. The views of the Secretary of the Secretary of State for Education can perhaps be described as ultra logical. The Minister for Universities and Science is himself a logical man, but clearly when one admits that the fear of debt, however illogical, is a factor, we must have the time to inquire further into such policies.
Kevin Brennan
Is the point that my hon. Friend is making about the vagueness of some of the detail of the proposal not absolutely vital to the issue of having only five hours for the debate tomorrow? A debate in this House should not simply consist of the Government putting forward their proposals and ramming the measure through on a majority; it should consist of sufficient time for opposition and other Members to scrutinise and ask questions of the Government. That simply will not be able to happen tomorrow.
Paul Farrelly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Evidence shows—I hope to come on to some of the evidence—that in constructing any higher education package, it is important that the whole is taken together. The reality of politics means that if the fee levels are set in a five-hour debate tomorrow, those people who are concerned about student support and other elements of the package that may or may not count as deterrents will lose their leverage in future negotiations. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.
Mrs Moon
One of the problems with a five-hour limit is that the legislation is complex and many young people may arrive here tomorrow wishing to clarify the terms and conditions under which their future education will depend. They will need to spend time talking to their Members of Parliament, but they will not have time to do so in that five hours. In particular, I know that young people have been unable to access their Liberal Democrat MPs because of notices on their office doors that say the office is closed.
Mr Speaker
Order. First, that intervention was too long and, secondly, the issue is not how much time visitors to the House have to raise matters with Members who might or might not be taking part in a debate; the issue is the allocation of time for Members of Parliament to debate the issues.
Paul Farrelly
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. What young people will take away from just five hours of debate tomorrow is the fact that going for a degree will cost them much more. They will not have any details on how they will be supported. Such information would allow them to form a considered view. Some of the evidence that I fear the House will not have time to consider tomorrow shows that, where variable fees have been introduced overseas, there is a deterrent effect. That is clear from the Ivy League in the United States. Again we will simply run out of time tomorrow to give proper consideration to the US experience.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the deterrent effect is particularly keenly felt by students who will be the first in their families to go to university? That is the case for many students in my constituency who are, frankly, put off by the terrifying prospect of £30,000 or £40,000 of debt.
Paul Farrelly
I was the first in my family ever to go to university. It is certainly a challenge for the Government to ensure that students who do not come from a background where higher education is the norm are not put off. I fear that that will be the starting point if we are allowed to debate the matter for only five hours tomorrow.
Paul Farrelly
I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour.
Robert Flello
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour. My constituency covers a third of Stoke-on-Trent, a very challenged area, where one of the best ways forward for young people is to go either to the fine university of Keele or to the fine university of Stafford. How will they be able to do so if we do not have the time tomorrow to debate the full intricacies of the issues, so that they can be reassured?
Paul Farrelly
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the situation in north Staffordshire, where we live, which is a situation that will be replicated across the country. The danger is that we will not have the time to debate, area by area, the risk to the entirety of an institution that will follow—or may follow—the teaching cuts and the fees combined.
Julie Hilling
Does my hon. Friend agree that people studying courses such as youth and community work will be disadvantaged? It is mainly poorer and older people who go into the profession, and they are people who spend their lives in the service of young people and their communities, but who will never earn the salaries—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is very much focusing on the substance of the issue, but we must get back to the allocation of time.
Paul Farrelly
I am acutely aware, as my hon. Friend is, that the Government are saying on the one hand that they want the best and brightest to go into teaching, for example, yet on the other hand they are making it more difficult, and that we will not have enough time tomorrow to debate all those intricacies or how the Government plan to tackle the issue.
John Robertson
People outside this place will be affected by what will happen and what will be discussed tomorrow, but how much time from those five hours does my hon. Friend think will be devoted to the problems in the devolved areas?
Paul Farrelly
Mr Speaker has graciously allowed a wide-ranging debate tomorrow, but inevitably—this is at the Speaker’s discretion—there will be limits. It will be difficult for Members, if they are called, to expand fully on the arguments in the time available. The international evidence is vital. Good, sound policy should be based on evidence. Frankly, we need the time, as an intelligent House, to debate it.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that of million+, the think-tank, that we do not have sufficient time to deliberate on the impact of some of the Government’s proposals on women’s participation in university? Some of the assumptions are false. Women will take longer to pay back the fees and will therefore end up paying more in the long run.
Paul Farrelly
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; the effect on women is also something that the House should be given time to consider. Million+ is a great institution that has put forward many practical alternatives. It disputes some of the Government’s assertions about who will bear the greatest burden, which is something that we have now heard the Institute for Fiscal Studies doing too. We will simply not have time in five hours to get to what is fact and what is fiction in the Government’s position.
The market system is most fully developed in the United States, and we should be given time to look at the effects there.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Obviously this debate is focused on the opportunity to debate the subject tomorrow, but on Monday the Opposition had their eighth allotted Opposition day debate. They chose to discuss not tuition fees but local government funding. Perhaps when they are complaining about a lack of time, they could remind the House that when they had the opportunity on Monday, they did not take it.
Paul Farrelly
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past few days, but we have just had an Opposition day debate on that very subject.
If we had the time, one of the things that we should look at is the experience in the US. Some 34% of young white people in the United States earn an honours degree, compared with only 19% of African-Americans and 10% of Hispanics. Again, we will not have time to look at the international experience. In Canada, when fees for medical schools went up from roughly the same level as ours are now—the equivalent of £3,000 in their currency—to $15,000, which is much the same as £9,000, participation among children from lower income backgrounds dropped by a third. We simply will not have the time—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] We will not have the time to rehearse all that evidence.
Robert Flello
My hon. Friend is making some extremely important points about having the time—[Laughter.] He is talking about having the time tomorrow to debate these important issues, yet all that we can hear from across the Chamber is hysterics. Is it really that funny to prevent young people from going to university because of these fee increases, and not having time to discuss it?
Paul Farrelly
Most Members of the House are very well behaved and listen politely when other Members are on their feet. Mr Speaker, I will not try your patience by going through every fee level, which we will not have time to debate, in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, institution by institution and region by region. The fact is, however, that if the motion goes through tomorrow, we will have the highest levels of fees across the board outside the United States. The implication of that—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of catching North Durham disease. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was fond of saying what he would not talk about before proceeding to talk about it, and I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) is not going to follow suit.
Paul Farrelly
I apologise if I have given that impression, Mr Speaker. I take it that North Durham disease is a mining affliction; I come from a mining area myself.
Mr Tom Harris
It has been announced tonight that the latest YouGov poll puts the Liberal Democrats on only 8%. Would it not be to their benefit to have more time to debate these matters tomorrow, in order for them to persuade the country that they have actually stuck to their principles? Or does my hon. Friend believe that, if they were given more time, that 8% might look quite optimistic in a couple of weeks time?
Paul Farrelly
I hope that it will not take 5% of five hours to persuade the Liberal Democrats to join us in asking for more time tomorrow.
The evidence from the UK needs to be properly considered as well, including the evidence on price sensitivity. And the Government have not explained the evidential base on which their policy is based. We need time to fathom that.
Helen Goodman
I would not wish to make a political point, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the House might have been influenced by the fact that the statistics for applications from UK-domiciled students for undergraduate courses at the colleges of Oxford university show that 10 times as many come from Hampshire as come from County Durham?
Paul Farrelly
My hon. Friend has put her point firmly on the record, and I hope she will get the opportunity to expand on it if she is called to speak later in the debate.
There are a great many documents from institutions in the UK that have been looking at the effect of fees on participation, and we really need the opportunity to debate them. One such document, an interim impact assessment on higher education funding, shows that, according to the evidence on price sensitivity, a £1,000 increase in fees reduces participation by about 4.4 percentage points, yet here we are, facing a £6,000 rise, which would imply a reduction in participation by a quarter. We need time to look at all that evidence, which the Government have not been forthcoming in producing to back up their plans.
The Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) has placed great emphasis on social mobility. He has even stated that these proposals will increase social mobility, and we need time to be able to cross-examine that view and to see the evidence for it. We also need time to give an airing to all the views of the young people that have come to us from across the country, e-mail by e-mail. We need more than five hours to do that.
Catherine McKinnell
On social mobility, another issue that I am sure we will not have time to debate properly tomorrow is the removal of the education maintenance allowance. That, as well as the issue of tuition fees, is relevant to social mobility and the two issues will have a cumulative effect, preventing people from accessing universities or even from getting into a position to think about going to university in the first place.
Paul Farrelly
My hon. Friend will have heard me mention the Secretary of State for Education—a lovely man, although he has some energetic views. What we really need is time to see whether the Government are engaging in joined-up policy. How does the abolition of the EMA affect participation and how will it increase mobility? The same applies to the abolition of the Aimhigher programme. We simply have not had the time and I do not think we will have the time in five hours to debate that.
Mr David
As already noted, the statutory instrument applies only to England, but a number of Welsh colleagues have been in active dialogue with our friends in the Welsh Assembly. A different regime, of course, will be implemented there. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good for debate if we had ample time to bring forward the Welsh experience so that we could compare it with what is going to happen in England?
Paul Farrelly
Indeed. I think that the Leader of the House should find time—separate time—to look at Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Barbara Keeley
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being generous with his time. As for understanding how the abolition of the EMA will affect different groups, I hope we will get enough time to discuss the impact on young carers. I recently spoke to someone who worked in a young carers’ project in Salford who told me that all but one of the young carers, aged 16 to 18, were on the EMA. She was very worried that they would lose out on the end of their education. Maintaining an education alongside a big caring work load is a very difficult thing. Let us hope that we will have enough time to discuss that issue.
Paul Farrelly
Indeed. People who have to take a break from work—women raising a family, for example—will lose out in terms of their ability to repay because they become carers. Again, we need more time to look at the impact of the changes on such people.
Albert Owen
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you help me? Have you had any indication from the Leader of the House whether he intends to wind up the debate on behalf of the Government? He has been sitting there motionless throughout the evening and has not taken the opportunity to explain why he has imposed the 5.30 pm deadline and why he has not answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about the increase from three to five hours.
Mr Speaker
I have received no such indication. I did not invite it and it has not been proffered. That is the situation. I think it is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman’s point is not a point of order but a point of inquiry, which is not quite the same thing.
Paul Farrelly
Just to conclude my response to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), we need that vital time to assess the implications for all those people in those situations.
Sheila Gilmore
My hon. Friend appeared to say that separate and additional time would be required to deal with Wales and Scotland. I ask him to consider the fact that once the motion has been passed, if it is passed tomorrow, decisions will have been taken that will have impacted on those areas and that this is a major change from what went before. We therefore need time within the debate before a decision is made on the level of fees.
Paul Farrelly
Unfortunately, I am not responsible for scheduling the business of the House, but I think that the Leader of the House should be as generous as possible in allocating time to debate these issues. For instance, we need time to examine the views of young people. Let us think of the Youth Parliament—an institution that we have encouraged. We have invited it here to debate and its members have sent e-mails to Members of Parliament. We need time to debate the views of Ahmed Siddiqui, a 16-year-old who asked us not to give up on helping his generation to become everything they can be.
Steve McCabe
Is my hon. Friend rapidly coming to the same conclusion as I am—that, having heard from only four speakers in this rather short debate so far this evening, we have nevertheless heard a large number of issues raised and concerns expressed, so it is now time for the Leader of the House to realise that he should do justice to this debate, which requires not five hours but two days?
Paul Farrelly
You will be glad to hear, Mr Speaker, that I plan to conclude very shortly, to give more Members—including, I hope, Government Members—an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend mentioned that the Youth Parliament came here to debate the very same issue. Would it not be ironic if we spent less time in the House debating the subject than the Youth Parliament, because of the inadequacy of the motion?
Paul Farrelly
It would be not only ironic, but tragic and a dereliction of the House’s duty—and a bad example to the UK Youth Parliament.
As my hon. Friend encourages me to talk more about the UK Youth Parliament, I should say that we need time to consider the views of Sam Hatzigeorgiou, a 16-year-old, who says:
“I am seriously considering giving up any hope of university education. Please think about that before you vote.”
Why can we not have time to consider what Chloe Shaw, who is just 15 years old, says? She says:
“I will be 18 when the policy comes into action. I am so worried about the rise in tuition fees. I am only going to be applying for the cheapest universities. Shouldn’t I be making the most of my abilities, rather than going for the cheaper options?”
Mr George Howarth
Will my hon. Friend add to his list the views of the students of All Saints school in my constituency? A couple of weeks ago, they told me that they see themselves facing a triple whammy: the loss, for many of them, of the EMA; the scrapping of Aimhigher; and the removal of the opportunity to go into higher education.
Paul Farrelly
My right hon. Friend’s point is well made. Traditional industrial areas, such as his and mine, are in need of all those schemes to encourage people and give them a fair chance to go to university. We need time to discuss that.
We need time to discuss other matters of which young people may not be fully aware. At the moment, they are just aware that it will cost them more to go to university, but perhaps they are not aware that some universities might not exist in future because they are threatened by teaching cuts. Without being parochial, I should like to discuss my university, Keele, where there will be an estimated 46% cut in the teaching grant, from £29 million to £13.5 million.
Robert Flello
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity with his time—
Robert Flello
My apologies. It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his place; he has been a little bit on and off over the past few hours. [Interruption.] I hope he is saving himself for my speech later as well.
My point, of course, relates to the motion before us this evening. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) care to comment on the fact that there are a huge number of organisations on which the House relies for information, support and knowledge that wish their views to be represented through their Members of Parliament, but that under the motion we will not have time to discuss properly the issues that they have raised with us?
Paul Farrelly
My hon. Friend is correct. There are wider issues involved in the contribution that higher education makes to local economies. For instance, in our area, Staffordshire university may face cuts across the board that will damage the great job it does in regeneration and teaching new ceramics skills and design.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend think that the motion will give the House sufficient time to discuss all the implications of the fact that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has announced tonight that he will not vote for the tuition fee increases?
Paul Farrelly
I fear that there will not be time to discuss everything that has been said on the issue, or even to fathom whether Members have the courage to turn up in the Chamber and abstain in person, rather than simply stay away.
Helen Goodman
Another consideration is the impact on universities of excluding able young people who simply cannot afford to go to the best universities. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not just bad for the young people but bad for the universities? Will there be time for us to discuss it?
Paul Farrelly
I do agree, and I have already said that we will not have time to discuss the ins and outs and the evidence base of the national scholarship fund. We are told that 18,000 to 20,000 students might be helped, but we have not been told where those figures come from.
Thomas Docherty
I do not know whether Members have had a chance to read the House of Commons Information Office’s excellent publication on statutory instruments, but I had a chance to pick up a copy yesterday. We will be discussing a statutory instrument tomorrow. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that in the House of Lords, determination of the time to be allocated to debate on statutory instruments is based on the number of speakers who have indicated that they wish to take part. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that we will not have enough time tomorrow, the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons should consider again whether the system works for the purpose for which it is intended?
The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
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 Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Thomas Docherty
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very disappointed that we were cut off in our prime this evening, but tomorrow we have important business questions and I very much appreciate that the Leader of the House is a star draw. Will you ensure that important issues are not curtailed tomorrow lunchtime thanks to the actions of the Government deputy Chief Whip?
Mr Speaker
The Chair always seeks to ensure that there is a good opportunity at business questions for right hon. and hon. Members to raise issues of concern to them. I know the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say now for how long business questions will run. That would be wholly unreasonable of him, and he is not an unreasonable man, but I note what he says, I bear it in mind and I will make what I hope is a reasonable judgment in the circumstances at the time.
Mr George Howarth
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House, during the course of the debate, admonished my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for not tabling an amendment to the order, but I should just like to quote from “Erskine May”, page 675, on the section that deals with delegated legislation. It states:
“Though they may be moved as independent motions, motions which propose to treat delegated legislation, or other matters subject to proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, in a manner which would be outside the provisions of the parent statute, such as motions to refer instruments to select committees, or motions not to approve instruments or to approve them upon conditions, may not be moved in the House…as amendments to questions which arise in the normal way out of proceedings”—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Order. No, no. I am extremely grateful. He has had his say, and I am very grateful to him, but my concern is that he is confusing the statutory instrument for consideration tomorrow with the motion that we have been debating tonight. So, on the assumption that I am correct, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not dispute that I am, there is nothing further upon which I need to adjudicate—
Mr Howarth
Well, it is. I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, and of course I would not in any circumstances challenge any judgment that you made in this House. However, the quotation refers to proceedings, not necessarily to the instrument itself. If I am correct in that assumption, it may well be that the Leader of the House, who is an honourable man and would never knowingly mislead the House, may have been guilty of terminological inexactitude.
Mr Speaker
I think I am right in saying that the reference is to proceedings on an order, and if that be correct I stand by the proposition that I have just put to the House, which is that there is nothing further upon which I need to rule. But the right hon. Gentleman, although he has been here two decades or more, is, like we all are, on a learning curve, and, if in pursuit of those procedural matters he wishes to improve his knowledge, he can always consult the Clerks at the Table. He might find that a profitable exercise.
Steve McCabe
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What advice would you give me when I try to deal tomorrow with constituents who will want to know why I am not able to represent their views in the debate on tuition fees because of the disgraceful timetable, and why it was not possible, when 30 Labour Members sought to catch your eye tonight, for us to continue to query the business motion? When my constituents ask me if that smacks of a coalition dictatorship, what advice should I give them?
Mr Speaker
We must not continue the debate that has just been had. I would say that the hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member, and the notion that he needs advice from me about communication with his constituents is as flattering to me as it is insulting to him.
Mr Tom Harris
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you take very seriously the reputation of this House and how we are perceived on television. Tonight, the many hundreds, or probably dozens, of people watching these events will be appalled by the Government’s attempts to curtail free speech. Would it be in order, when you are using your judgment to draw up the speakers’ list for tomorrow, to give precedence to Labour Members who voted in favour of free speech tonight and to put Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs, who have voted against free speech, further down the speaking order? That might not be within the rules of the House, but it would certainly be just.
Mr Speaker
That was an extraordinarily discursive attempted point of order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to anticipate the selection decisions of the Chair. He has made his point.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sat assiduously through the earlier debate from 7 pm, hoping to raise issues on behalf of my constituents and the all-party parliamentary university group, but sadly I was prevented from doing so by the closure motion. I urge you to do as you usually do and seek to include as many Members as possible in tomorrow’s debate.
Mr Speaker
I shall do what I can in the circumstances. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her application, on which I will not adjudicate.
Robert Flello
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), I was in the Chamber for the entirety of tonight’s debate. Unfortunately, I was unable to catch your eye before the ruthless move from those on the Government Benches to curtail tonight’s business. Will you advise me, as a still relatively new Member of the House, on the procedural move whereby the closure motion was put by a Liberal Democrat member of the Government, who had not been in attendance for the debate? Is it normal that somebody can come in almost at the end of the debate and move a closure motion?
Kerry McCarthy
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that 49 Labour Members have applied to speak in tomorrow’s debate and that the number for Government Members is between 20 and 30. It will obviously be very difficult for everyone to get in. Will you consider over night whether there ought to be a limit on Front-Bench contributions? We obviously want to hear about the proposals from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills or whomever he delegates to do his work for him, but it is important that Back Benchers get a chance too.
Mr Speaker
I cannot adjudicate on that matter now, nor give any advance indication to the hon. Lady on how the debate will run. I say only that I am sure that Members will want to be courteous to each other. We are all concerned that right hon. and hon. Members from the Back Benches should have a chance to air their views. That is right and proper, but I shall be here and I attach great importance to these debates in the interests of all Members.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was novel about the motion that we have just passed was not that it timetabled business—of course, that does happen—but that it timetabled business to come to an end half an hour before the moment of interruption. I cannot remember another occasion on which that has happened, but hon. Members might tell me that I am wrong. [Interruption.] I am sure that if the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) wants to say something further to my point of order, he will get to his feet in a minute. Will you advise me, Mr Speaker, on the best way to take this matter forward? Is it to write to the Procedure Committee? [Interruption.] I am not wasting time; it is the Government who are wasting time, because they said that they wanted to have that half an hour for voting. Voting should take place after the moment of interruption, and it always has. They have taken half an hour off tomorrow’s debate, and that is a serious matter.
Mr Speaker
What I say to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, he should not seek to continue the debate. Secondly, he rather anticipated my thoughts. If he feels strongly about this matter, a comprehensive memorandum from him to the Procedure Committee would be a very interesting memorandum to study. It would probably take him some little while to attend to it and I feel sure that that is just what he will want to do.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can give me some direction as a new Member of the House. Many coach loads of students from Edinburgh are heading south as we speak, not only to attend marches tomorrow but to attend the debate in the House. The inclement weather in Scotland and the north of England is very much unprecedented, and I wonder whether it is in your gift, given that the Government have just curtailed tomorrow’s debate, to delay proceedings at any point if people are stuck and unable to take part.
Mr Speaker
There is no such power for the Chair. The timing of tomorrow’s business is always in the hands of the House. It is a matter for the House, not for the Chair.
If there are no further points of order—I am grateful to Members for those that they have put—we come to motion 7.
Business without Debate
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Further and Higher Education Funding
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I am presenting a timely petition to the House tonight. It was gathered by school students across Wirral, who recently demonstrated peacefully outside Wallasey Conservative headquarters and marched to the town hall to register their strong objection to the Government’s proposals on the educational maintenance allowance and tuition fees. It is signed by 875 pupils, and I strongly agree with it.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Sarah Smith and students from schools across Wirral,
Sheweth, that the Petitioners believe that the Government’s abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance and the proposals to lift the cap on University fees will prevent students from poorer backgrounds having full and fair access to education.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House rejects any proposals to remove the cap on University tuition fees and urges the Government to enhance equality of opportunity and equal access to education instead of cutting off support for students and creating some of the most expensive tuition fees in the World.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P000869]
Mental Health Services (Lancashire)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak about acute mental health service provision in Lancashire. Since August it has become clear that the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust has a clear strategy of closing adult in-patient care units for people with serious mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Initially, the plan was to be realised and carried out in secret, without the knowledge or consent of the democratically elected governors of the trust. However, once the staff at the Avondale unit of the Royal Preston hospital became aware of the fact that patients were being refused admission or sent for care at alternative facilities, they leaked the information to the local newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Post. Very quickly, campaigners and myself decided to take on the trust—if we can call it a “trust”—and fight the case. The people of Lancashire are enraged about closures across the county, such as that of the Pharos unit in Fleetwood earlier this year, and now the planned closure of the Avondale unit before the new year.
In order to fight the closures, the campaign organisation SAFE—Save Avondale For Everyone—was set up and is led by a courageous and determined set of activists: Andy Hanson, Alison Ball, Fiona Jones, Nadia Southworth, Steve Weyer and Lisa Daley. Along with many others, they have taken on the might of the autocratic managers with six-figure salaries who have no respect whatever for the democratically elected governors of the trust, or the people of Lancashire whom they are employed to serve.
Preston needs the Avondale unit, which has served and saved many lives over the decades: it has saved people from suicide and serious mental illness. Everyone in Preston knows somebody or has a relative who has needed treatment at the unit. As the coalition cuts begin to bite, more people will become unemployed, which will cause more mental illness. Preston is a military town, with Army and Territorial Army barracks. Many armed forces personnel will return to Preston from conflict zones around the world with different degrees of mental illness. Returning forces will need that facility. Preston also has many students, many of whom suffer from mental illness because of the stresses and strains of exams—and, of course, student debt, which is topical at the moment. I understand that the Minister will be absent tomorrow; he will be with the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) in Torbay because he does not wish to vote for the coalition’s legislation—but that is by the way.
The closures mean that extremely vulnerable patients with mental illness from Preston will be forced to travel to Blackpool, Chorley or Ormskirk for treatment and care, despite the Government’s promise to ring-fence spending on the NHS. That promise is not worth the paper it is written on, because the trust is not only cutting spending this year, but will cut spending across Lancashire by £33 million next year.
The Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust has this mission statement:
“To improve the lives of the people we serve and ensure that mental health matters across the whole community”
and this strategic aim:
“To deliver high-quality, person-centred, compassionate services for mental health”.
It claims to have the following values:
“Teamwork…Compassion…Excellence…Accountability…Respect ...Integrity”.
Let us check the evidence on that. What do people want in Preston? We want local integrated in-patient and community care services; choice in accessing local services, and for that choice to be respected; and the continuation of local in-patient services in the city of Preston, which is the capital of Lancashire and its administrative centre. We have overwhelming local support: I have a petition with thousands of signatures that I will present to the Minister following the debate. The petition is very clear. Everybody in Preston and the surrounding areas wants the Avondale unit to be saved.
We accuse the funding bodies, the primary care trusts and the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust of driving through hidden changes that will have profoundly detrimental psychological, economic and social effects on the people of Preston. There will be many other downsides. For example, the Lancashire Evening Post recently reported on the anger at the travel ordeal that patients will face in future. On 14 July it said:
“Mental health patients may have to travel from Preston to Chorley following the closure of…facilities in the city”.
The chairman of the Lancashire mental health and social care partnership board believes that the consultation process was inadequate. He said:
“It is unclear how the priorities identified at these events translate into a one option consultation—surely this means that there is no choice.”
Let me give a few examples of what patients will be faced with in future. If someone travels from Preston to Blackpool to get treatment, the cost implications for one adult visiting five days out of seven is £29 a day, with a minimum travel time of three hours a day. The average length of stay is 34 days, so the total cost would be around £145. For someone being treated in Ormskirk, the travel cost is £45 a day and minimum travel time is five to six hours. Again, if an average length of stay is 34 days, the total cost would be £225.
The authority clearly wants to adopt a strategy of having some provision at home. The claim is that
“when people are able to stay in their home environment they maintain contact with their family and friends, have less risk of losing their jobs, and can continue living their normal lives.”
That is a quotation from Steve Ward, the medical director of NHS Central Lancashire trust. The chief executive of the trust said:
“We know that community services such as crisis resolution, home treatment and assertive outreach teams enable more people to be treated safely and successfully in their own home or in the community, which is where they tell us they prefer to be treated”.
That is code for cuts, and it is finance-driven, not care-driven.
When the Care Quality Commission looked at the provision of services in its community survey, only 5.5 out of 10 was scored on the question of whether
“those that had used the crisis number in the last 12 months…believe…they received the help they needed, the last time that they called this number.”
On trust performance review, a staggering 66% of patients have had to have a formal review of their care within 12 months, which clearly shows that the current system of providing care in the home is inadequate.
On the subject of suicides in Lancashire, the actual number of suicides in the Preston area in January to March this year was 12, and for April to June it was nine. The total number of suicides for people in contact with Lancashire Care NHS trust mental health services over the last two years is 80. The removal of local patient beds in Preston will increase the already unacceptably high number of suicides. All of these suicides were in the community. One headline reads “Suicidal patient told ‘no beds at Avondale’”.
There has been no consultation on the total closure of Avondale, and no working in partnership or public involvement. As I said earlier, the governors of the trust have been treated with contempt. There has been complete disregard of and disrespect for the wishes of the people of Preston, as the petition, which has thousands of signatories, makes clear. There has been a total lack of openness and transparency. Plans are only now being talked about in any detail, and are being presented as a fait accompli—by diktat, not by discussion with the governors or the people of Preston.
Preston community mental health services will be unable to manage crisis without local beds; they are struggling now. In order to close Avondale, they have had to refuse patients or move them elsewhere, in many cases to private units, which is privatisation by the back door. Patients in Preston face an unclear and constantly changing service plan. The governors have no power over the executive, which has become unaccountable and unrepresentative in its decision making.
The question is not whether Preston can manage without Avondale, but whether it should have to do so. The answer is clearly no. People manage to live through most disasters, but should we allow a publicly funded organisation to develop into a disaster for some of the most vulnerable people in Preston’s population? The evidence of the impending disaster is clear. In the review in 2006, Whyndyke Farm, Ribbleton hospital and Burnley were seen as sites that could have either new facilities or extensions to existing facilities. The plan was to close smaller units. No evidence exists that remote, large hospitals improve mental health care, but there is a lot of evidence that they do not. The deal on new facilities has now been reneged on. There is planning permission for Whyndyke Farm near Blackpool, but Ribbleton hospital will not receive an extension and Burnley will probably never get off the ground. Indeed, I would be very surprised if the extension at Whyndyke Farm sees the light of day. Questions remain over the capacity of local community health services to manage crisis without local in-patient beds in the long term.
A city the size of Preston needs its own in-patient beds and deserves to be consulted about what kind of care its citizens can expect to receive. A city the size of Preston should not be treated as if it were an afterthought, and it should not be forced to fit in with a corporate, financially-driven view of what Lancashire should look like. Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust does not care, and cannot be trusted.
As part of the campaign, there have been public meetings, demonstrations and a whopping petition that I shall serve the Government with at the end of the debate. I call upon the Minister and the Secretary of State to approach Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust and tell it that this plan does not serve the interests of the people of Lancashire or their mental well-being. The proposal is vandalism, and flies in the face of the Government’s promises to protect the NHS. It will result in more suicides and more vulnerable people coming to harm from others, as well as from themselves.
The former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher claimed that the NHS was safe in Conservative hands. Well, we all know what happened. If this Government repeat her mistakes, they will pay for it with the lives of vulnerable people in Preston and across the country. Ultimately, they will pay for such actions by being turfed out of office again for those mistakes.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) for allowing me to participate in this debate. The Avondale clinic is, of course, in my constituency. When the issue was raised by a constituent, I did my best to get to the bottom of the process before, first, forming a position and, secondly, tackling the Government and the NHS trust with some questions and requests.
I surveyed all the GPs in the north and south of Preston and in Chorley. I spoke to the professionals and visited the alternative in-patient centre in Chorley. I visited the Avondale site and spoke to many constituents to asses the key issues. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of sound concerns about the mental health trust, but I am afraid he also raised a number of partisan points. That is extraordinary—the evidence is not about that—given that much of the consultation on mental health reconfiguration started in 2006.
What I found from the surveys of GPs was absolutely clear. Although they were happy with the performance of the community mental health teams and the out-patient service that people were getting, and they were happy with settled and stable treatment in the community—many of them were very impressed by it—they were deeply worried by what was available for patients in crisis and for constituents who needed urgent referral. They found that, for people using the helpline or in serious mental difficulties, the service just was not there. There was a real gulf between what the mental health trust thought it was delivering and the experience of GPs and my constituents of what was delivered.
I have some real concerns that the closure plan trailed for Avondale unit is far too premature. At the very least, it does not take into account some of the changes to the primary care trusts and commissioning that might happen in the next few months or by next year, when the PCTs are abolished and GPs might want to use Preston capacity rather than that in Chorley. The mental health trust has not done anything like enough to answer constituents’ questions about what will be put in Avondale’s place, and how people will travel to it. The trust has talked about a shuttle but, frankly, that is not good enough.
Having visited both Chorley and Avondale, I can say that neither of them is fit for purpose. Chorley is not a great alternative to Avondale. It has had a new lick of paint, but there is nothing significantly better that would drive me to say, “Okay, on this occasion, the professionals are right. The facilities are better.” They are not; they are not outstanding. There is very little room for people to go out and walk and come to terms with some of the illnesses that they are suffering. That needs a lot more work.
In a submission to the latest consultation, I asked the trust to delay the proposal and to go back, fill that gap and ensure a seamless service for urgent referral, community care and in-patient care. Until it does that, the proposal should not be rushed through. It is very important that we ensure that the NHS reforms that the coalition Government are putting into place come to fruition and, at the same time, that patients are given the out-patient crisis support and referrals that the GPs are demanding. We also need to address GPs’ concerns. Once that is done, we will all be in a position to make a proper assessment of what is right.
However, we should not forget that Preston is a major city in Lancashire and the north-west, as the hon. Gentleman said, with a large hospital in my constituency. It would be wrong just to abandon in-patient capacity in that part of Lancashire without really thinking through the strategic impact on in-patient facilities throughout the county, and perhaps even in neighbouring counties. There are lots of black holes in Lancashire, so we must not let that happen. Let us proceed on the basis of evidence. We are not talking about a cuts-driven Government agenda. The trust has got a lot of things wrong, and it is the trust that must address them. That is what I am pressing for, and it is also why the closure of Avondale must not be proceeded with until those things at the very least have been sorted. I would like us to reconsider where the best place is in Lancashire for in-patient care.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) on securing this debate. On the many occasions during my 13 years in the House that I have secured these Adjournment debates, I have always taken the view that one should see them as an opportunity to present a case, not to try to score party political points. There are plenty of other opportunities to do that. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) perhaps demonstrated the way in which a case can be made without scoring cheap points.
There are also some points that I would like to spend some time making. In my view, the hon. Gentleman’s comments about students being under pressure and his suggestion that this causes them to rely on mental health services were deeply stigmatising and really unhelpful in trying to promote a sense of mental health and well-being. He does students a disservice by portraying them in that light. The suggestion has also been made that there is some sort of hidden agenda. Well, if there is a hidden agenda, let us be clear that this issue goes back to 2006. The work done then—which resulted in the plans that we are discussing, including the proposals for Avondale—came out of a set of principles in a national service framework for mental health that was drawn up by a Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member. That prompts some questions about quite where his attention ought to be focused now and where it ought to have been focused in the past.
Mark Hendrick
I will indeed make reference to the 2006 consultation and the report that came afterwards. It recommended that new facilities be built, but as I said, those facilities are very unlikely to be built, because of the financial pressures created by the Government’s cuts. On the one site there is only planning permission, and on the other two sites there is no sign of any building or any commissioning of building yet to take place.
On the question of students, many are indeed suffering great deals of stress and worry about debt. There are cases up and down the country of students who have committed suicide or who are suffering from mental illness as a result of stresses associated with debt, worries about exams, and pressure from parents and society. It is glib of the Minister to dismiss that in the way that he has.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Gentleman’s contribution may well have been glib; my concern is about stigmatising people and creating even more concern about mental health problems.
The 2006 consultation looked at strengthening community-based services, in order to reduce reliance on acute hospital care, as well as phased closures of 15 facilities over a number of years, as demand reduces owing to other measures. They were to be replaced by a smaller number of purpose-built units, which I will talk about in a moment. Lancashire primary care trusts spend £23 million a year on community-based mental health services—an increase of 46% since the 2006 consultation, which has resulted in spending per head that is higher than the average for England. Just 4% of service users now need in-patient care in Lancashire, and many facilities are significantly underused as a result.
Many existing in-patient facilities are not fit for purpose—dormitories rather than single rooms; problems separating male and female sleeping areas; no outside space; privacy compromised. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North made a case about some of those facilities in his speech. The PCT has plans for four new purpose-built units, the first of which, at Whyndyke farm, is due to open in 2013. The PCT assures me that plans to develop the Ribbleton hospital site are proceeding.
The hon. Member for Preston mentioned concerns about beds. I am assured by the PCT that the closure of facilities has been carefully phased to ensure sufficient capacity. I have looked at the figures, and I have been told that there is an average of 35 spare beds across Lancashire. I shall take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the use of taxpayers’ money to get the best possible results for patients, but it hardly makes sense to have an excess of supply of beds such as we are seeing in Lancashire. Indeed, only last week, the King’s Fund demonstrated that better outcomes could be achieved through effective use of resources.
Paul Burstow
I will in a moment.
That is why we believe that the proposals make sense, and simply to talk about a potential mental health beds crisis is unnecessary scaremongering.
Mark Hendrick
This is far from scaremongering. People are committing suicide in Lancashire, and people are being turned away because of a lack of beds. People come to my surgeries who are suffering from stress and mental illness, or who are caring for someone who is trying to get into the Avondale unit. The Minister mentioned the 36 spare beds, but that is the figure across the whole of Lancashire. The occupancy rates across Lancashire range from 85% to 90%, which are rates that any hotel would be proud of.
Paul Burstow
It is important that the changes that are resulting from the consultation in 2006 are properly implemented, that they are led by clinical evidence, that they take account of legitimate public concerns, and that they involve appropriate scrutiny. That is why I have asked questions about the nature of the consultation that took place in 2006. More than 115,000 consultation documents were sent out, 74 public meetings and events took place, and independent evaluation by Salford university found that the engagement process was robust and comprehensive. All Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman, were sent the consultation documents and offered briefings by the chair of the primary care trust’s joint committee. However, the only MPs to respond were the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and the former Member for Fylde. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman appears to have come late to this issue. I understand that he started to get interested in it only earlier this year. I must question why he did not pursue it when it was being consulted on in 2006, when he might have had an opportunity to shape the proposals a little more than he has so far.
Paul Burstow
In a moment.
When the proposals went to the Lancashire joint overview and scrutiny committee, which was formed in 2006 to consider the proposals, it was committed to ensuring that there was proper engagement. It took the view that there had been significant engagement around these proposals.
Mark Hendrick
I want to address two of the points that the Minister has made. First, we were happy with the consultation that took place in 2006, and with the report. Now, however, the NHS trust is reneging on that report, because it will not have the necessary resources—and, in my view, it does not have the determination—to complete the new units that were promised. On the Minister’s point about not contributing to the consultation or making any objections, we were perfectly happy to see the Ribbleton Hall site extended and improved to accommodate extra beds, but at the moment there is no sign that the extra beds will go there. Until the new facilities are built, I see no logic in closing the Avondale unit, or any other facilities.
Paul Burstow
I have just given an indication of the PCT’s position in respect of Ribbleton Hall. The PCT is in the process of conducting a further review of the proposals and has produced a revised case for change. That explores the overall clinical model, but does not alter any plans for specific site closures. It does revise the case, which is supported by GP commissioners. I will, however, make sure that the points that both hon. Members have raised in the debate are passed to the PCT, so that it is aware of their ongoing concerns.
The hon. Member for Preston also talked about a city the size of Preston having the right to be consulted. It is worth bearing in mind that, while the city council raised its concerns in August this year, and objected to the closure of Avondale ward, Preston councillors who were sent the original consultation—just like everyone else in Lancashire—and invited to offer feedback and comments about the proposals, did not offer a response, yet the proposals in 2006 included the proposal about Avondale.
I am of course aware of the petition that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I do not think that his presentation of the case has helped his constituents advance this matter at all. He has been stigmatising in some of his remarks about mental health, and I think it is important to value community-based care. It is essential that we see continuing developments in that regard. There is clear evidence that it leads to better clinical outcomes for patients, and the NHS in Lancashire should be congratulated on its strong record of investing in community services.
Changes to acute mental health services, including the closure of outdated facilities, are a necessary part of the local NHS’s strategy for mental health and are necessary to deliver better results and better value for money as well. It is the right approach, delivered in the right way with proper engagement and careful management of available beds, to deliver better results for people in this area of health care.
I have listened carefully and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s representations are fed back to the primary care trust and other NHS organisations concerned. I am sure that he will continue to make these points, and we will continue to improve mental health services, as this Government are determined to do. We entirely reject the notion that there is in any way an agenda of cuts and closures driven by this Government. These initiatives started under the previous Government. They were about improving services then, and they are about improving services now. That is what this Government will deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Defence Spending (Wales)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to secure this important debate, and to the Minister for attending. Wales has a long and proud heritage with the armed forces, and is home to the British Army’s most famous regiments, great ports, and RAF bases. Many towns are affiliated with Royal Navy warships and submarines. It is a world leader in the aerospace and defence industries, and from a strong cluster around Airbus UK in the north to GE Aviation, General Dynamics, NORDAM and British Airways in the south, manufacturers and suppliers employ thousands of highly skilled people in high-tech, highly paid jobs throughout the country. Wales is also an important recruiting area, and many young men and women in Swansea, and particularly in my constituency, join up.
That legacy dates back more than 300 years, and is strongly intertwined with our industrial past and communities throughout Wales. Indeed, the cenotaph at the heart of St Athan village is dedicated to the memory of
“the youth of all nations who fell that war might end, by the boys of the South Wales coalfield.”
That is an enduring tribute to the link between our nation’s proud coalfield communities, and the young soldiers who fought so selflessly to protect them. What gives that message even wider symbolism is the heartless graffiti and vandalism that has recently desecrated the memorial. Without wishing to make too blunt a point, it is difficult to ignore the parallels with the cruel disregard for St Athan shown by the coalition Government. They made an abrupt decision to scrap the plans for the St Athan defence academy, and I shall focus on that today.
The Government’s decision is a huge blow not just to the Vale of Glamorgan, but to the whole of Wales. The project would have led to the creation of thousands of training, support and construction jobs, and would have provided significant opportunities for local suppliers and the local community. The coalition Government’s decision to cancel the Metrix consortium project will mean losing up to 2,500 training and support jobs and up to 1,500 construction jobs, as well as the loss of a £700 million to £800 million defence technical college construction contract and the £60 million annual supply chain expenditure, and a £500 million annual boost to the Welsh economy from operational activities, and a large boost to local tourism.
Wales makes up 5% of the UK population, but contributes 8% of the armed forces. The Government pride themselves on fairness, so surely Wales should receive an equal proportion of military spending. South-east England receives £7.1 billion and Scotland receives £1.5 billion, but Wales receives just £390 million.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Blaenau Gwent contributes many servicemen and women to our armed forces, and we have had some great armed forces days in recent years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: according to statistics that I have seen, Wales receives just £380 million in defence expenditure. Surely that is not enough.
Mrs James
I agree with my hon. Friend. Wales received the second lowest military investment of any region in the UK. Surely that cannot be right. The decision in the summer to award Gwent-based General Dynamics a £500 million contract to help to equip the Army with a fleet of new Scout combat vehicles was very welcome, and that should have been followed with an annual £500 million boost from St Athan. Together, they would significantly have redressed that unfairness. Instead, the coalition dithered, and that has cost us dear.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
On the defence technical college, does my hon. Friend agree that it is bizarre that, at a time when south Wales is likely to lose many thousands of jobs in the public sector, that private sector development will not go ahead?
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
In addition to the issue of the unfairness, does it not seem that the coalition Government are determined to cut off their nose to spite their face, because they will lose the savings and efficiencies that the new academy would have created?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I am listening with surprise to the hon. Lady, because she seems to be saying that we should make defence decisions based on employment in south Wales, rather than on the needs of the armed forces and the nation. Is that right?
Mrs James
I cannot agree with the Minister. I am saying—I thought I had done so clearly—that there is a disparity, which would have been reduced if the Government had decided to go forward with the defence technical college. It is not rocket science; a decision to build the college would have provided more equality and fairness. It would not have endangered front-line services, but would certainly have helped our forces, who serve so valiantly in Afghanistan.
Mr David
On that important point, if the Government were concerned about the well-being of the armed forces, they would have ensured that the technical college went ahead. That point illustrates that the Government are not concerned about the long-term defence of this country.
Mrs James
I thank my hon. Friend for that. What have we heard from the coalition? The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary maintain that there is still a bright future for the area, and that a decision will be made in the spring. The Welsh Secretary insists that she is continuing to press the case for St Athan, but we have all witnessed the power that she wields in the Cabinet. There have been so many words, but so little action—there was the decision to close the Newport passport office, deferral of the electrification of the south Wales main line, and the fact that Wales was not included among the new superfast broadband pilot areas.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend include cancellation of the north Wales prison on that list?
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Lady answers, I remind hon. Members that we are debating defence spending in Wales. It is not in order to discuss other projects that may or may not have been cut.
Mrs James
I thank my hon. Friend—and I include the north Wales prison on my list.
We are already witnessing the impact of the Government’s dithering, delay and abandonment. Last week, business confidence in Wales dropped severely from 22.4 points last quarter to 6.3 points. Scrapping the St Athan project was mentioned explicitly as a “significant dampener on confidence”. That is hugely worrying, and demonstrates the huge risk in the coalition’s assumption that the private sector will provide jobs for those in the public sector who become unemployed. For Wales, the stakes are even higher. Public investment plays a greater role in our economy than in England, and our business sector is much more fragile. As our Labour First Minister in Wales, Carwyn Jones, has said, the spending review is clearly regressive. The human and social impact could be both devastating and wasteful, and the real cost could be with us for generations. It further demonstrates how the Government are pursuing cuts with a scale, scope and speed that risk Welsh jobs, Welsh growth and Welsh recovery, and puts the squeeze on the most vulnerable in our society.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a strategic investment of the magnitude that we are talking about would have a major multiplier effect on inward investment in Wales? I am talking about not just visitors and tourism, but the clusters of aero-industry, and encouraging early rail electrification, which has been delayed. Such measures work together in harmony for Wales, and without them the opposite applies.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady will not allow herself to stray when responding to that intervention.
Mrs James
Success breeds success, and if the scheme had gone ahead, we could be looking forward to a much brighter and more successful future. Wales still has a lot to offer British troops serving in the UK and overseas. Increasing the defence footprint in Wales will strengthen the Union and local communities. The benefits are wide and invaluable, but the matter is not being addressed by the coalition.
When asked about the equitable distribution of defence spending across the UK, the Defence Secretary stated:
“When I meet troops in Afghanistan, they do not ask one another whether they came from Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh or London. They are forces under the Crown and proud of it.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 18.]
And rightly so.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
That is good stuff, but will the hon. Lady explain why over the past 13 years, two military establishments in Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire have been gradually eroded, so that they are now approximately one third of the size that they were in 1997?
Mrs James
As we understand, things have been—and are—very difficult. There was an alternative, and under a Labour Government there would have been an opportunity for the defence technical college. As Welsh MPs, we lobbied long and hard for the defence technical college, because we knew that it would bring opportunities and investment.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
One of the big success stories of the defence budget in Wales, and the UK, is RAF Valley in my constituency. It is a centre of excellence for fast jet training, and has had hundreds of millions of pounds of new investment. That is now under threat.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my regret that over the past few months we seem to have lost cross-party consensus on protecting the interests of Wales, particularly in terms of defence? I pay tribute to the work of those hon. Members who, under the previous Government, fought to persuade military chiefs and the MOD that south Wales was worth investing in. That support has been lost, and it bodes badly for the future that there will be only one or two parties in Wales to speak up for the interests of Wales.
Mrs James
My hon. Friend is correct. I was part of that lobbying group, and we worked hard to demonstrate how we could provide a service that would have been world-beating, and that would help ensure the safety and future of our brave young men and women.
When I talk about those brave young men and women, I am thinking about people in my community. When we talk to families about how well their sons and daughters are doing, they tell me about the problems and challenges that they face as individuals and as part of the wider community. They are troubled about their future, and given that more than 60,000 people face losing their jobs, the decision on St Athan means that many people have little hope for the future. Those families deserve to be rewarded for the great contribution they have made.
The defence training academy is not only an economically sound investment, a socially beneficial plan and a strategically intelligent initiative, but fair. It is fair that a highly skilled work force should get the investment they deserve, and it is fair for our armed forces to be equipped with the best training and facilities possible.
Simon Hart
Are those brave young men and women the same brave young men and women who had to buy their own kit to fight in Afghanistan over the past few years?
Mrs James
We have heard such tales. I have been approached by families and relations, and I went to the bother of checking out every story. I found that such statements were just not true. There were opportunities for the families to do other things, but the troops had equipment of the highest standard. I can pass on letters that I wrote to Ministers and those I received in reply. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
Mrs James
Well, the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) is entitled to his opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. It is fair that a community with a proud military history should continue its lasting legacy, and it is fair for Wales to get military investment to match its contribution to our armed forces. The Secretary of State for Wales repeatedly states:
“We have secured a fair settlement for Wales.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 514, c. 904.]
and the Defence Secretary insists that the best decisions will be made for the defence of the UK. Neither has yet delivered on those promises, although that could change today.
Geraint Davies
Is my hon. Friend surprised that although Conservative Members complain about individual areas of underspending under the previous Government, they support massive cuts to the defence budget, particularly in St Athan? That is absolute hypocrisy.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
My hon. Friend says that the people of Wales know what to expect. Yesterday, I looked at the part of the Ministry of Defence website about defence in Wales. It said that the £14 billion investment in St Athan was still to go ahead. Would it be helpful if the people of Wales were able to look at that website and see accurate information? Perhaps when the Minister responds, he will announce that the website is in fact accurate.
Mrs James
I urge people to look at that website. We must have the most up-to-date information, and I hope that the Minister will give us good news today.
In my closing remarks, I will quote the memorial in St Athan. It says that the boys of the coalfield will
“dedicate themselves to complete the task so nobly begun.”
I hope that the Minister will return to his Department and dedicate himself to completing this task for St Athan, the people of Wales and our brave soldiers.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. A large number of people are trying to catch my eye. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.40 am, and I appeal to all those who wish to contribute to do so as briefly as they reasonably can.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Mr Gray, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. As a member of the Defence Committee, although not a Welsh MP, I take a keen interest in these matters. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) will acknowledge, the Committee’s report pulled no punches when it came to reviewing the Government’s attitude to the strategic defence and security review, and in reporting its conclusions.
I agree with the concept of a defence training college. One of the critical challenges facing the armed forces is the need to avoid duplication and streamline training processes. When the Defence College of Electro-Mechanical Engineering—DCEME—was formed in April 2004, it brought together a number of separate service training organisations, all of which delivered different forms of engineering. The aim was to exploit synergies, improve training delivery and increase efficiency and effectiveness.
The notion of a defence training college is sound. There is a lot of training duplication across the three services, and anecdotally, there are many common factors to basic engineering training programmes, although that is not always acknowledged by the different services. It is clear that St Athan should play a key role in delivering a harmonised service.
In theory, a further rationalisation to one site could reduce costs and save money. That should bring areas of expertise and excellence together and lead to greater co-operation between the services. However, it is not clear whether the work has been done by the three services to align their training requirements. There are always good reasons to compromise, and different services have different needs. Such matters need to be ironed out, and we must be clear what we are aiming for in this investment.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman is taking part in the debate. It is important to have members of the Defence Committee in the Chamber, because this discussion is not only about Wales but about what is best for the armed forces. I appreciate his train of logic, which steers us towards the rationale of having tri-service training on one site—we hope that it will be in Wales, but please let it be somewhere—for the good of the armed forces. However, the hon. Gentleman is approaching a compromise.
I do not want to digress from the subject of the debate, but when the decision was taken on Sheffield Forgemasters, there was an undertaking that discussions would continue. However, nothing has happened. We hear that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) is delighted that discussions are continuing on this matter, but yet we have heard nothing. Will the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), or perhaps the Minister, illuminate us on what exactly the future holds for the tri-services and St Athan?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that point; obviously, I am not in a position to verify it. However, I will point out that the defence academy at Shrivenham is a good example of successfully bringing together different service needs in delivering training. That defence academy has proved a resounding success. The majority of training there is postgraduate, with accredited civilian qualifications the result for many people.
Geraint Davies
The question was asked: where is the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns)? Given that this issue is so strategically important for his constituency and that he is the new MP for the constituency, and if he is saying things about discussions, why is he not here? Where is he?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I understand from colleagues that my hon. Friend is working in the Vale of Glamorgan today. Obviously, I cannot account for the movements of other hon. Members.
The concept of St Athan was good, but it was decided that the project was undeliverable by the Metrix consortium. It is clear that a huge number of courses across the services need harmonising.
Alun Michael
I am a little puzzled about the decision. What the hon. Gentleman refers to was clearly decided—he is right about that—but it does not seem to have been decided on the facts, which demonstrated savings for the armed services as well as efficiencies from the proposals, which were assessed very carefully before the decision to go ahead was made. So why was the decision made to change that? It had all-party support. There was careful examination of the benefits to the services. Where did the decision come from?
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. No doubt the Minister will want to deal with the point about the logic of the Government when they made the decision.
What is confusing to me, as someone who has taken an interest in defence matters, is the extent of the investment at St Athan. Let us say that three services are coming together and, for example, work is being done on ship engines. How reasonable and cost-effective will it be to get engines from Portsmouth to St Athan? Is that the right option? To what extent will all that work be cost-effective? Presumably it would be helpful to have a driving range for tanks if people wanted to test the tanks on whose engineering they had been working.
How does the Minister reconcile the fact that, as the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) said, Wales receives the second lowest “investment” from the MOD with the arguably bigger imperative to achieve value for money for the MOD as a whole and for UK defence as a whole? Looking to the future, I am clear that defence training needs to be harmonised. That issue needs to be considered on two levels. Where would be the best place to site such a college from a UK defence perspective? In addition, such a decision should not be wholly based on relative under-investment in one region of the country or another.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
John Glen
No, I shall make a little more progress and come back to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
If the best place is St Athan, there is a need to bring certainty to the decision and clarity on the time scale and scope of the project. However, I do not believe that money should be spent in Wales just because it needs the investment. That is just one part of the decision. It is critical to ensure that any consolidated training college addresses the broadest possible needs.
Mrs Moon
I am extremely pleased to see my colleague from the Select Committee on Defence here today and I pay tribute to the work that he does as a Member for whom I have a great deal of respect. However, what he is suggesting today is that the Ministry of Defence has failed over the past three years rigorously to examine the proposal for St Athan. He is suggesting that civil servants and Ministers have neglected to consider all the issues that he has raised. That is just not true.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have a great deal of respect for her and her knowledge of this subject, but it was her party that was in government for several years and had an opportunity to bring this matter to a conclusion before the election. I wonder why it did not do so.
For me, the challenge remains the need to rationalise defence training and spending across the three services to the broadest possible extent. Let us consider leadership and management training. There are a huge number of locations throughout the UK. There are separate leadership schools and centres of excellence. There are vast numbers of adventure training establishments and music schools. I am frustrated that there is not enough clarity about taking the process that I have described to the furthest extent and perhaps giving greater scope for initiatives such as those that I am discussing.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I worry that what we have here is a softening up. The hon. Gentleman serves on the Defence Committee. Surely he has the ear of the Minister and speaks to him in the corridors, as we try to do as well. Our suspicion is that discussions will continue about St Athan till the cows come home on the pastures of St Athan and that we are being softened up for the tri-service academy not going ahead in any shape or form that we recognise. It will be dispersed somewhere else in the UK or to various other sites in the UK. That is what the hon. Gentleman is hinting at.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously, not being the Minister, I do not have the ability to make those decisions. I am just flagging up the wider defence interests that are at play. A serious examination is needed of what is right for UK defence interests as a whole and the efficient delivery of tri-service support. I am making the case for that to be as broad as possible and for the right decision to be made for the UK.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Diolch, Mr Gray; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) on achieving this very important debate about defence spending in Wales. The reality is that the trajectory of Government policy in recent years has seen a reduction in defence spending in Wales, and it is very important that we have a discussion about that. Hon. Members are here largely to express their concerns about the ending of the Metrix proposal for the defence training college at St Athan, about which the hon. Member for Swansea East spoke eloquently. It was cancelled in October by the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government in Westminster.
As with other areas of defence, such as the £10.5 billion contract with AirTanker Ltd, the Public Accounts Committee has pointed to the flaws in defence procurement and the difficulties in keeping a lid on projects paid for under private finance initiatives. Indeed, the estimated budget for St Athan, even before work really commenced, had increased substantially, from an original estimate of £12 billion to £14 billion, and that at a time when the recession hit and the necessary capital from land sales was not becoming available as expected.
We shall see in the spring whether St Athan will be successful again, depending on the new criterion being announced for defence training by the UK Government, which will of course have changed in the light of the strategic defence and security review and the downsizing of the number of UK troops who will require those training facilities. However, we can be sure of one thing: the scheme will not go ahead as previously envisaged.
While I am on the subject of St Athan, I need hardly remind everybody that the number of staff working at the site is falling, with 339 job losses having been announced this time last year. Further to that, a response to a parliamentary question a fortnight ago from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), whom I notice is not here today, concluded that no further work would be done using the super-hangar to maintain and repair RAF aircraft at the base after 2010. Make of that what you will.
However, the topic of today’s debate is defence spending in Wales, and it is good that we can have a debate about that, because those figures have been made available to us. Thanks to the “UK Defence Statistics” annual publication for 2010, published on the Defence Analytical Services Agency website, we can see that the number of jobs as a result of defence spending in Wales under the last Government fell from 8,990 in 1997 to 4,900 today—a drop of 42%. In terms of service personnel, that is a drop of 13% from 3,300 in 1997 to 2,930 this year. In England, the figure has risen by 3%. For civilian personnel, it is a far more substantial drop of 62%, from 5,100 in 1997 to 1,970 today. In England, the figure has fallen by only 30%, which is less than half the fall that happened in Wales. The south-east of England has the largest number of service personnel, with almost 45,000, or, in other terms, 15 times the number of service personnel based in Wales. In percentage terms, those figures might be more striking. Although Wales has 5% of the UK population, only 1.7% of service personnel are stationed there and only 2.8% of civilian Ministry of Defence jobs are in Wales. Meanwhile, of course, almost 20,000 service personnel remain in Germany—seven times as many as in Wales—and there are almost as many service personnel stationed in Cyprus as in our country.
Unfortunately, this year’s figures do not include those for the estimated UK regional direct employment that is dependent on MOD expenditure, which were included in previous editions, such as, “UK Defence Statistics 2009”. In the past, those figures were provided through the MOD by DASA according to country, so that we could see what was taking place—a concentration of defence spending in England, away from Wales, Scotland and the other Celtic nations. The figures in last year’s statistics show that 92% of MOD employment is in England, which has 84% of the UK population, and that 1% of the employment is in Wales. There has been growing centralisation, with that figure rising from 89% of employment in England in 2003-04.
The figures are true for both equipment expenditure and non-equipment expenditure. However, our ability to be aware of those figures and scrutinise them is under threat. Instead of the Government’s being accountable for changes in policy, manpower and spending in different parts of the UK, they will simply no longer publish the statistics relating to them, and, indeed, they have already stopped doing so. That was the subject of a Westminster Hall debate in July secured by my friend, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), after the Minister for the Armed Forces initially said on the Floor of the House that such country and region statistics would continue, only for a later note to confirm that he had misspoken and the series of statistics would, in fact, be discontinued. This is a matter of freedom of information, as much as anything else. In the United States, such statistics are available to state level, and in Canada, a Commonwealth country with a similar military and parliamentary system to our own, the Department of National Defence produces similar statistics, down to provincial and even constituency level. The simple fact is that we must have open books.
The coalition agreement says
“technological innovation has—with astonishing speed—developed the opportunity to spread information and decentralise power in a way we have never seen before. So we will extend transparency to every area of public life.
The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account.”
There are two specific commitments in the deal, first:
“We will require full, online disclosure of all central government spending and contracts over £25,000.”
and, secondly,
“We will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public, and then published on a regular basis.”
It seems almost self-evident that that transparency and openness necessitates continuing the series of national and regional data in the defence industry, so that we can easily see and scrutinise the amount of spending in the defence sector, inside and outside the UK. If we cannot see the effect on our countries of UK defence spending, how can we, as Members of Parliament, be effective judges of it? I hope the Minister will confirm that the UK Government intend to maintain the series of statistics in accordance with the spirit of their coalition deal. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is depressing for the second time in a fortnight to listen to one or two Opposition hon. Members talking down the Welsh economy in this context. I listened with interest in the Welsh Grand Committee the other day, and nothing much has changed. Let us look at the context, and the Opposition may take some credit for this: 180 companies currently dependent on the MOD in Wales, 25,000 jobs, £220 million of expenditure and £250 million put into the local economy.
I am a beneficiary of that expenditure in Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire; we have a great but small MOD establishment at Castlemartin camp. I am hoping for some good news, as the closure of certain tank training ranges in Germany might bring some positive benefits to the area. We have a small MOD establishment at Penally, upon which the local community heavily depends. We have an independent weapons training centre at Pendine, which is crucial to MOD development, not only in Wales but across the UK, and we have at least one very decent Territorial Army unit based in Carmarthen.
I should declare a slight interest in that I served in the Territorial Army for a number of years, and very good years they were too. I acknowledge the comments made by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) about the colleagues I used to deal with back in those days. What a different place it was then—the most dangerous place I ever went to in the TA was Warminster. Now the regiment with which I served goes to a lot more dangerous places than that. Not only do the local soldiers contribute to the Territorial Army in west Wales, but so, too, do their employers, which let them off work without concern for what effect it might have on their businesses, day after day, week after week, and weekend after weekend. In the interests of the nation, they gladly let these guys go off to train. Those are all positive things, which the MOD and wider armed service community bring to our local area.
Geraint Davies
I am bemused. Surely the hon. Gentleman should be calling for greater investment on behalf of his constituents to bring jobs and prosperity to his constituency rather than supporting cuts. I cannot understand this.
Simon Hart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He troubles me, because, surely, defence of the realm is the most important thing on which to base our decisions in this context. Delightful though it is, this is not a job creation scheme. This is about defending the nation in the context of an extremely complicated and rather depressing financial background and the £38-billion black hole in defence procurement spending, with which we were left.
Geraint Davies
Is it important today to back the deficit and cuts generally, ignoring the difference between investing in our strategic interests for the future to defend our country and spending? Clearly, this is all about cuts and not the interests of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Simon Hart
I could not disagree more: the point I made about Castlemartin is valid in this context. Of course I have been in touch with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister about the future of that depot and others.
Simon Hart
No. It is simply not possible to have this conversation as if the UK economy did not exist. We have to operate within the context of the wider economic circumstances in which, for whatever reason, we have been placed. That is where we are. Of course the decisions have to be taken with local interests in mind, but, ultimately, as the Minister said earlier, surely this has to be about defence needs in that wider context.
Simon Hart
The choices are almost too tempting. Who was first? I believe the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was the patient one.
Chris Bryant
I had almost given up on the hon. Gentleman, but now I am on my feet I am grateful to him for giving way. He referred to the completely fallacious figure of £36 billion—or he may have inflated it to £38 billion. The National Audit Office made it clear that if there was a gap at all, it was of £6 billion. He should not perpetuate these myths.
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that I am able to quote. The black hole of £38 billion in unfunded procurement commitments to which I referred is from an MOD brief, post-SDSR defence SB, from 19 October 2010. If that is good enough for the MOD, it is good enough for me. I am sorry that it is not good enough for him.
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. The figure is not fallacious; the MOD budget was projected to be overspent by £38 billion over the next 10 years.
Mr Robathan
It is not drivel. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) knows that the previous Labour Government were planning cuts across the board, throughout Government spending, of 20%. Hearing people defending such matters does not go down well.
Simon Hart
I thank the Minister for his intervention.
Let me turn briefly to St Athan. It is not my normal habit to come to the defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), but he is actually in the Vale of Glamorgan today, where he is working hard on behalf of his constituents.
Simon Hart
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I am not, sadly, in possession of the diary of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan. [Interruption.] I wish I had not bothered to do this. However, nobody can doubt my hon. Friend’s commitment to the future of St Athan. [Interruption.] I would love to continue, but if anybody wishes to intervene, they can do so.
Simon Hart
I am sorry that it took such a long time to give way to the hon. Gentleman—it is nothing personal.
Chris Ruane
What could be more important to a Member than defending a £20 billion investment in their own constituency?
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, let me say that it is a long tradition of the House that we do not discuss Members who are not present in the Chamber unless we have given them notice that we intend to do so. This particular discussion is not necessarily central to our debate on defence spending in Wales, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman returns to the main topic under discussion.
Simon Hart
Absolutely, Mr Gray. I apologise for coming—unnecessarily, as it turns out—to the defence of my colleague.
Simon Hart
No, I want to make a wee bit of progress. Fun though these exchanges are, they will come to an end in the very near future.
The facts are these. As I said earlier, one of the depressing features of the Welsh Grand Committee—I will be reprimanded again in a minute—is the extraordinary denial about the past 13 years; it is as if they never existed. The truth is that Metrix simply could not deliver what we hoped on time or on price. If there is a difference between the previous and the current Governments, it is that the current Government are not prepared to go down the road of signing off, willy-nilly, contracts that we can justify neither financially nor in the context of defence.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarity and honesty, because we are seeing a complete volte-face from the Conservative party’s position before the election, when there was cross-party sign-up and support for the Metrix bid and the MOD’s analysis of it. The hon. Gentleman has now made it clear that the bid did not stack up—not in terms of the MOD’s priorities, but in terms of spending, and that is a tragedy. We now know that if we argued for the Metrix bid for St Athan, we would not have the Conservative party’s support.
Simon Hart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman—I think he is right honourable—for his contribution.
Simon Hart
It is only a matter of time. Despite that, I do not agree with a word that the hon. Gentleman said. The Government faced some extremely difficult choices—hon. Members have heard that expression before—in the context of not only defence spending, but every other form of inward investment in Wales. The evidence speaks for itself, and the Minister will no doubt put us right. We should also not allow ourselves to be tempted into believing that this is somehow the end of the road for St Athan, because it has been made perfectly clear that it is not. However, we will hear more about that, and I do not want to steal the Minister’s thunder.
I said that this would be a brief contribution, although it has been slightly longer than I had intended. However, as an ex-serviceman on the very fringes of the military, I think it is simply nonsense to believe that decisions can be taken on the basis purely of local need or local economic considerations, rather than the nation’s overall defence needs in the overall context of the UK economy.
Simon Hart
No. I am coming to an end.
We are holding the telescope to the wrong eye if we think the nation can proceed in that way economically or in a defence context. I am delighted that we are facing up to that issue, because Labour Members have not done so before. That depresses me, and every intervention by a Labour Member has simply confirmed my fear that they are prepared to take decisions with no possible concern for the economic, local or defence consequences.
Simon Hart
No. I will finish now. I am sure that the hon. Lady will then have the floor.
To end on a lighter note, there is one decision on which I commend the previous Government: they ensured that the Welsh Guards regimental goat, William Windsor, survived their various assaults on the armed services in Wales. However, it is all very well the hon. Member for Swansea East referring to the many letters that she may have received from satisfied servicemen’s families. I do not know what world she inhabits, but I can assure her that, in the world that I have been inhabiting, I have had personal contact year after year, month after month, and day after day with people who are in the service of our country abroad who have been begging for some small improvement in their lot. They are deeply frustrated by the inactivity or incompetence—I do not know which—that, I am afraid, epitomised 13 years of Labour rule for those who happened to be armed servicemen.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. A further seven or eight hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. According to my elementary arithmetic, that means that they will have three or four minutes apiece. It would be courteous if hon. Members could keep the length of their contributions down to something of that order.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I want to distance myself slightly from something that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said. This is a serious debate, and Labour Members do not see it as fun. Wales is strategically important for defence training and the security of the whole United Kingdom, and Labour Members are proud of the investment that has gone into enhancing that capability over the past 10 years. The best pilots in the world are trained in Anglesey, and they are there because of the strategic importance of its RAF base. Those facts do not bear out any of the hon. Gentleman’s points.
I pay tribute to the Welsh personnel who serve in the armed forces and who serve overseas. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, I think it is important also to mention those behind the scenes who are involved in setting up operations. Similarly, it is important to mention the Territorial Army, and that is one thing on which I agree with the previous speaker; Wales makes one of the greatest contributions of volunteers, and I pay tribute to them. I am sure that the Minister will join me in that.
Defence spending in Wales is vital to defence training in the whole United Kingdom and to the important role that that plays in NATO. The United Kingdom is part of NATO, and plays an important defence role in that context. However, we need commitment and sustainability for the future, and that is what the debate is about.
I am concerned that the strategic defence and security review was conducted in a hurry. It was done just before a comprehensive spending review and was, frankly, caught up in it. I would rather that decisions had been made in the cold light of day, based on strategic defence requirements, than in the heat of a comprehensive spending review. The strategic defence and security review must be bolder and look at broader issues. It must look at least a quarter of a century ahead. I welcome the Government’s five-year review, which is important, because things change. The threats to the United Kingdom change considerably, and we do not know where they will come from in the next three to four years, let alone the next 25 years. I therefore agree with the idea of a five-year review.
It is important that the Minister tells us what impact the departure, in my constituency, of 5,000 air personnel from the RAF would have on defence spending and defence personnel in Wales.
Albert Owen
I will give way briefly, but I am aware of the time constraints.
Albert Owen
Actually, I have lobbied on these issues. If the hon. Gentleman knows me, he will know that there is no difference between my criticisms of the Labour Government and of the current Government when I think that they are wrong. I think the current Government are wrong to have carried out the review so quickly. There is a window of opportunity to review things in five years, but that might be too late—that is the risk. We should have taken about 18 months to have a proper defence review. Whichever party was in office, the comprehensive spending review would have had to be done, and there would have had to be cuts, but we could have seen things in the cold light of day and had those strategic defence reviews in the future. That is my point.
I am conscious of the time, and had wanted to speak a bit longer than I will now be able to, because the subject is very important to Wales and my constituency. As the Minister knows, RAF Valley is in my constituency and is a centre of excellence for fast jet training with Hawks. There has been huge investment there in the past 10 years. Only last week a new building was opened, which will house the new Mk 2 jets. They are fantastic equipment and I am proud that they are British and will be part of our defence training.
The search and rescue headquarters is also based at RAF Valley. I was not 100% keen on the decision of the previous Government about part-privatisation, but I did understand the need to harmonise Navy and RAF helicopters, and, indeed, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency search and rescue, and bring them together. That decision—with billions of pounds of private investment coming into it—has been put on hold, and that will have a considerable impact on defence expenditure in Wales and my constituency. I am concerned about it and would like the Minister to clear up the matter of whether we shall continue with a part-privatisation, or whether there will be full privatisation. The uncertainty is affecting the morale of people employed in my constituency, who include a very famous member of the royal family, Flight Lieutenant Wales; that has got some attention.
The base is strategically important for search and rescue. If the part-privatisation had gone ahead, RAF Valley would have been the first base for such training in the whole United Kingdom. That would have been massively important to the local economy of north-west Wales, and the rest of Wales. I want some answers from the Minister about that, if possible. It is hugely important, and the base is there not because of job opportunities but because of Anglesey’s strategic importance to the United Kingdom. The base has an excellent record.
As to the strategic defence review itself, the impact that the loss of 5,000 personnel from the RAF alone will have on Wales is important. I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers, but I was very concerned—I want the Minister to deal with this if he has the opportunity—to read an article in The Sunday Times of 28 November with the headline “Cuts leave RAF with fewer jets than Sweden”. I do not know much about Swedish defence, but I know that Britain trains and provides the best fighter jet pilots in the world, and I want that to remain the case. The article continues to say that many of the smaller NATO countries—and on the graph we are one of the smallest NATO countries with military fighter attack—would use a NATO base in Texas. I am happy to acknowledge the contribution of the Americans, but I do not think that their pilots are as good as ours. We need European and British involvement in NATO, and I cannot see why we cannot enhance our bases here, and get more Americans and Canadians. Canadians, Indians and Saudis come to RAF Valley now to train.
Billions of pounds have been invested in strategic defence. Hundreds of millions have been invested in the past 10 years in RAF Valley. I want that to continue. There are 1,500 personnel there, both civilian and military. It is top quality. It is a centre of excellence, not just in this country, but in the world. The search and rescue headquarters has people coming from all over the world, including Hong Kong, to see what we do, because we do it best. I am concerned that the strategic defence and security review, coupled with the comprehensive spending review, could undermine that and have a huge impact on strategic defence, and on local economies in Wales.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this feisty and entertaining debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part and congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) on securing it.
As hon. Members can probably tell, I am not a Welsh speaker or, for that matter, a Welsh Member of Parliament. I represent Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, one of the finest naval bases in the country. I am struck by the fact that no one seems to have mentioned at any length during the debate the financial position that the coalition Government found they were in when they came to power. [Hon. Members: “ Oh!”] I know that it is something we would all like to try to ignore, but unfortunately it is an issue that must be tackled. Whether hon. Members believe it or not, when the Government came to power they found that they had a £38 billion shortfall in the Ministry of Defence budget. At some stage that had to be dealt with. I realise that there are some who may feel that we do not need to tackle that issue at this stage of the game, but the civil servants who gave the coalition Government advice are the same ones who were in post prior to the general election, and they gave that advice to the Labour Government.
Albert Owen
I think that we need to kill this myth. We are talking about strategic defence for the next 25 years, not an economic cycle. Is the hon. Gentleman honestly saying that the Government are setting their priority for the defence of the nation within that five-year cycle?
Oliver Colvile
I wrote, during the run up to the strategic defence and security review, my own submission, in which I said that we certainly needed to re-order our priorities, and that defence was No. 1 of the two issues that I thought were important, along with long-term care for the elderly, which I still think is a very important issue for us to deal with. However, we are where we are. None of us came into the House to vote to cut defence expenditure. I for one will continue to campaign to ensure that my constituency stays firmly up in its position alongside other such places.
Before I go any further I pay tribute to the Welsh servicemen who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those who have served in the Falklands, along with many Royal Marines from my constituency; no one should underplay the contribution they made.
Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has, in the past 10 years, had similar concerns about what would happen to it to those outlined by hon. Members. Frigates were potentially to be moved to Portsmouth—
Oliver Colvile
If I may say so, Mr Gray, there is a similarity with some of the issues that affect Wales.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Similarity is not enough. The debate must be about defence spending in Wales, and not about Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, close as it is to the hon. Gentleman’s heart.
Oliver Colvile
The issue of where in the United Kingdom public expenditure will go must be taken as a whole.
Nick Smith
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is the second Government ringer who has been brought into the debate this morning. We need to talk about the defence of this country in Wales, and not to hear about his constituency.
Oliver Colvile
Fine. What I will say is that Wales has a significant part to play in the defence of our country, as have other parts of the United Kingdom, including my area. I should be interested to hear from the Minister not only what action he will take on issues to do with various bases in Wales, but what activity there will be in Wales to ensure that there are combat stress facilities, and similar things. We should not be talking just about investment in defence procurement and infrastructure. We need also to ensure that our servicemen and women, who have done such a good job for our country, have the opportunity to be well looked after, when they have done their time with the services. I ask the Minister to consider that and set out what is being done.
Debate on the subject will continue for some time, and I welcome the decision to have regular reviews. I will be fighting from my perspective, and I have no doubt that Opposition Members will do so from theirs. It is up to us to see who shouts loudest and puts forward the best case for the Government to listen to.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) on securing the debate. Even in a debate about defence spending, we cannot talk about defence without paying tribute to our brave men and women fighting overseas. I stood, like many other hon. Members, at cenotaphs in St Fagans, Pontllanfraith and Cefn Fforest in my constituency, and Maes-y-cymer, where we paid tribute to our war dead. We should always keep them in mind when we talk about defence.
I want to focus on the effect of defence spending on the wider economy. The defence footprint in Wales is massive and hugely underestimated. I often liken it to the car industry. There is no Welsh car but our supply chain, which manufactures components for cars, has a massive effect on the car industry. About 2,300 people work in defence in Wales; £250 million is spent by the Ministry of Defence with firms in Wales. My hon. Friends the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) and the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) discussed St Athan, the training college, and made an important point about RAF Valley. A delay in one thing has a knock-on effect on the economy. With the promise of an MOD contract, firms ask to borrow money from banks. The bank manager will ask when the contract is arriving. They wait and wait, but still nothing. What happens is that the firm goes to the wall, the contract is eventually awarded by the Government, but there is no firm to produce the components needed.
That strikes at the heart of the problem with this Government at the moment: a real lack of understanding of economics. The idea that the public sector and the private sector should be separate is absolutely wrong, and if anywhere that can be shown to be the case, it is in the defence industry. Ian Godden, the chairman of ADS, the British aerospace and defence industry body, has warned that the British defence industry will halve in size from 10% to 5% of the UK’s manufacturing output. The main customer for the defence industry is the Government, who have the power to shrink or grow the sector. Unfortunately, they have made the decision to shrink it. It is not about cutting an aircraft carrier or a tanker; it is about cutting investment for the future. That is the problem with defence cuts.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman appears to be making the case for defence spending to be used as an economic development tool, which contradicts the comments made about the need for a strategic defence view of the world. In the context of arguing for defence spending as an economic development tool, can he justify why for the past five years—between 2003-04 and 2007-08—defence spending in Wales was less than 1% of the total under the Labour Government?
Chris Evans
I will come to that point when I discuss General Dynamics in my constituency.
This is about the knock-on effect on the economy. If a major defence contractor comes to a constituency—as we have been lucky enough to experience in Islwyn with General Dynamics UK—the knock-on effect is amazing. GDUK came to Islwyn, because Government encouraged it to invest in the community, and we are glad that it is there. If we look at the knock-on effect, a ground-breaking innovation centre—the EDGE facility at Newbridge—has been set up to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to transform innovative ideas into products fit for market. The centre acts as a springboard for new IP—intellectual property—providing a collaborative environment where the MOD, Britain’s leading universities and high-tech SMEs are able to conduct rapid testing of new advances in technology.
That is the reality of defence. GDUK is a Welsh success story. The battlefield communication, Bowman, was developed in my constituency. The company has sent technology all over the world and has invested in upskilling its workers. The company takes the view that that would have been impossible without the support from Government for its successes. The fact is that once the technology is cut, it never returns. That is what we need to see when we are talking about defence. I have kept my comments short in order to allow other speakers an opportunity to make a speech..
Mrs Moon
It is highly appropriate that you are chairing this Committee, Mr Gray, given your knowledge and experience in the field of defence.
As a newly appointed member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have recently discussed with members across Europe their view that the British defence and security review was rushed. That is not just an impression in the UK, but across NATO, where there is concern at the result of the cuts for European defence.
We are here to look specifically at the impact on defence in Wales. I recall a statement of my mother’s that she threw at me many a time: “Decide in haste, repent at leisure.” That is the situation with the strategic defence and security review—a decision that is going to impact dramatically on our sovereign capability, our skills capability and our financial—
Oliver Colvile
The Labour Government were in power for 13 years yet, after the initial period, they failed to produce a review. Why did they not have a review much sooner, as the coalition Government have had?
Mrs Moon
The Labour Government held a number of reviews, but not full defence and security reviews. There was a constant review of our capability, which had to take place because of our involvement in Afghanistan. I do not think anyone can say that the Labour Government failed to review and assess constantly the needs of our armed forces.
I want to focus on the issues of sovereign capabilities and skills capabilities in the defence industry in Wales. I am particularly concerned that we are not looking at the impact of cuts on our long-term capacity to protect our troops with the equipment and the platforms that they need. Prime contractors are represented in Wales, as colleagues have mentioned. Defence manufacturers based in Wales include EADS in Newport, General Dynamics in Islwyn and Thales Optics in St Asaph. For every job created by the industry, 1.6 jobs are created elsewhere in the economy. It has been calculated that a £100 million investment in the industry creates 1,885 jobs throughout the UK economy, 726 of which will be directly in the defence industry.
I want to focus on the role of SMEs in the defence sector in Wales, and to make the case for supporting and nurturing them in the months and years ahead. According to research from the Defence Industries Council, there are more SMEs in the UK defence industry than in the French, German, Italian and Spanish industries combined. Interestingly, General Dynamics—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)—said in evidence to the Select Committee on Defence:
“GDUK believes passionately in building a strong supply chain based on British companies, and in particular SMEs; and we practise what we preach. 70% by value of our work on Bowman is undertaken by British companies.”
The Bowman programme is based in south Wales. In the same evidence, GDUK stated:
“We took a deliberate decision to concentrate that growth on south Wales. Following the recent signature of the contract for the Demonstration Phase of the Scout Platform, we expect the size of our work force to grow steadily over the next three years, again with much of that in south Wales.”
We have to remember that the impact of the growth of General Dynamics will rely strongly on 70% of SMEs being financially capable of surviving the current round of cuts and insecurity around contracting coming out of the MOD.
Guto Bebb
It would appear that we are again receiving a lecture about the role of defence spending in economic development. I am bemused by the fact that between 2003-04 and 2007-08, defence spending in Wales fell from £430 million to £390 million under the Labour Government.
Mrs Moon
The hon. Gentleman is trying to turn the whole debate. I am frightened by the debate, because the Government seem not understand that our defence capability relies on the defence industry being able to provide the equipment, and on our having the skills and the sovereign capability to provide our troops with the ability to defend this country.
Mrs Moon
No, I am not giving way again; our time is severely limited and I want to make progress.
I have made contact both with SMEs that form part of the supply chain of equipment to the MOD and with the large companies that I mentioned earlier. In my constituency, I have TB Davies, AMSS Ltd, Spectrum Technologies and TES Aviation, all of which are not only vital to the economy of Wales and of my constituency but provide the skills base that allows the MOD to provide the platforms needed by our armed forces.
It would be irresponsible not to consider the implications that the loss of the skills of the SMEs based in Wales would have for our prime contractors; we should remember that 70% of the work of those main contractors is allocated to SMEs. If we do not protect those SMEs, if we do not consider that skills base, if we do not consider our sovereign capabilities, we will put the defence of this country at severe risk.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) on securing this debate. I put on record a point that has been made by Members on both sides of the Chamber: we should continue to pay tribute to our armed forces personnel for the job that they do, often in extremely difficult circumstances. Of course, they are backed up and supported by civilian personnel, who provide their own area of expertise.
We had a full debate on the strategic defence and security review on 4 November. The last thing that we want this morning is a re-run of that debate. That is not what today is about. It is a real opportunity to show just how much defence spending means to Wales as a nation. I hope that Labour colleagues, at least, will accept that as a Celt, I recognise what defence spending means in Wales, and in Scotland and every other part of the United Kingdom.
Nick Smith
Does my good friend agree that what we heard from Members on the Government Benches today was a shameless misrepresentation of Labour’s position? Labour in Wales is standing up for the defence of our country, while recognising that employment is important to our constituencies. All that we had from the other side was a couple of defence ringers, who did not properly recognise our emphasis on our country’s defence.
Mr Brown
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope to cover some of the points that have been raised this morning, and I shall comment on that.
It is pretty clear that military establishments and bases are dotted across the entire UK. It must be recognised that those facilities become part of day-to-day life in those communities, whether through a sense of pride in being associated with the defence of our country, or simply because of the employment opportunities that they may bring. Frankly, whatever the reason, it all matters.
I want to quote from the debate of 4 November, because comment has been passed on the manner in which the strategic defence and security review came about. The quotation, from Hansard, is:
“The strategic defence and security review was an opportunity to reshape the UK’s military force in that changing global security landscape. Unfortunately, according to the Royal United Services Institute, 68% of the defence and security community felt that it was a ‘lost opportunity for a more radical reassessment of the UK’s role in the world’.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 1074.]
Many of us, including all Labour Members, have said that it was far too quick. The previous full review under the Labour Government took some 15 months to complete.
Chris Bryant
I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that there has been another loss of opportunity in relation to the St Athan defence technical college. We supported it not primarily because we wanted investment in Wales but because we wanted to improve training for our armed forces. So many of our young men and women go into the armed forces, and we wanted to make sure that their lives were protected and that they had the best training possible.
Mr Brown
Absolutely. I shall come to that later, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that I could not have put it much better. Until now, at least, there has been more than a fair degree of consensus on what was to happen at St Athan. It is somewhat disappointing that we are not getting the same feeling today.
Mr Brown
My hon. Friend is an extremely knowledgeable member of the Select Committee, and is exactly right; indeed, the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) indicated the same thing at the start of his speech. It basically made sense, and the Select Committee gave it full backing.
Mr Brown
I clearly picked up from the start of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution that St Athan, and what was previously proposed on a cross-party basis, made sense. However, Hansard will show what was said.
We see uncertainty in the questions that are being tabled, whether on departmental redundancies, rescue services or the level of savings. This morning, in contributions from both sides of the Chamber, we have heard that that uncertainty still exists. We need to be clear about where we are going with St Athan. I am not convinced that the Minister will be able to tell us today, but indications are that we might hear in the spring. For all concerned, I sincerely hope that we will have a clearer idea by then.
A question was asked about what that uncertainty does for communities. The debate is about defence spending. It is about investment. It is about the future of our armed forces, and what we are best able to do to serve those who serve the nation in difficult circumstances. They do not need uncertainty. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made the valid point that small and medium-sized enterprises in many communities play a vital role. Uncertainty about where we are going can destroy SMEs, a point made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). Delays lead to economic uncertainty.
The figure of £38 billion was mentioned once again. I wish to make it abundantly clear that that sum was never to be found in any document. The figure that was spoken of came from page 22 of the MOD major projects report of 2009, which mentioned £6 billion over 10 years. The only way that that £6 billion could become £38 billion was to assume that there would be no increase in Britain’s defence budget until 2021. That was never going to be the case under a Labour Government, and I sincerely hope that it was never going to be the case under any coalition Government. In fact, there was a 10% rise in defence spending between 1997 and 2010. In this country, defence spending consistently formed 2.5% of GDP—one of the highest levels in the world, so it is not that we scrimped at all.
I appreciate that I need to allow time for the Minister to speak. I am only sorry that I cannot give him more time. Members on the Opposition Benches have been clear this morning: they want more certainty on the matter. Let me finish with something that was said by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile)—he and I sat together at a dinner a couple of weeks ago. There was almost an admission from him that this rushed strategic defence and security review was financially driven; it was not in the best interests of our country, our defences or those who serve in foreign lands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
This is the first Westminster Hall debate to which I have contributed in the past five years. It is a pleasure to be here and to be under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) on securing the debate. She spoke about the effects that choices on defence spending can have on regions of the United Kingdom, and I hope to return to her words shortly.
There has been some suggestion that the Government are, in some way, anti-Welsh; that they have their daggers out for Wales. That is absolutely not the case. Let me give my own credentials. My great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather were doctors in Islwyn, in Risca. My grandfather was headmaster of Llandaff Cathedral school.
Mr Robathan
I am just saying that I am not Welsh- [Interruption.] Rather, I am not anti-Welsh. The name Robathan is Welsh. In fact, in Islwyn, there are many Robathans in the telephone book. I had a great-uncle in the Welsh Guards, and another great-uncle who was killed at Gallipoli.
Mr Robathan
The hon. Gentleman is always full of hot air. If he could listen for a bit, he will hear what I have to say about some of the comments that have been made. I also had a great-uncle in the Welch Regiment who was killed at Gallipoli. I would rather not be accused of being anti-Welsh. I can promise that I have spent more time on the Brecon Beacons in the driving rain and snow and in Sennybridge than most people in this Chamber, possibly with the exception of you, Mr Gray, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). I have also climbed from Capel Curig adventure training camp. Those are all the military assets in Wales that I have used in my life. I would rather not hear the suggestion that we are anti-Welsh. This is the first Welsh debate in which I have taken part, because I am not representing Wales.
Let me pay tribute to all the civilians who work for the MOD and in defence projects in St Athan and elsewhere in Wales. I should also like to pay tribute to all the armed forces who are based in Wales or who are from Wales. Indeed, I support anyone who supports the defence of the United Kingdom from wherever they come.
I have been surprised by this debate because I have found it extraordinarily narrow and partisan [Interruption.] Did the hon. Gentleman say because it is Welsh? I find it astonishing. The hon. Member for Swansea East compared the desecration of war memorials in her constituency with the fact that we are not proceeding with the Metrix bid at St Athan. I can see no relationship there at all; I do not believe that her constituents or people outside will, either.
Hon. Members have spoken about the SDSR, but let me be quite clear about it. Across Government, we have faced the worst financial and economic crisis that anybody in this room has seen in their lifetime. [Interruption.] It is no good groaning. The hon. Member for Rhondda was a Minister in the previous Government and he knows that it is true.
We are currently borrowing £143 million a day. In terms of defence in Wales, that would buy, every week, three Type 45 destroyers. [Interruption.] Do they never go to Welsh ports? It is not fallacious, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said—[Interruption.] Gosh, he witters. It is not fallacious that the defence budget was overspent by £38 billion; it is true.
Let me turn briefly to some of the remarks that have been made. First, the hon. Member for Swansea East quite reasonably wants to hear about St Athan. One of the biggest decisions that the Ministry of Defence had to take was on the defence training rationalisation programme. We have heard at length about its cancellation. Put simply, that project, in the guise that it was in, was never going to be made affordable. Despite strenuous efforts by the Department—under both the previous and current Administrations—it became clear that the bidder, Metrix, was unable to deliver an affordable, commercially robust proposal within the prescribed period. On that basis, the Defence Secretary decided to terminate the project.
We continue to believe that individual technical training co-located on fewer sites, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned, remains the best solution for the armed forces, but not necessarily for St Athan. The SDSR committed the Government to continuing to look at options from pre-training across the services.
Chris Bryant
This is a serious point. Many of us believe that bringing together all the forces for technical training is an important part of what was suggested in the past. It has worked extremely well at Shrivenham. Who would ever have thought that the Royal Navy would be prepared to leave Greenwich? It has, and it has worked. Is the Minister still saying that he wants to achieve purple training in, we hope, St Athan or elsewhere?
Mr Robathan
As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I have to be very careful not to commit myself to things that we are reviewing at the moment. None the less, we do see a need and a sensible way forward for more purple training on some issues. Some of that may take place in St Athan and some elsewhere.
I can assure hon. Members that St Athan is still being considered; a substantial amount of training continues at St Athan.
Geraint Davies
Will the Minister give us some indication of the time frame in which we will get clarity over whether there will be a joint establishment and where it will be? Will it be in a year, two years, three years, or does he just not know?
Mr Robathan
The review does not have an end date, but I expect it to be within the next few months.
I appreciate that the cancellation of the DTR was not something that the hon. Member for Swansea East or the people of south Wales wanted to hear. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) pointed out the rocketing costs of the DTR in St Athan. He said that in two years they had gone up from £12 billion to £14 billion. He mentioned the job losses. He said that almost half the people who were employed by the MOD 13 years ago are now not employed. He also talked about the Red Dragon hangar. The previous Government decided to build that hangar. It cost £107 million and it was to accommodate the refurbishment of 48 Tornados and Harriers. The repairs and refurbishment were cancelled before the hangar was completed in 2004; it was a complete waste of money.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) talked about the Metrix decision being made in the context of the SDSR. He is wrong. It was separate from the SDSR and not part of our overall view. He also talked about RAF Valley. I can reassure him that RAF Valley plays a very important role in pilot training—fast jet training. If there are changes, we will keep him informed. He is also welcome to write to me, and I will write to him if changes come up.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Texas. I have to say that the weather is generally better there than in Anglesey.
Albert Owen
Will the Minister tell us the position with regard to replacing Sea Kings with Sikorsky helicopters? The £7 billion contract is important.
Mr Robathan
I am afraid that I do not have the time, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
In conclusion, the previous Government let down the United Kingdom. They let down United Kingdom defence and they let down Wales. I was told today that Labour was standing up for defence. It has not been standing up for defence in Wales but for narrow partisan interests. Frankly, it is a scandal. We will not make defence decisions based on regional party political advantage, or on the advantage of the Principality; we will make a clear-headed assessment on what is best for our armed forces, the United Kingdom—including the Principality—and its defence.
Football Grounds (Regulation)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to have this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. When I submitted my request for this short Westminster Hall debate, the title had the words “Keep Scunthorpe Standing” in it. The Table Office informed me, in its own inimitable way, that that was sloganeering and would need to be improved. Hence the title that we have today. Nevertheless, it is on Scunthorpe United that I wish to focus my attention. I should certainly declare my interest as a season ticket holder at Glanford Park, albeit in the seated Grove Wharf stand.
Before I go further, let me take the opportunity to praise all associated with Scunthorpe United. It is a small club that, despite a recent run of results that we would rather forget, is punching above its weight. It has, in Steve Wharton, a chairman who, like his father before him, has run the club sensibly and in a businesslike manner that some might say could be a model for other clubs up and down the land.
Scunthorpe United is not a club that changes its manager every five minutes. Instead, it grows managers out of its coaching personnel. It has been well served by Brian Laws and Nigel Adkins, and it is now being well served by Ian Baraclough. They have built good teams out of scarce resources, and the players are to be applauded for their achievements in recent years. Having said that, the “team” of a football club includes all the other staff who work day-in, day-out, to make all the backroom activities happen, and those other staff at Scunthorpe United are also brilliant.
Scunthorpe United is a club rooted in its community that does excellent work in education through its “Study United” programme, and it takes on apprentices each year as part of an ongoing commitment to sports development. It also has loyal and dedicated fans, such as David Beverley and his colleagues, who have been working with the Football Supporters Federation on the “Keep Scunthorpe Standing” campaign.
Currently, the rules state that once a club has been in the championship for three years, its stadium must become an all-seater stadium. Everyone fully understands the awfulness of the Hillsborough stadium disaster of 15 April 1989, and the recommendations for all-seater stadiums were a key component of Lord Justice Taylor’s excellent report into the disaster. There have been many significant strides forward in ground safety since that time. Thankfully the world—in terms of stadium safety—is a different place today.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) made an excellent speech yesterday introducing his ten-minute rule Bill, in which he very ably set out all these issues. As he explained, it is perfectly possible for the United Kingdom to have safe standing in the same way that the Bundesliga does.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue to the House. AFC Bournemouth is doing very well in the first division at the moment, and this issue concerns AFC Bournemouth, too. There is a change in technology, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise, that makes things very different from how they were at the time of the terrible events at Hillsborough, to which he referred. I hope that that change in technology is something that we might be able to embrace, and I hope that we will say, “Can we actually introduce this now?”
Nic Dakin
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I compliment AFC Bournemouth on the good season that it is having. He is right to draw attention to changes in technology and stadium management, and more modern methods of properly policing football grounds and ensuring fans’ safety. Those are the issues that we need to look at. The rules on all-seater stadiums need to be revisited for modern times. There should be no compromise on safety, but there should be common sense. If Scunthorpe’s standing capacity has been safe for all these years and appropriate safety management is in place, there is no strong argument for replacing it with seating.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although it is very important to have safety, it is surely not impossible to marry safety with the finance available? Finance has to be a key factor for any football club and any football ground at the present time.
Nic Dakin
I absolutely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Safety is crucial and should never be compromised, but there also needs to be a sensible way forward. In these difficult financial times, that is very important. The Glanford Park terracing has stood for more than 20 years. It is under threat solely because the football team has been successful. It is my contention, and that of the Football Supporters Federation, that Scunthorpe United and its supporters should not be penalised and lose the safe standing option because of the club’s success.
If the current rules are adhered to, a very small club will have to spend significant amounts of money during these difficult financial times to convert the safe standing area into seating. That would mean that the club would have the invidious choice of paying even more for a larger seating area, to maintain the maximum ground capacity of around 9,000, or reducing the ground capacity significantly.
Seating the Doncaster road end would reduce Glanford Park’s capacity by about 1,000. That would mean fewer tickets would be available for big games, such as the recent Carling cup game against Manchester United or the forthcoming FA cup visit of Everton. In turn, that would mean more disappointed fans and less revenue for the club. There is a danger that such a move would harm the club because it would be forced to divert its limited financial resources and energy into redeveloping the stand; that money would be better spent on improving the team or enhancing the experience of supporters.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and, as he is obviously aware, Glanford Park is in my constituency and I am delighted to work closely with him on this issue. However, is there not an even more important issue here? We talk about localism a lot; this issue is about what the fans want, and what the fans of Scunthorpe United are saying very clearly is, “Let us make our decision about what we want, and let us keep our terraces.”
Nic Dakin
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right in many respects. It is important to listen to what local people and local fans are saying. However, we would not and should not compromise safety. Nevertheless, it comes back to looking at this issue in the modern circumstances of today and recognising that Scunthorpe United’s stadium is a 9,000-capacity ground, with average crowds of 5,000. I will just make a little more progress now before taking any other interventions.
The Football League, in its letter to the Minister for Sport and the Olympics of 22 October, stated quite clearly:
“Football League clubs, particularly in Leagues One and Two, are evidence that standing at football is safe when managed correctly.”
That is a very helpful statement.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being generous in taking interventions. It is important that safety is stressed. Cost is also critical. AFC Bournemouth is in dire straits, as are many other football clubs. The solution of allowing standing by using new technology would help. However, the point that I wanted to underline—I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he agrees with this—is about the atmosphere that would be created by having standing capacity. Every time that a goal is scored or play builds up towards a goal, everybody ends up standing up anyway. There is a sense of atmosphere in standing areas that will encourage more people to come through the gates, which will help the gate receipts and the running of the club, from a cost perspective.
Nic Dakin
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the atmosphere in grounds, which is an important part of the football experience. Scunthorpe United is a well-run football club, which stays very carefully within its means. The club moved to the purpose-built Glanford Park in 1988, where the affectionately named “Donny road end” has always been a safe standing area.
That small club, with a ground capacity of just over 9,000 and average gates of around 5,000, is being caught up in safety rules designed in another age for much larger grounds. If the club remains in the championship for another year, the safe standing capacity will have to be removed and replaced with seating. That will cost money at a time when resources are scarce; it will reduce the ground capacity, and it will take away choice and enjoyment, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has pointed out, from those fans who prefer to stand. Moreover, once the ground has become all-seater, it will not be able to revert back to having a standing area, even if the club spends the rest of its life in the lower divisions.
Cardiff City was allowed to retain standing for six years in the championship league. Why should Scunthorpe United, the smallest ground in the league, not be given a similar dispensation? There are much larger grounds in the lower leagues, such as the Carlisle United grounds, that are not affected by the rules. Will the Minister examine the experience of safe standing in other parts of the world, including Germany, and review the current requirements for all-seater stadiums in the premiership and championship leagues?
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate; it is only right and proper that the issue should be debated fully. Will he explain or tease out the assurances regarding ground safety that he outlined that will ensure that we never return to the circumstances that resulted in the Hillsborough disaster of 1989?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Lord Taylor’s report was thorough and found many causes for the problems that occurred. Standing was not one of them, but none the less, all-seater stadiums were seen as an important part of the solution. We must consider the experience around the world, particularly in Germany, whose strong record of safe standing demonstrates that it can be done. I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be no compromise on future safety in the interests of standing; we should ensure that any standing is safe standing. However, I draw attention to the fact that Scunthorpe United’s ground has always had standing and has always been safe.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has secured an excellent debate. I echo his comments about Scunthorpe club being a role model. On the point just raised, I have every sympathy with what he is saying, but I am extremely nervous. Since Lord Justice Taylor’s report, safety in grounds has been improved and transformed. The prospect of a change makes me nervous.
Nic Dakin
As I have said all along, safety should never be compromised, but we need only look across to the Bundesliga to see an example of how one of the best leagues in the world manages safe standing alongside seating, using modern technologies. I agree with hon. Members’ comments. I welcome the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) that this is the right debate to have, but in no way should we prejudice safety in this debate. That would be wrong.
My second question to the Minister is this. Will he review the requirements that apply to small grounds such as Glanford Park, and allow the Football League to use its discretion, where local circumstances and common sense allow, to provide dispensation for small clubs such as Scunthorpe United to retain some safe standing capacity? Scunthorpe has had safe standing for its whole history, during which three England captains have played for the north Lincolnshire side: Kevin Keegan, Ray Clemence and, of course, Ian Botham. I thank everybody who has attended and contributed to this debate. Up the Iron!
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this debate and on how he has conducted it. I pay tribute to him for his work on a number of football issues since his arrival in the House, and I join him in paying tribute to his club, which has done exceptionally well. It is a proper community club in every way, and he is absolutely right to pay tribute to the current chairman and his predecessor for their running of it. It is an example of the sort of football club that we all want to encourage, and I wish Scunthorpe the best of luck for the remainder of the season.
Having said that, I remind the hon. Gentleman, as will the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), that the Minister’s powers in this area are limited. I can ask the Football League to re-examine the issue, but I could not sign an order forcing it to, even if the hon. Gentleman convinced me to do so today. The issue concerns not only many of his constituents but supporters up and down the country. As he correctly stated, the current rules go back to the Taylor report, published in the aftermath of the unnecessary loss of life at Hillsborough. He is absolutely right that that tragedy is the backdrop to this debate, and as he will know, many in his party as well as mine feel strongly about the issue. The Minister for Sport who preceded the hon. Member for Bradford South was among those who felt strongly that there should be no return to safe standing.
Having considered the basics of the case, I think that it is now generally accepted that most football grounds, for a vast number of reasons, are safer and more comfortable than they were 15 or 20 years ago, although I understand why many supporters miss the tradition, the feel and the atmosphere that some grounds had before. I checked the injury statistics for the past few seasons collected by the Football Licensing Authority. They suggest that spectators are less likely to be injured at all-seater grounds than at those that retain standing accommodation. I am aware that those statistics rely on self-reporting, which is always a dangerous statistical basis, and therefore might not provide a wholly reliable indicator of the relative injury rates, but I think that it is generally accepted across football that standing still presents a greater risk of injury, although the extent of that risk is open to debate.
Seating also offers higher standards of comfort, as is probably self-evident, and provides spectators with their own defensible spaces, which can only contribute to encouraging families and increasing the diversity of those attending football matches in recent years. I am sure that we all support that. I know that no one is suggesting that we should return to the arrangements in place 15 or 20 years ago, but I am not convinced at this stage that a compelling case has been made to change the policy on standing areas.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone in which he is responding to this debate and for acknowledging that the power does not lie with him, but I hope that he will also acknowledge that there were other factors leading to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. Yes, seating was one, but there were also crowd control issues, and there were no spill-over areas. The many changes that have been implemented and are now displayed every Saturday or Tuesday night mean that standing or seated, we can avoid what happened on that day. I hope that new technology might allow clubs not in the premier or championship leagues to consider piloting that idea in certain parts of the stands.
Hugh Robertson
I do not believe that the presence of all-standing areas was the contributory factor at Hillsborough; that is self-evidently ridiculous. A basket of factors contributed to that disaster, including crowd control, as my hon. Friend says. He is also right that technology has moved on considerably during that period. That said, there are also new elements of technology that rely on fans being seated—the police, for example, say that crowd control via CCTV is much easier if fans are seated than if they are standing—so the argument cuts both ways.
As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe knows, our coalition partners previously agreed a conference motion asking for the provision of some safe standing areas to be considered. I remember that the hon. Member for Bradford South and I kicked about the issue, if that is not an unfortunate pun, a year or so ago when we were on opposite sides of the House. At the urging of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), I have reconsidered the issue, as I promised in opposition we would. I have written to all the football authorities, and we are in the process of collating their responses.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe that he was right to quote the letter from the Football League. As he correctly said, they replied:
“Football League clubs, particularly Leagues One and Two, are evidence that standing at football is safe when managed correctly.”
But the next sentence reads:
“However, we cannot support a retrograde step that would lead to clubs seeking to replace seating with terracing. The Football League strongly supports existing legislation.”
There is a balance to be struck. We are in the process of collating football authorities’ responses. I am keeping an open mind, but to be honest, there is no groundswell of opinion from the football authorities in favour of a change. I think that they are just as scarred by the Hillsborough experience as many of us who are or have been in government. That is a powerful backdrop and should always be so. There is considerable nervousness about moving, giving that backdrop.
Steve Rotheram
I think that the Minister would agree that this country has had an exemplary record since the Hillsborough tragedy, but that is not necessarily the case for the rest of the footballing world. Because of all-standing stadiums, there are tragedies all too regularly in which people are crushed to death, and it is obvious that that fear is the backdrop against which my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe has put forward his proposals.
Hugh Robertson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and, once again, for the excellent debate on football that he secured in this Chamber a few months ago. He has put his finger exactly on the issue. The matter is characterised less by people being at either one end of the argument or the other, and more by a balance of risk somewhere in the middle.
I absolutely accept the arguments that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe has put forward, and many people feel that the risk could be safely managed in such a way that retains the traditional feel of football clubs. On the other hand, a considerable body of opinion on the other side of the line would argue that there are a number of reasons why that should not happen. On the balance of opinion, therefore, and given the backdrop of Hillsborough, we must do nothing that could in any way lead to such a tragedy. That, in a nutshell, is the argument about balance that I am trying to sum up.
We have looked at the experience of other countries and will continue to do so. I am aware of the arrangements in Germany, funnily enough, because I attended football matches there when I was serving in the forces in the early 1990s. I am also aware that things have moved on considerably in the 18 or 19 years since then. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe might be interested to know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is planning to look at the matter in the new year as part of its wide-ranging inquiry on football governance and intends to visit Germany to look at the experience there, so the matter remains current and is being examined.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s football club, to which I once again pay tribute for its achievements, the difficulty is that it has had three years to comply with the requirement. I understand why it does not welcome any sort of financial outlay in the current economic situation, particularly to make a correction that it does not feel is necessary on grounds of safety. However, since Hillsborough there has been a set of basic criteria governing the regulation of football. That has been lifted only once, for Cardiff City, because of a particular set of circumstances.
I can promise the hon. Gentleman today that we will most certainly keep the experience in other countries in the forefront of our minds. It is not a matter that we will review once and then drop. The fact that the hon. Member for Bradford South and I discussed that at considerable length when he was in government and I was in opposition should give the hon. Member for Scunthorpe confidence that it is something that the Government keep permanently under review. There are also pressure groups that ensure that we keep it permanently under review, and we will continue to do so. I will wait until I have received all the responses and then have some proper police advice, so for the moment I am keeping an open mind.
However, it would be dishonest not to tell the hon. Gentleman today that in my view the judgment will very much relate to the balance of opinion, and there is not a groundswell of opinion, from either the football authorities or the police, that would support a change in the legislation. For the moment, I simply congratulate him on securing the debate and on the way in which he has raised the matter. I appreciate the sensible and constructive way in which he has brought the problem forward. Most importantly, I wish his club good luck; it is a fantastic example of what we are looking for in community football. We will keep the issue under review, but I am afraid that I do not think that there is a compelling case at the moment for altering the rules, set against the backdrop of the Hillsborough disaster 20 years ago.
Seaside Towns (Regeneration)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and to see so many colleagues from all parts of the perimeter of this country here today.
I am sure that the Minister was as pleased as I was when the Prime Minister described tourism as one of the best and fastest ways of generating the jobs that the country so badly needs. For too long, it has been the Cinderella business sector. It has been ignored for many years, but the Prime Minister put it on the pedestal that it deserves.
No one would be here today if they did not recognise the value of tourism to their constituency. In Thanet alone, it is valued at £162 million a year. We want to ensure that the tourism sector grows, that the small businesses in it thrive, and that new businesses are created in our coastal regions. Tourism and the associated economic activity are critical to our future.
Coastal communities are what I call pocket economies. They do not always react in the same way as the rest of the country; they often behave counter-cyclically. When the rest of the economy was thriving in the 1980s, seaside towns, and Thanet in particular, were suffering. During the Brown boom, Thanet did not benefit from the economic vibrancy of the rest of the country. Deprivation increased, worklessness was not addressed, and property prices rose only modestly. Coastal communities lag behind the rest of the economy and, in some instances, are passed by altogether.
Coastal communities have much more in common with one another than with their prosperous neighbours. If we compare Thanet with Canterbury, which is a mere 20-mile drive away, in Thanet, average salaries are £60 a week less than in Canterbury, there is double the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants, and vacancies are 25% of those available in Canterbury. There is no guarantee that our pocket economies will necessarily benefit from any upturn in the general economy. We also have high levels of public sector jobs, and few, if any, large company employers. Currently, my constituency is the 64th most deprived district in the country—not exactly the profile one would expect in the south-east.
On a positive note, perhaps the lack of modernisation and development can deliver a unique proposition. Cloned high streets have passed us by, large hotel chains and restaurants prefer more central locations, and developers have looked for easier pickings. We are unusual and quirky, and we have personality and character—a rarity in the world which should offer us a competitive edge. Thanet has 26 miles of sandy beaches, cliffs like those in the Algarve, walks suitable at any time of the year, and architecture that rivals any in the country. It is an historic mecca: from the Romans to the Beatles, we have had it all, with every invasion other than the Norman conquest and every major war fought from Thanet’s shores, and we have all the sights that go with those great British triumphs.
Two weeks ago, Thanet was nominated as one of the 12 most desirable locations in the world—can hon. Members believe that? We were celebrated in the same breath as Rio de Janeiro, Santiago in Chile, and Stockholm. This week, one of our local hotels was named the best small hotel in the country, and we have many more hotels and bed and breakfasts like it. However, we need a step change. We need to change the way in which our coastal towns are perceived and marketed. Traditionally, seaside towns have been marketed as locations for the sunny summer months but, to maximise the opportunities and great visitor experiences, we need clear strategies to increase significantly our out-of-season business.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I represent what is perhaps an unknown part of the country in west Wales—the Ceredigion coastline. The hon. Lady is getting to the point where she is really talking about responsibility for the branding of our respective areas. I applaud local initiatives such as the Cambrian Mountains initiative, and I have hopes for the promotion of Cardigan bay. Who will be responsible for branding? Will we rely on local initiatives, or do we expect—and, I hope, anticipate—more of a lead from the centre, in particular VisitBritain?
Laura Sandys
Those are certainly questions for the Minister, but I think that what we need to do centrally more than anything else is to change the perception of seaside towns. The view is that if we put a beach on the website, the tourists will come over the summer months—and they do. Certainly Thanet does not need as much input for the summer months. However, we need to ensure that people appreciate the area whatever the time of year. I was walking on a beach with snow on it, and it was stunning. We have to understand that there is an all-year-round marketing opportunity.
Further to what my hon. colleague rightly said, we need a Minister for out-of-season marketing. Last weekend, I looked at the VisitBritain and VisitEngland websites. In many ways, they do a great job promoting this country, but it took six clicks to reach one seaside resort—Eastbourne—and no other. Under “things to do”, there is no mention of seaside towns. In the packages that they present for Canterbury and Lincoln, there is no suggestion that visitors extend their stay by a couple of days to visit the beauty of Thanet or Skegness, only a few miles down the road.
I accept that this is not an obvious time to visit our beaches, but I would like to ask the Minister what he thinks about the beaches in Weston-super-Mare at this time of the year. Would families not love to visit the SeaQuarium in Weston-super-Mare on their way to Wookey Hole? We need to ask our tourism marketers to be more creative about the opportunities that they offer to extend the season in areas that have been wrongly pigeonholed as summer locations, to think creatively about how they can add economic value and play a part in the regeneration of our coastal communities with taxpayers’ pounds, and not just be offered as window dressing for locations that are already international household names.
Extending the season is crucial for us all. If we could achieve that, we would increase revenues by 15% to 25%, increase employment, which is currently seasonal, and support our high streets and small retailers. That must be a crucial objective for us all. We need to be on the main websites all year around—that is fundamental—so changing the mentality of the marketers is crucial.
We must also look at what other countries do very successfully, not least social tourism, which is a concept not well understood in the UK; frankly, it is not understood at all. It is about offering out-of-season opportunities to people on lower incomes, people with disabilities and older people. The models range from those that involve public subsidy to those that cost the Government nothing. The Belgian tourism body will not register a hotel or holiday establishment that does not provide free or discounted holiday nights out of season. At no cost to the public purse, it incentivises accommodation owners to ensure that they provide discounted offers. In Spain, the Imerso scheme, which offers senior citizens off-peak holiday breaks by the sea, has led to a 10% increase in tourism revenue and a 16% increase in tourism employment. In France, 135,000 establishments accept vouchers available for those on low incomes, generating €3 billion for the French tourism economy every year. That system costs the Government nothing and is an incentive package that companies offer their lower-paid workers. I am sure that many hon. Members in the Chamber would like to establish a working group with the Minister’s Department to see if we can create a sustainable scheme that would generate such revenues for our seaside towns out of season.
There is one final issue on which I should like the Minister’s support. Many of us who spoke, or who wanted to speak, in the debate on the Daylight Saving Bill on Friday were a little disappointed. The measure would support our weaker pocket economies in coastal areas at almost no cost, and if they adopted it, the Government would increase Thanet tourism revenue by 10%. Nationally, the measure would boost tourism revenues by £3.5 billion and generate about 80,000 jobs —quite an impact for just one measure. The fact that the Government did not even want to investigate what measures could be put in place was particularly unhelpful. Even the Scottish nationalists, who are against the proposal, conceded that perhaps there is a case for putting back the date when we revert to Greenwich mean time. Even an extension to the end of November would make a serious difference. I hope that my hon. Friend, as Minister responsible for tourism, will make further representations to other parts of Government to consider this issue again.
I urge the Minister, who is a great champion of tourism and heritage and who represents a seaside town, to support us in this push for greater marketing out of season, for consideration of social tourism or other mechanisms to ensure that we can get the most out of our exceptional accommodation on the coast and for daylight saving to be regarded as a priority for the regeneration of our coastal communities. That is not just for our benefit. It would benefit the Treasury in increased taxes. The Minister could put a smile on the face of the Department for Work and Pensions by reducing unemployment in some of the most intractable parts of the country, help the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills increase the number of new business start-ups in coastal towns and help us break the cycle of deprivation and economic stagnation that so many of us face locally.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on giving a focus to this debate by analysing with great skill many of the problems in seaside towns.
I apologise if I do not sound like my usual cheerful self, Mr Crausby. I have a disease that I am trying to throw off. Were I in the sun-kissed environment of Southport, I am sure that this would not be so. I represent Southport, which some people say is only technically a seaside resort, because we have so much beach that it takes some time to get to the sea. None the less, it has regenerated itself successfully in recent years and I am proud of what has been achieved there.
It might help new hon. Members if I rehearsed some things that were done in the previous Parliament. There has always been a group of Members of Parliament from seaside resorts who have got together to co-ordinate their efforts and put pressure on the Government to deal with their specific concerns. In the previous Parliament, we were helped by a report on coastal towns from the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. I sat on that Committee and I assure hon. Members that it was not easy to get Committee members to consider that matter, because they thought that it was a marginal issue and perhaps not sufficiently substantive to occupy a serious Committee. But that was done, and it was a surprising success.
Initially, the Government response to that report was fairly negative and bland. Phyllis Starkey, then Chair of the Committee, asked the Department to consider its response again and, to our surprise—there might have been a change of Minister—the second response was a great deal more positive. “Sea Change” funding appeared, which was to be administered by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, and there was a clear cross-departmental focus on the problems of seaside resorts, which was wholly helpful. At about that time, regional development agencies were given responsibility for tourism and asked to look specifically at the regeneration of seaside towns, in addition to other topics that they are more familiar with, such as urban regeneration.
We found from the Committee’s report that it was hard to generalise about seaside towns, because they are all so different; they are not only in different parts of the country, but are different in character and history. Some concentrate on fishing and others on fairgrounds. There really are quite stark differences between many resorts. Skegness is not the same as, or anything like, Brighton, although it happens also to be on the sea.
A cluster of problems can be found in most seaside towns. They normally have an interesting past, but equally they have a rather uncertain future, and sometimes an uncertain view of where they should go. I visited Margate with the Select Committee, not too far away from the constituency of the hon. Member for South Thanet, and found a town torn in two directions. People wanted to go different ways. Some wanted the old fairground back and wanted Margate to become a place of pleasure rides, and others wanted to build on the Turner heritage, and the light of that area, and have a more aesthetic development. I am not sure which direction that area went in, but that difference of opinion crystallises a general view that I have formed, which is that all seaside resorts, if they are to go anywhere, need some view of what they are essentially like.
Southport has been successful because it has not tried to rival Blackpool and has a concept of itself as a classic resort, which is distinctive, and it plays to its strengths, such as Lord street and, generally speaking, the Victorian environment—and as a market brand, it works. But like many other places, it also has problems with its housing stock, particularly the hosts of large houses built for the days when thousands of people trooped there regularly to fill out boarding houses. That means that such places end up with a skewed housing stock. In some towns on the Kent coast, that housing stock is filled with a disproportionate number of benefit claimants. There are genuine housing problems. Sorting out seaside towns’ problems is not just about attending to tourism, but about attending to housing and transport, which is a huge issue for most seaside resorts because they are often difficult to access, having been built and grown up in the days when trains were the way forward.
In making changes and developing the character of these places, we should consider that often seaside towns are blessed with a disproportionate number of retired people. That has a good effect, in so far as it ensures that there is a relative level of prosperity in the town. However, in respect of implementing change, as people get older they possibly do not welcome change in the same way as people do when they are young. In resorts that we Committee members visited, we often found contentious political divisions about the character of development in the town. An additional problem is generated by the fact that a lot of people living and working in seaside towns work in the public sector and will feel the impact of public sector cuts.
Sorting out the problems of seaside towns is not something that should just be thrown at the door of the Minister with responsibility for tourism; it should be thrown at the Government as a whole, because it is a matter of cross-departmental working. The previous Government recognised that.
Laura Sandys
I totally agree that the issue of coastal towns is a multi-departmental one; I do not detract from that, but I feel strongly that we in coastal communities have to address each of the issues with each of the Ministers, and then bring that together through the cross-departmental committee. It is crucial that Ministers with responsibility, who can have an impact on our communities, understand that we face many challenges and find out what levers they can pull to assist us. The fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), has responsibility for tourism and is the MP for a seaside town is a great asset for us.
Dr Pugh
Absolutely. I do not disagree with that analysis. Tourism genuinely helps in an extraordinary way. Too often in our tourist propaganda, we forget that our coasts are a fantastic asset. We tend to think of London, Edinburgh and bits in between, such as Stratford-upon-Avon. International publicity does not stress a strength that was well illustrated by the BBC programme. We have a fantastic coast, which is a fantastic asset, and we should make more of it. When I was at an embassy in France, I picked up propaganda for the north-west of England, hoping to find references to Southport, or at least Blackpool, but there were none. I found Oswaldtwistle, but I do not even know what it is, and I have lived in the north-west most of my life.
VisitBritain—I have said this before—has something to learn, but we must all learn how to deal with our new environment. If regeneration of seaside resorts is to progress, we will presumably have to work hand in hand with the new local enterprise partnerships, which will be centred predominantly in urban conurbations and will not have a natural feel for the problems of seaside resorts. They will need to be advised, instructed or directed not to leave out places that will, in most LEPs, be on the margins or the coast.
We must also recognise among ourselves—the community of coastal MPs—that whatever prospects we thought there were, before the time of austerity, of new transport links being delivered overnight have probably receded, and that that will not happen any time soon. We must work hard for our salvation. Most seaside resorts, their communities, and councils who understand the state of play recognise that. I believe that there is a role for the Government—this was the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for South Thanet—in sewing the pieces together and ensuring that good practice is spread, and in ensuring that when resorts have a clear vision of their own destiny and are prepared to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, they are given every encouragement to do so.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
I want to focus briefly—I know that other hon. Members want to speak—primarily on the economic importance of tourism to Great Yarmouth and other coastal towns. We know that tourism is one of the largest employment industries in the country. I think it is the fifth biggest, involving more than 200,000 people. In Great Yarmouth, it is the biggest employer by quite a long way—the NHS is second—with 5,600 people involved. To put that in context, tourism is one of the largest industries in Norfolk, where there are about 11,000 people working in it. More than half of the entire county’s employment in tourism is in Great Yarmouth, so its importance to our economy is massive.
Tourism is driven primarily by local, private, often family-owned businesses, such as hotels and providers of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and the tourist authority is very active. We are talking about 30% of the entire work force of Great Yarmouth, and half of that 30% work in seaside-related tourism. Those are the figures, and Steve Fothergill’s work on that is to be commended and should be read by everyone who is interested in coastal towns, but in a town such as Great Yarmouth, it is probably more like 80% or 90% who are tied to the coastal attraction. Our only other areas of tourism that do not have the seaside link are the broads, a third of which are in Great Yarmouth.
It is important when moving forward to consider how to market our coastal towns, and it is absolutely correct that we must consider how to develop them in the 21st century. Tourism in many of our coastal towns is that classic British archetypal postcard idea, but things have moved forward. Apart from the fact that there is more competition, because people can travel abroad more cheaply and find guaranteed weather more easily, we all demand more value for our money, particularly in times of austerity. It is important that coastal towns recognise that.
Great Yarmouth has done some excellent work in developing and improving tourism. Some independent and family companies, such as Potters, a family holiday resort, have upgraded to become five-star resorts, and that has a positive impact on the entire area, as does focusing on attracting people and explaining that there is more than just the seaside. There are zoos and the broads. We must be clear about that.
It is extremely beneficial to all tourism areas, especially coastal areas, to have a Minister who really understands the issues. He is methodical and careful about ensuring that he is briefed on the entire range of issues affecting tourism towns. I look forward to welcoming him to Great Yarmouth next year, and I hope that that will be when the weather is just a bit warmer.
It would be hugely beneficial to consider how marketing is carried out, particularly through VisitBritain and VisitEngland. At the moment, much of that marketing is funded through the regional development agencies, and a complaint that I often hear is that the RDAs, particularly the East of England Development Agency in the eastern region, do not understand or focus on what coastal towns want. We need a body that understands and focuses on tourism, and a body that our tourist authorities and local authorities can better understand, instead of the quango system. That would be a more logical way of moving forward.
There are opportunities, and their economic value is huge. In Great Yarmouth we hope to have one of the large casinos. That would bring the benefit of up to 1,000 jobs, and bring a different type of person to the town. The best we can achieve from debates such as this, and from the Government, is help to raise our profile nationally, and to show people the importance of tourism. Much tourism in coastal towns focuses on independent businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises that need extra motivation and support to ensure that they can develop. Many areas suffer from a limited season, including Great Yarmouth, where one of the most deprived wards in the country has unemployment of 16% and, in some years, 18% just because of seasonality.
We are moving forward. We are developing the energy industry and considering how, with the casino and other developments, to extend the season, but we need extra motivation and support. If we can find some economic drive, and courage to change the way in which we market such towns, that might help to stretch the season. We must incentivise independent business people to understand that they should invest further, and persuade some of the bigger organisations and companies who invest in coastal and tourism towns throughout Europe to look at the benefit of investing in British coastal towns. When they understand that even a town that is not the biggest in the world, such as Great Yarmouth, has a tourism industry that is worth around £500 million a year with more than 5 million visitors, they will see that there is a huge amount of business for people, and that will bring a real benefit to the British economy. I recommend that the Government support that as much as they possibly can.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing this debate. Just as tourism is often the reason for the existence of our seaside towns, it is often key to the ongoing regeneration and growth of those communities. The leisure and business facilities that attract inbound visitors also improve the economic and cultural lives of our residents. Anchor attractions, quality hospitality, retail facilities, festivals and events are key drivers in regenerating seaside towns, revitalising the image and refreshing the offering. I want to highlight a few ways in which the tourism sector can be a driver for the regeneration of seaside towns for the benefit of residents and visitors alike.
The first is cultural tourism. The reputation of seaside towns as backward and tacky is turned on its head when a more inspirational offering is added to the mix, such as has been done in Brighton and Hove. Recent years have seen a huge increase in the popularity of festivals and events, and Brighton and Hove can probably claim the title, “City of Festivals”, with its year-round calendar of major events incorporating music, arts and theatre, food and drink, sport and outdoor pursuits, fashion and retail, and many more.
Festivals are a relatively low-cost and self-contained way for seaside towns to reposition themselves. For example, the Brighton and Hove food and drink festival supports the entire supply chain from farm to fork, and creates year-round promotion of the city as a quality destination for food lovers. The Sussex fashion awards, which are scheduled for February 2011, are another example and had the good sense to invite me to be a judge. Brighton dome and festival is a pairing of a year-round cultural festival to provide joined-up thinking and resources. However, health and safety rules, licensing costs, and restrictions applied by local councils on outdoor events and carnivals can have the effect of de-incentivising organisers. As events are one of the key creators of a buzzing, thriving economy, this is one relatively straightforward area where local councils and the Government can act rapidly to allow the private sector to facilitate change.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know how lucky he is to represent a constituency that is so close to mine in the great tourist resort of Brighton and Hove. It has nearly 8 million visitors a year who provide £0.75 billion to the economy every year, and 14,000 people are employed in the tourism industry. He is right to say that tourism is not just about the beach and the sea. There is a variety of important cultural attractions in the city that we represent. Things such as music and arts, which I know are dear to my hon. Friend’s heart, are important drivers, together with traditional attractions such as the Palace pier.
I would like to raise one point, and I thank my hon. Friend for allowing this interruption—
Simon Kirby
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need better train services to enable people to come and see our great city?
Mike Weatherley
I thank my hon. Friend for that speech, and for taking the impact of most of my speech away. If I may, I will return to the point about transport in a few minutes.
Unfortunately, many seaside towns in the UK have problems managing the night-time economy. Many councils and residents look with disdain at bars and clubs and their patrons, and a cultural shift is required to move on and recognise the economic benefits of that sector. Within Brighton and Hove, the night-time economy raises a figure in excess of £400 million a year, which goes a long way towards the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. A thriving night-time economy is one of the strongest draws for visitors to the coast and, increasingly, for the “silver mature” market, which includes myself. The night-time economy should be embraced and helped, not legislated against. Extended licensing hours, for example, have generally benefited the city, rather than had a negative effect.
One of the main blocks to feel-good tourism in the UK is the continued lack of investment in the infrastructure of seaside towns. That leads to limited and expensive parking and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) noted, inadequate rail facilities. Due to necessary but never-ending engineering works, Brighton and Hove is often inaccessible by direct rail at weekends, and the road works and lack of road capacity result in endless traffic jams at peak times. The cumulative effect of that has a negative impact on visitors, and the lack of investment in city centre parking in Brighton and Hove is a major obstacle to future development. The past decade of discouraging car use was a mistake; an integrated transport system is required, rather than forcing through one form of transport.
Congestion charging says to visitors, “Please do not come here.” Let us hope that that idea is never implemented in Brighton and Hove, which depends on welcoming visitors rather than turning them away. The same applies to parking fines. Car parking should be a council priority when looking at investment in buildings and other attractions. I would also like to see proposals for the monorail along our seafront progressed. That would be an innovative scheme, and a first for the country. Such proactive development will boost the importance and desirability of the city as a destination.
I welcome the coalition shift towards having more planning decisions taken locally, and I hope that that does not lead to fewer planning approvals. Our record in Brighton and Hove over the past 20 years may be attributed to the proposal of inappropriate schemes, and to intransigent developers trying to foist their schemes on the city. It is also due to a cumbersome planning permission regime.
Although it is important to protect the unique Georgian and Victorian architectural heritage of our seaside towns, which have no equivalent in the world, it is equally important to see them as living, breathing spaces with economies to support. We need to get the balance right between protecting the best bits, and being bold enough to replace the mediocre.
In summary: it is time to regenerate. Tourism is vital to my constituency, and we should encourage investment in destination hotels and attractions—the relaxation of some planning controls would help. We should also embrace the night-time economy, avoid excessive legislation and red tape, improve transport infrastructure, especially car parking, and recognise the importance of the tourism sector with tax breaks for small companies. For example, I would like to see the national insurance scheme currently proposed for the rest of the country extended to those cities in the south that require an occasional boost to tourism. Such issues are vital for Hove and Portslade, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to working with the Government.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing this important debate. Like a moth to a flame, as a Blackpool MP I find it hard to resist any debate on tourism and seaside towns. Today, however, I do not want to talk about Blackpool. Close observers of the annunciator will have noticed that I represent Blackpool North and Cleveleys. Cleveleys is also a seaside town with a tourism industry, although it does not receive as much attention as its big brother to the south.
Many people holiday in Cleveleys without going anywhere near Blackpool. It offers a wonderful expanse of coast and some of the finest promenade architecture that we have seen built in this country over the past 25 years. Bus trips come for the day from far and wide. During the general election, I had a street stall in Cleveleys. By half-past 10 in the morning I was spending more time convincing voters from constituencies such as Stoke-on-Trent Central to vote Conservative than I was convincing those from my constituency. Obviously, I did not do enough because we failed to win the seat in Stoke-on-Trent Central, but I did my bit.
Cleveleys has flat pavements. Hon. Members may wonder why I mention that, but flat pavements are unusual in seaside towns and they make the town accessible. A large number of coaches come to Cleveleys full of disabled tourists who know that it is an accessible resort that they can get around despite their mobility problems. Large numbers of pensioners also come to Cleveleys—again, because it is easy to get around.
Cleveleys has a good variety of shops and a large number of cafés for people to sit in should a shower pass over. One such place is the Carousel Café, which is run by the president of the chamber of trade, Martin Hunns. Although Cleveleys has some wonderful, positive aspects, it also has a few downsides. If one asked Martin about Cleveleys, as I am sure people do, he will say one thing:
“We have gone on for years about parking in Cleveleys. All this money has been spent on this beautiful promenade but people are being turned away because there is nowhere to park.”
The town is concerned about the sustainability of the range of shops on the main streets, and the future of its indoor markets. One such market is to close suddenly, although I gather that an improved version is on the way. A medium-sized seaside town such as Cleveleys has positive and negative aspects, but the main challenge it faces is that of marketing, branding and communication—something that other hon. Members have also mentioned. Who should do that marketing, and how?
I want to pay tribute to a lady called Jane Littlewood who runs a small business, Rabbit Design. She moved to Cleveleys from South Yorkshire, and saw the opportunity the moment she arrived. She now runs a website that promotes tourism in Cleveleys, which she does entirely on her own without any public funding. Unsurprisingly, the website is called visitcleveleys.co.uk, and I encourage hon. Members to do just what it says and visit Cleveleys. As Jane says,
“the coastal Wyre area hasn’t previously been strongly promoted as a tourism area, and Cleveleys has plodded along under its own steam…Promoting the website and promoting Cleveleys are inextricably linked, and a raft of publicity has gone out this year in north west publications, including Lancashire Life. Links are being developed with the local authority and tourism marketing agencies to develop the brand much further for the future.”
What Jane does is more than a voluntary initiative and a nice idea; I think that it is the future for destination marketing in this country. For too long, we have assumed that the responsibility for marketing our seaside towns should lie with some sort of public body, be it local government, VisitEngland, VisitBritain—or visit whoever—or even the Minister’s Department. Here, however, we have someone taking the initiative and doing something for the benefit of their community without a public body intervening. I hope that hon. Members will not groan when I say that that might just be an example of the big society in action.
If we look a little to the south of my constituency, although not as far as Southport, we see that South Ribble and West Lancashire have the Heart of Lancashire Tourist Association. It was recently spun off as a community interest company and is owned by the very businesses that it promotes. It is a true co-operative and does not need to be sustained by public funding. When we see the Minister’s domestic tourism strategy, I hope that VisitEngland will have become not a body that picks and chooses the places that it promotes, but a repository of understanding and knowledge about how best to promote tourism in the UK.
VisitBritain’s role is quite distinct: it is to encourage overseas visitors to come to the UK. I hope that it will work hard to encourage Chinese people to come and enjoy Blackpool pleasure beach, which will certainly be a cultural experience for them in many ways. VisitEngland, however, really has to focus on understanding how we promote domestic tourism. We all talk about the cliché of the “staycation”, which might well be a passing, transient phenomenon, but we need to understand that there is a wide variety of holidays that our citizens can take in this country.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet mention the concept of social tourism, which is close to my heart. I urge anybody who does not know what it is to come to the inaugural meeting of my all-party group on social tourism next week, where they can find out far more about the subject. They might even take part in the inquiry that the Family Holiday Association is organising for the start of next year on defining just what we mean by social tourism. We should try to find new ways of developing tourism and spreading its wider benefits to disadvantaged groups.
I wonder how many Members here have heard of the Family Fund, an organisation that spends almost £30 million of Government money on giving families with disabled children short breaks in the UK. Many people say that we do not do social tourism in the UK, but we do, and the Government already spend £30 million a year on it. We need to understand what goes on already and what could go on in the future, and my hon. Friend mentioned many examples. We need to understand what benefits that could bring us.
I am really looking forward to reading the Minister’s domestic tourism strategy, and I hope that it is a long read, because there is a lot that we need to deal with. When he presents it, however, we will have to address the fact that tourism does not stand in isolation. Tourism promotion, particularly in places such as Blackpool, can be hampered by some of the negative feelings that people have about seaside towns. Branding is not just about Blackpool town, the pleasure beach or the nice seaside; it can also be about some of the negative headlines on social problems that people read in our newspapers.
Before the debate, I asked the Library to put together a ranking of all Conservative-held constituencies by deprivation. I had a theory that there would be a concentration of very poor Conservative-held seats in seaside towns, and that is indeed the case. Of the top 10 Conservative-held constituencies by deprivation, six are seaside towns, and the list is topped, unfortunately, by the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd)—that is perhaps not a list that she would wish to top, but she does none the less. I come in at No. 4.
Clearly, the role of tourism in the economic regeneration of seaside towns is crucial, but we cannot see it in isolation, and we must tackle every other silo of Government activity. That is why I am so pleased that responsibility for this issue, in addition to being based in the DCMS, ranges across several Departments. That is crucial, because until we get the whole picture right, we cannot hope to get tourism right.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I am delighted to take part in the debate, which gives many of us in the Chamber an excellent opportunity to share our concerns about tourism in seaside resorts.
I want to begin by talking about deprivation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), I have done some research, although not just into Conservative-held seats. When I looked at the ranking of towns according to the number of personal insolvencies and bankruptcies, four of the top five were seaside towns. I am afraid that one of them was Hastings, while another, which is closer to my constituency, was Plymouth, although it was a little further down the list.
One reason why such towns are so deprived is that they have relied on support from industries such as engineering and fishing. Teignmouth, in my constituency, used to have a much more active and profitable fishing industry, but that is no longer the case, and most of the catch must now be landed in Brixham. Solving the problems of seaside towns is not, therefore, just about tourism, although it plays a key role. We must also look at how we build supplementary businesses and industries. Much as I agree with hon. Members that the challenge is to ensure that tourism continues all year round, we must accept that there will always be more of it in the summer and that there will be a fair few part-time, rather than full-time jobs.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I completely support my hon. Friend’s point. Does she agree that year-round interests, such as food tourism and heritage, are a particularly important part of the tourism offer? I am thinking particularly of food tourism in Kent, which has been a big growth area in the Canterbury and Faversham area and in Romney marsh, in my constituency.
Anne Marie Morris
I certainly agree, and that well-made point reiterates that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley).
The value of tourism is enormous. Members have mentioned several figures, but when I last looked at the issue, the prediction was that tourism would be worth £180 billion in this country by 2020. By that point, it will also be responsible for providing 2.89 million jobs, which is phenomenal. That would make a big difference to the current parlous state of the economy.
I represent part of Devon, which has 5.3 million visitors each year. That accounts for 7% of the Devon economy, which is well above average. In Teignbridge—the small heart of the part of Devon that I represent—32% of the work force are involved in tourism in some way or other. That is a very high figure, but it is not out of line with many of the figures that hon. Friends have mentioned.
Help is needed, because tourism is valuable for the growth of our economy and the recovery, but we need to identify how we make that help available, as many hon. Members have said. Perhaps I can briefly mention the key seaside towns in my constituency to help us see what the right solutions might be.
Dawlish Warren is a huge success story, and I am pleased about that. We have 800,000 visitors a year—on a good day, there are 20,000, which is a significant number. Why do we get those visitors? We have some excellent blue flag beaches and 505 acres of nature reserves, which attracts an interesting mix of tourists. However, we face the challenge of erosion, which is slowly pulling the beach back. As many hon. Members have said, the ability to solve such problems is not, dare I say it, in the gift just of this Minister, and I am pleased to say that I have had favourable responses on these issues from some of his Front-Bench colleagues.
Teignmouth is beautiful. It is a quintessential Victorian seaside town, but it, too, has its challenges. It has an ageing pier. It would be lovely if some of the suggestions made about lottery funding before the election could become a reality, because that could help. The town also has an ageing fish quay, which could receive EU funding and input, but those are proving quite elusive, and help from the Government in enabling seaside towns to make the most of EU opportunities would be extremely welcome.
Dawlish, which is a regency resort, is best known for its black swans. Jane Austen also stayed in the Strand, which is the main street running through the town. In answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys I would say that the big society is here in seaside towns. All three communities that I have mentioned have put together their own plans. They are well supported by the local community; there is not a great division. Indeed, the Dawlish plan is today on the Strand, ready to be inspected. What they need, having come up with the plan, is help with the solutions.
Clearly, No. 1 is marketing. I must declare an interest, because I am a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, and the issue is close to my heart. One of our concerns is that, while we need the big society, with communities doing their bit, we also need an appropriate framework and strategy, and a toolkit for making tourism work, and marketing it, as my hon. Friends the Members for Hove and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys were saying earlier. South West Tourism is the body that provides that guidance and framework at the moment in my part of the world. It will be disbanded in 2011 because it was under the aegis of the regional development agency, which clearly will not survive. What will replace it is an issue that is dear to my constituents’ and my heart. VisitEngland and VisitDevon provide some help and assistance, but they do not go to the heart of the need.
We need to grapple with the question of what the target market for tourism is. As hon. Members have articulated, the days of the bucket and spade brigade have declined, because those people are going to sunnier climes where they can guarantee the weather, and it is cheaper because they do not have to pay for entertainment when it is raining. We must think about not just social and cultural tourism, which are important, but those people who no longer have children at home—the so-called empty nesters—who are looking for a different type of holiday. They may want to combine a holiday across seaside resorts and rural sites. We need to think about what the target market is and how we segment it— by the type of holiday that people want to enjoy, or by geography? We need such a strategy, because otherwise all the efforts made locally will be fighting against each other. That has been one of the problems to date. In Dawlish the community has got together as a group to ask, “What do we do about our brand? What does Dawlish stand for? How could we market ourselves, together with Teignmouth, and perhaps some of the other destinations out on the moor?” Marketing is a key thing, and that is clearly one of the solutions.
The second issue relates to regenerating not just the housing stock but the fabric of the landmarks in the relevant communities. I have referred to our pier. I should love to find some money, perhaps from the lottery, to sort it out. One of the challenges with refurbishing seaside towns is VAT. VAT on new build, which is not really appropriate in this case, is zero-rated. However, we shall feel the full weight of the 20% rate next year. Would not it be wonderful if, for that type of regenerative building, the VAT rate could be 5%? I know that that is not in the Minister’s gift, but it is perhaps in that of some of his colleagues.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that we are one of only six countries left in Europe who charge double figures for hotel accommodation. The 21 who do not are all reporting increased turnover, increased tax take and an increased ability to create jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that our Government should seriously consider that?
Anne Marie Morris
I certainly agree. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) has raised that matter over the years. As my hon. Friend says, the rate is much lower across the continent. France has just brought it down to 7%. We need to look at that issue.
I suggest also that the Minister should consider business rates. They are the bugbear of many small businesses. Might we conceivably consider enabling communities to reinvest the business rates that are charged back into the community, the small businesses, and particularly tourism, which, certainly in my constituency, makes up a large part of the small business?
Damian Collins
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is encouraging that the Government, in their local growth White Paper, are including consideration of how councils can invest in the business infrastructure of their community and recoup that investment through tax increment financing in the future?
Anne Marie Morris
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend makes a good point.
I want to talk now about the challenge of part-time workers. There is often a disincentive for them to take jobs because of the way the tax system works. If they are not working enough hours to take them over the threshold below which they do not pay tax, when they take a second job they are instantly thrown into paying the full base rate. There needs to be a way to simplify the process, so that individuals who take on several part-time jobs are not penalised, and do not have to reclaim overpaid tax.
I know that Front Benchers are considering the issue of people working 16 hours before losing benefit, which has meant that holiday businesses that employ people on a short-term basis find that when they want the flexibility for that individual to work a couple more hours it cannot be done without a huge problem for the employee.
I want finally to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) about local enterprise partnerships. They can play a crucial role in providing the strategy and support that will enable community plans to become a reality. They can also play a crucial role in enabling us to find the funds for the different plans. It would be helpful if the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues could reinforce that point.
I look forward positively to the domestic tourism strategy. I am delighted that the Prime Minister said that he would like domestic tourism to increase from 35% to 50%. That is fantastic, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to make my case.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
There are three hon. Members left to speak. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at 3.40 pm exactly, so if hon. Members could share the time between them, that would be appreciated.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I shall keep my comments brief, Mr Crausby, and, if hon. Members do not mind, turn their attention to Wales for a short moment, in the full understanding that some of what we have been discussing this afternoon is devolved; the issues are common to seaside towns throughout the UK.
There are a few areas on which I should like the Minister, if possible, to comment, and reassure us. In my constituency we have 10 seaside towns, and no two are the same in their complications and economic and environmental circumstances. First, national parks are without a shadow of doubt a great asset, to be protected, and essential for a successful and effective tourism industry. However, there is a feeling, at least in my part of the world, that national park planning departments are a barrier to investment, progress and individuals who want to expand their tourist industry. It would be encouraging to hear from the Minister whether consideration will be given to merging in some way the local authority and national park planning functions, to minimise the chance of complications, which inevitably lead to the rejection of perfectly reasonable and positive planning applications, to the detriment of the local economy.
Secondly, I want to raise a planning-related matter—it has been mentioned before, but I want to put it in the specific context of agriculture: that is ensuring that the people on the fringes, not necessarily in the seaside towns, can diversify their agricultural businesses in a way that benefits the overall tourism attraction of the area. That issue is common to national park planning applications and to local authority applications.
Mr Mark Williams
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in a Welsh context, the planning experience he alluded to has hampered the development of agri-tourism, food tourism and green tourism, which we in west Wales are uniquely placed to develop fully?
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman is completely right. His constituency is only a few miles up the coast from mine and I recognise his concerns.
My third and penultimate point is about road and rail infrastructure. Of the 1 million international visitors to Wales, who have brought in £321 million in the recent past, a significant proportion—92%—made their journey to Wales in a car, but once people get as far as about Swansea it is almost impossible to travel any further west with any degree of comfort. It is even more difficult on a train. That is a subject for a future debate, when we will discuss the electrification of rail lines. We are not making things easy for the tourism industry in the west of Wales in that respect.
Finally, for the sake of brevity, let us not lose sight of the fact that although tourism is the subject of this debate, in my part of west Wales at least, coastal town regeneration is just as dependent on other industries as it is on tourism. To take the Milford Haven waterway as an example, in that location, there are two oil refineries and two gas terminals, and the biggest gas-fired power station in Europe is under construction. The inward investment to those enterprises is vital not only for the people who are immediately connected with them. The surrounding tourism industry and economic environment are linked to large-scale industrial investment just as much as they are to tourism. We must not lose sight of that. This is not a case of either/or; it can be both. I hope that in the Government’s proposals, those few points are taken into account.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on initiating it. I will try to be brief, and I will of course add to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), in that I am bringing Wales to the table today.
I have the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for Aberconwy. That means that I represent the seaside resort of Llandudno, which is recognised in Wales as the queen of Welsh resorts. The experience of Llandudno is very positive, because it has been a success story in many ways during the past few years, but before I focus on Llandudno, it is important to point out that seaside resorts and former seaside resorts have developed in different ways during the past 15 to 20 years. For example, the resort of Llanfairfechan in my constituency, has developed into a dormer village or dormer town. People live there to enjoy what is available there: the scenery, the beach and so on. Tourism can play a part in the further regeneration of Llanfairfechan, but the town has played its own game and decided to serve as a residential community, which is obviously perfectly acceptable.
Penmaenmawr is another resort in my constituency. Believe it or not, Penmaenmawr was the favourite resort of Gladstone, the former Prime Minister. He used to go there every summer to recharge his batteries. Penmaenmawr became an industrial area, dependent on quarrying, but it is now rediscovering tourism as a means of regeneration. The residents of Penmaenmawr, who are very proud of their association with the former Liberal Prime Minister, would be more than delighted to welcome the current Deputy Prime Minister. If things become a bit hot in London during the next few days, he is more than welcome to come to Penmaenmawr, where he can enjoy the seaside and the mountains and contribute to the redevelopment of the tourism sector in that town.
However, the real issue for me today relates to Llandudno, which is a great success, as it has retained its Victorian ambience but has also tried to modernise itself and ensure that it is a seaside resort that works all year round. A previous contributor commented on part-time work and casual work. One of the big challenges in relation to tourism and economic redevelopment is to ensure that the tourism sector can provide year-round employment. Llandudno is keen to ensure that it develops year-round tourism, and it has done that by being proactive about its marketing, ensuring that it draws in the Christmas market and so on. However, it has also worked in partnership with the local authority to ensure that it can offer conference facilities and entertainment. The local authority has worked with the tourism association in Llandudno to develop Venue Cymru, for example, where there are a large theatre and conference facilities. That means that Llandudno attracts tourists all year round, which has the added benefit of allowing businesses servicing those tourists and visitors to employ people and give them proper jobs for 52 weeks of the year, as opposed to the casual employment that they had to depend on in that sector in the past.
Another of Llandudno’s successes results from the fact that it has not seen tourism as something that works in isolation. In addition to being the queen of Welsh resorts, it has been the main shopping centre for north Wales for generations. The investment in retail has continued, and the important thing about that investment is that it is not just about the high street multiples, which are obviously very important to the local market. The wonderful thing about Llandudno is that it also offers independent retailers, who add to the experience for tourists when they come to the town. They have the feeling that they are in an old-fashioned resort. They can see the high street multiples, but they can also go to the back streets and find interesting retailers offering something completely different.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a council working with other councils in the region could bring in tourists for everyone? If a push is made to bring tourists to one village on its own, sometimes that does not work, but if a council works with other councils and other tourist destinations, with all their different attractions, everyone can benefit.
Guto Bebb
That is a very valuable contribution. Conwy council, which represents Llandudno, works in partnership with other local authorities, especially in relation to marketing the advantages of Snowdonia, for example, so yes, I agree with that point.
We are very fortunate that a large part of the town of Llandudno is under the management of Mostyn Estates. One of the strengths of Llandudno is that it has retained its character, due to the sympathetic management of the town by Mostyn Estates. That management has ensured that, for example, when people hit the prom in Llandudno, it looks extremely impressive. There are controls over the colour of the paint that can be put on hotels and there are controls in terms of not allowing buildings to be turned into houses in multiple occupation. That has kept the character of the town and has contributed to Llandudno’s success.
I shall finish with these questions and points for my hon. Friend the Minister, because I am aware that time is pressing. The Llandudno Hospitality Association has a number of concerns, including one that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. I am referring to VAT on hotel rates. One of Llandudno’s successes is that it has turned its attention to offering a broad range of accommodation, from bed and breakfasts to high-class boutique hotels. However, there is a concern that we face a VAT rate of 20% on hotel accommodation, compared with much lower rates in the rest of Europe.
It is worth mentioning that 3.1 million people live in seaside resorts in the UK. That is more than the population of Wales. Wales has a Secretary of State and a Welsh Assembly fighting its corner. Is the voice of seaside resorts heard across Government? I am sure that the coalition Government will ensure that that is the case, but I would like reassurance on that point.
Tourism should not be seen as a Cinderella sector in economic development. Local enterprise partnerships in England offer the opportunity to ensure that tourism development is part of those strategies. I hope that the LEP process in England learns the lesson from Wales. I am very disappointed, because the Welsh Assembly recently announced that it was targeting six specific sectors of the Welsh economy for growth and, for some bizarre reason, tourism was not included. I hope that the Minister will have more success in selling the importance of tourism as an economic development tool than his colleague did in the Welsh Assembly.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I have sprung to my feet in defence of the town of Hastings in my constituency, as it was placed in a not very positive category by a number of my colleagues. Deprivation in seaside towns is a fact. The point is well rehearsed and has been repeated by many hon. Members here today. It is true that Hastings suffers on many indexes of deprivation, but I will not refer to that now, because I should like instead to draw attention to some of the many wonderful aspects of Hastings. It has a large natural park around it. We have wonderful food and drink, and next year will see the arrival of the new Jerwood art gallery, which I hope will contribute to regenerating the town.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the amusement industry. We all know that the seaside tourism industry is linked to the amusement industry, and if the amusement industry is hampered, so is the economic growth of seaside towns. The amusement and bingo industry has been under pressure as a result of the Gambling Act 2005 and, as we know, that has been exacerbated by the recession. Given the wider debate about the economic viability of seaside towns, it is very important that the amusement industry is supported. We have heard today about many new initiatives to support seaside towns and their industries, but we must not forget the old one—the amusement industry and its slot machines, which are important in attracting tourists to our towns.
The regulatory framework of the 2005 Act is robust and exhaustive and went a long way in defending and supporting people, but it also had some unintended consequences, damaging seaside towns. I know that at the moment a Government consultation is under way about maximum stakes, premises and entitlements. I hope that the Minister will be able to introduce some positive changes when the consultation finishes, because many seaside towns have been suffering under those measures. I am thinking particularly of private clubs that are no longer allowed to offer high-paying slot machines. People who wish to use such slot machines must go instead to casinos and gambling places, which have a less benign atmosphere than private clubs, which causes problems. Will the Minister consider carefully what can be done to support the amusement industry, which is so important to seaside towns?
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing this important debate. She spoke passionately about the issues, which are vital to the lives and livelihoods of many people in her constituency, as they are to the people and economies of many other seaside towns up and down Britain. I hope that she and the other hon. Members who spoke will use their influence with their parties to bring the issue to the attention of the Government, and to press for the necessary steps to secure the future of our seaside towns and ensure that the regeneration of seaside and coastal areas does not slip off the agenda.
Tourism is incredibly important for the survival and regeneration of British seaside towns. It creates huge numbers of jobs, both for people directly employed in the industry and for many thousands more working in related industries. Millions of people visit the seaside every year—after London, Blackpool and Scarborough are the country’s second and third most popular destinations for overnight stays. In total, about 25% of domestic tourism is made up of people taking holidays at seaside and coastal towns. I have learned that Cleveleys is an attractive destination. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) spoke about the town’s accessibility, and I shall certainly look at the website he mentioned.
Many hon. Members noted that tourism alone cannot be held responsible for ensuring the future of coastal communities, but it has also been noted that it is essential to start with the industry that made these places popular and, in many cases, famous and well loved. That means supporting tourism and directing support to seaside towns that rely on it as an economic lifeline. As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) said, it means adopting a cross-departmental approach to help seaside and coastal towns tackle the problems that they face, and ensure that they remain, or return to being, places in which people want to live and work, as well as visit.
The coalition Government must take steps to end the cycle of seasonality that particularly affects coastal communities and to tackle joblessness and youth unemployment. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) spoke about the importance of the tourism industry in providing jobs for his constituents. The coalition should also act to provide better-quality and more affordable housing; to support the delivery of strong public services and infrastructure; to take steps to reduce the anti-social behaviour and crime that blights so many of our seaside towns; and to safeguard the growth of small and medium-sized businesses. The amusement industry, to which the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) referred, falls within that sector.
I have spoken to members of the tourism industry, and I was told this morning that, after a period of neglect and decline, it was the previous Labour Government who ensured sustained investment in seaside towns, delivered in particular through the regional development agency, which the coalition has scrapped. The previous Labour Government backed coastal tourism and worked hard to ensure that the British seaside was becoming, once again, an attractive place for people to live, work and enjoy simple pleasures, such as the beach and the sea, and popular visitor attractions.
Earlier this year, Labour launched its strategy for seaside success, which included £5 million to help the most deprived seaside authorities, building on its record in government of targeting an additional £127 million of funding on coastal local authorities to help them meet the particular challenges that seaside towns can face. The hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) discussed additional provision and activities in our seaside towns. Labour’s strategy also involved a “seasiding” campaign to promote festivals, other cultural initiatives and the non-seasonal economy, and to support the development of heritage attractions, for example, the renewal of historic piers. Those things are needed to make our seaside towns year-round destinations. The campaign involved plans to improve infrastructure, tackle disproportionate levels of deprivation in seaside towns, and work with regional and local bodies to ensure that seaside towns and seaside tourism could flourish. Hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), talked about the problem of deprivation in such areas.
The coalition’s cuts to RDAs and the budgets of organisations set up to promote tourism will hit hard and hurt at a time when the industry needs support, particularly in seaside towns that still depend heavily on tourism. The Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, have yet to show that they have the plans to secure the future of our seaside towns. Yes, we have heard lots of warm words about the state of seaside tourism in Britain, but I argue that they are simply an endorsement of Labour’s record, rather than a strategy that the Government will pursue while in office.
The Minister has taken the trouble to visit Britain’s seaside towns, which is to be welcomed, but we have yet to hear his findings, and we look forward to doing so. If the Government are to support seaside towns and continue Labour’s work to regenerate such areas, the coalition must tell people, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said, how seaside holidays and attractions in coastal towns will be advertised to appeal to visitors, following the 34% cuts to VisitBritain and VisitEngland and the 32% cut to the English Heritage grant. As the hon. Member for Southport said, what role will local enterprise partnerships play now that the Government are going to abolish regional development agencies? Will LEPs have any responsibility for the regeneration of our seaside towns?
The hon. Members for Newton Abbot and for Ceredigion referred to the impact on the tourism industry of the VAT rise to 20%. Has there been an impact assessment of its effects on our seaside and coastal towns? If so, I would like to see it. In short, what is the Government’s strategy for ensuring that tourism is supported so that it can continue to play an integral part in our seaside and coastal towns? Without Government support, British seaside towns and the people who live and work in them face another period of decline.
It is not enough to rely, as the Conservative party so often does, on the power of the private sector. I spoke to Peter Hampson, director of the British Resorts and Destinations Association, this morning, and he shares my concerns that, if the challenges facing seaside resorts are not addressed, if resorts are not protected and developed, and if budgets to attract tourists to them are consistently cut, then people will simply go elsewhere.
The coalition needs to answer a question for the tourism industry: the people whose livelihoods rely on seaside and coastal tourism and those who have chosen to make their lives at the British seaside. How much of the overall spend on promoting tourism will be directed to seaside towns? What plans do the Government have to ensure that work to support and regenerate seaside towns will continue? How can the Government expect the private sector to invest in seaside towns without seeing a clear lead from Government and the public sector? Without a clear and cohesive public policy to support seaside tourism and seaside towns, the risk is that places such as Ramsgate in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Thanet and other coastal resorts, about which we have heard a lot today, will decline once again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
It is a pleasure to have you as our Chairman today, Mr Crausby. I echo other hon. Members’ thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing the debate and leading it so well. She demonstrates that she is sticking up for her constituents in an incredibly effective fashion. Her lead has been followed during the debate by a great many other Members from seaside towns all around the country.
I think it was the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) who pointed out that although the problems and issues faced by seaside towns have a common thread running through them, seaside towns are different in different parts of the country. However, on the basis of today, if one thing about every seaside town is clear, it is that they all have a pretty determined local Member wanting to stick up for them here in Westminster. To put it politely, we are all as biased as each other, and convinced that our seaside town is far better than anyone else’s. I suspect that I fall into the same category, because I am of course convinced that Weston-super-Mare is the best seaside town in the country—I am getting frowns from the rest of the room.
Important points have been made. I will not take them in any particular order, but will endeavour to respond to as many of the questions and points raised as possible in the limited time available. There has been a shared conviction throughout the debate that tourism is an incredibly important part of the regeneration opportunities available to any seaside town. Tourism provides a superb opportunity for rapid economic growth in a financially efficient fashion.
We are lucky in the coalition Government to have a Prime Minister who was willing to mark his enthusiasm for the sector and recognise its importance by making a speech about it in August. Older hands at DCMS tell me that they cannot in recent decades remember a Prime Minister making a speech about the visitor economy within the first 100 days of a new Administration, and making the point that the sector is so important to the British economy that he wants to put it front and centre of the Administration’s economic plans. We are lucky to have the prime ministerial wind in our sails; it is tremendously helpful to have that kind of support. That is because, as a number of Members have rightly pointed out, tourism cuts across a wide variety of different Departments in Whitehall, so it is up to me and anyone else interested in the visitor economy to make the case for tourism in the Department for Transport, in the Home Office and with the UK Border Agency, and in all the different Departments that tourism touches. It is essential to ensure that everybody knows that we have high-level patronage and a great degree of importance attached to the industry.
The most commonly mentioned concern and opportunity was marketing. It was raised by a series of Members—my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), the hon. Member for Southport, and my hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and for Hove (Mike Weatherley); apologies to anyone I have left out. Marketing is essential, because since the 1980s seaside towns have faced the difficulty of establishing a new USP, or unique selling proposition—a new position within the market to bring people to them in the wake of the relative decline of the UK seaside bucket-and-spade holiday, after everyone started going to Spain and other places on cheap charter flights.
Some places have managed that brilliantly. We can all think of examples round the country where seaside towns have done well: Bournemouth has done extremely well out of the conference trade; Rock in north Cornwall has done well out of food tourism; festivals have brought seaside towns to life; and funfairs are one of the major draws to Blackpool, even now. A lot of development capital is going into the Blackpool seafront as we speak. There are ways of re-positioning a seaside town, by establishing a new marketing position that creates a new draw and underlying raison d’être. However, it is up to that individual seaside town to come up with its specific local example and to put it out there, so that people know why they might want to come to Weston-super-Mare, Hastings or wherever.
It is essential that the Government help that process to happen. The Government cannot do that from the centre, and tell any one seaside town what its new USP ought to be. That has to come from the local economy and the local tourism industry, supported by the local authority. One of the coalition Government’s most important initiatives is to assist the birth of a new kind of destination management organisation—a new kind of local tourism board, whatever it is called. It will be led by the local tourism industry, which lives or dies by the success of its local destination. We all have examples in our constituencies of well-run, high-powered, large and small local tourism firms that know what is right for them, and for Weston-super-Mare, Hastings or South Thanet. It is up to them to tell us what to do, and for us to ensure that they can create a destination marketing organisation that will position the town and attract new visitors to it on a sustainable basis.
That means that we need to have an organisation that is primarily managed and led by the local industry, rather than by the public sector. The public sector needs to support, help and do what it can, but we want the local industry to take a hard-headed commercial look at what the town can offer to visitors, and then market the heck out of it in the most commercially savvy way.
That means that the new DMOs, or whatever we want to call them, will essentially be managed and led by the local tourism industry. It is essential that that takes place. Equally, it is worth remembering that the phrase “destination management organisation” is not the same as “destination marketing organisation”, though they share an acronym. It is vital that when we have created the local destination marketing organisation, it acts as the voice of the visitor in the local community. The local industry should say, “It is essential that, working in conjunction with the local authority, we are able to frame our local tourism industry and attractions, and organise the local public spaces, in a way that shows off our town and its attractions to the best advantage.” That means it must have a strong voice—a seat at the table—with the local authority, and act as the voice of the industry and the visitor in any decisions that the local authority may take, in order to ensure that each seaside town’s unique charms are shown off to their best.
That is how we need to reform marketing. There will be a new kind of partnership marketing, a partnership between the local tourism industry and the local authority—ideally with matched funding—so that we can maximise the money being spent in an effective, commercial way to promote each seaside town to the utmost.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, and for South Thanet, mentioned social tourism. That is a particularly interesting idea that I discussed recently with Mr Tajani from the EU. There is an EU-wide programme called Calypso under way at the moment. It is an interesting notion that we need to explore carefully. Members will be aware that there is a very limited pot of public funding. Therefore, anything we do in this area has to be done in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet; as she said, we do not have to spend additional public funding on it. I welcome that instinct; I think she is absolutely right to say that we need to come up with solutions that will not add to the burden on the taxpayer. If there are proposals coming out of the new all-party parliamentary group that is being set up, I will be interested to hear them. We are also engaging with the European effort via Mr Tajani.
The issue of daylight saving was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. I will not add much to that, because the subject was debated fully on Friday. The tourism industry is very much behind the initiative. It is convinced, as are other industries such as retail, that it will greatly help the sector. However, it is not as simple as that, as I am sure my hon. Friend will realise, because grave concerns about the impact on quality of life have been expressed by our colleagues in the north of Scotland. It would be dangerous—and potentially divisive—for the rest of Britain, and certainly England, to impose a solution without the consent of Scotland. A point made strongly on Friday was that any progress needs to be made through consensus, having built up a democratic voice across the UK, rather than having one sector of the country trying to impose the change on another. We have the opportunity to build such a consensus, because the Bill is to go into Committee, and I welcome that.
There were a couple of comments about VAT and business rates. That is a tremendously important area, but I am conscious of time coming to an end, so I shall be brief. We dealt with business rates during an intervention, pointing out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced that there will be an opportunity in future for local authorities to keep some of the proceeds of growth from the additional business rates that are created by local economic growth, potentially generated by the tourism industry. That will provide local authorities with a powerful incentive for getting behind local tourism bodies that are trying to drive economic growth through tourism; they will have a strong financial incentive to take part and assist, which they did not in the past.
I have received representations from the tourism industry about VAT on a number of occasions. I have given the industry the following challenge on that issue. We all appreciate that we have a huge financial deficit—bequeathed by the previous Government—that needs to be closed. It would therefore be extremely difficult for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to hand out tax reductions in the short to medium term. The challenge the tourism industry needs to face up to is this: if it wants a better deal than any other sector of the economy, it needs to explain why it is more important than all the others, which will also be asking for a special deal on VAT or other taxes. That will include the miners, the banks, the IT sector and all other sectors of our economy. If that case can be made, I will be delighted to make representations to the Treasury—but not until then.
Rail Services (Nuneaton)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss an extremely important matter for my constituents, namely the provision of rail services to Nuneaton. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, who has taken time from his busy schedule to respond to the debate. I also thank those of my hon. Friends who are here this afternoon for their support; the issue clearly affects neighbouring constituencies as much as it does mine.
My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt be fully briefed on the subject. However, it might be of some assistance if I first set out the history and background to Nuneaton station. I shall then speak about the west coast main line and lastly about local services, particularly the Nuneaton to Coventry service.
Nuneaton station was opened in 1874, when the London and North Western railway opened the Trent valley section of the west coast main line. It was built to avoid the congested areas of Coventry and Birmingham—even then, we had problems with rail capacity. Unfortunately, Nuneaton’s rail services were considerably reduced under the Beeching axe of 1963. That led to the closure of Nuneaton Abbey Street, Stockingford and Bedworth stations later that year. In addition, in 1965 the Nuneaton to Coventry line was closed to passengers. Happily, in 1988, under the previous Conservative Administration, the Nuneaton to Coventry line was reinstated for passengers, as was the station at Bedworth.
Nuneaton’s association with the west coast main line has not always been a happy one. Tragically, on 6 June 1975 six people died and 38 were injured when the Euston to Glasgow sleeper express crashed just outside the station. The train was carrying the then Labour Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Fred Peart, who survived after a short spell in hospital. I do not remember much about the crash as I was only one at the time, but I have seen the dramatic press photographs of that awful incident.
Let me deal with the specific issues that affect Nuneaton rail services. The first is to do with the west coast main line. Traditionally, Nuneaton station’s place on the west coast main line has been a great advantage. Nuneaton enjoyed fast hourly services to London and the north-west, peak and off-peak, until 2008. In that year, the very high frequency timetable was introduced, at which time fast off-peak services from Nuneaton disappeared.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this valuable debate. My constituency is immediately adjacent to his, and those who live in the north of my constituency are served by Nuneaton station. Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem is that investment in the west coast main line led to an imperative on the operator to minimise city-to-city times? One way to achieve that was to reduce the frequency of stops at stations such as Nuneaton and Rugby.
Mr Jones
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I shall return to the subject later.
Passengers wanting a fast service from Nuneaton now face the significant inconvenience of having to take an additional train to Coventry or Rugby to pick up a fast service. The alternative is to make a 30-minute car journey to Coventry or Rugby to catch the fast train.
I campaigned on this important issue before the general election. I wrote to the Department for Transport and to Virgin Trains, the train operator. The response was most unsatisfactory. The Department for Transport blamed timetabling changes on the operator, and the operator blamed the Department for Transport. Neither offered a solution to the loss of amenity for passengers from my constituency. That loss of amenity is substantial, and I fear that it will greatly reduce Nuneaton’s ability to attract inward investment from business and commuters. That is particularly galling given that we are now only an hour away from London and from the north-west.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey).
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is much wider and that it affects not only the people of Nuneaton but people from Bedworth and the surrounding area of my constituency? They rely just as heavily on effective and fast rail services from Nuneaton station.
Mr Jones
As my hon. Friend knows, Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council takes in part of his constituency. People from Bedworth, too, have been disadvantaged by the timetable changes.
That brings me to the future of timetabling. Under the previous Government, there was an unfortunate tendency for too much political interference with timetabling. That often prevented operators from giving better services, including the sort of improvements demanded by my constituents. I was therefore greatly encouraged that the coalition agreement included the clear intention of looking at rail franchising differently, and of considering how the Office of Rail Regulation works so that we have a more powerful regulator. I hope that the Minister will assure me that the regulator’s role is to be strengthened, and that we will see improvements in rail services from my constituency.
I am aware of this week’s announcement on rail franchising, and I broadly welcome the statement. However, I am slightly concerned about the proposed west coast main line refranchising. That will be let from 2012 to 2026, when the first trains are projected to start running on High Speed 2. I was initially led to believe that HS 2 would improve high-speed rail capacity on the west coast main line. However, having had many conversations on the matter with various interested parties, I am slightly concerned that that may not be the case. Will the Minister assure the House that fast services on the west coast main line will survive post-HS 2?
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. The problem affects my Hinckley constituents as it does those of surrounding areas.
I might be able to help my hon. Friend. I believe that the 16.10 Euston to Bangor train may stop at Nuneaton when the new Pendolino trains come into operation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department for Transport made that point in a letter to a user group. Has my hon. Friend received information on similar lines?
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I have not received that information, but if what my hon. Friend says is right, it is most welcome.
It is important that the preferred bidder on the west coast main line deals with a number of points. First, consideration should be given to Nuneaton’s becoming a regular pattern stop, as it once was, to enable more frequent fast services to run from there. Secondly, we should end the moderation of competition rules to allow new providers into the market. I am fully aware that if substantial investment is involved, it may impede changing the rules in that regard. Substantial upgrade work was undertaken at Nuneaton station in 2004, so I hope that changing the rules will not be so much of an issue. I am also aware that open access providers have been assessing the viability of providing additional services on the west coast main line, which brings me to my next important point.
I have discussed capacity with a number of operators and potential operators. My discussions all lead me to believe that there is additional capacity on the west coast main line. If the Minister would confirm that this possibility is under definite consideration, I would be most grateful. Rail usage at Nuneaton has increased over the past five years by 37%, and I have little doubt that there is still capacity to increase it. The neighbouring constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and mine give a catchment area of more than 300,000 people, which has substantial potential.
Having set out my case for additional fast services on the west coast main line, I should like to turn now to the provision of local services, particularly the link with Coventry. My hon. Friend the Minister is no doubt aware of my interest in this matter. He knows, too, that the Secretary of State has kindly arranged a meeting with me next week, which will be attended by several colleagues.
The importance of the link between Coventry and Nuneaton cannot be overestimated. Coventry is the closest city to my constituency. Statistics show that there is a clear correlation between the more affluent areas in my constituency and a travelling distance of 10 and 15 miles to the workplace, and Coventry is the only geographical location that fits that description. There is currently an hourly service from Coventry to Nuneaton, with a stop at the neighbouring town of Bedworth.
Access to employment opportunities for my constituents is vital, as indeed is access to both Warwick and Coventry universities for higher education opportunities. If we are really serious about improving social mobility within the areas of relative deprivation in my constituency—there are a number of such areas in the bottom 20% of the national deprivation indices—improved rail services will play a vital part in closing that gap. An example of how the inequality gap can be bridged is demonstrated by Coventry’s plans to redevelop part of the city centre that surrounds the railway station. The redevelopment scheme is projected to create some 15,000 jobs, from which my constituents would benefit if only there was more convenient rail access for them.
That brings me to the Ricoh arena, which is home of Coventry City football club and the Arena Park shopping centre. Some 600 people are employed there and further development is envisaged. Both facilities are adjacent to the railway line, but, currently, there is no station for a stopping train. That is perverse given that the arena contains not only a large shopping area and conference venue but a stadium, which is set to host football matches during the 2012 Olympic games.
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend will be aware that the reason for the location of the football stadium—immediately adjacent to the railway line—was that the primary means of access would be by train, yet there is no station. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to press for such a facility to be introduced at the earliest opportunity so that people from across the country can easily get to the stadium, particularly in time for the rugby world cup in 2015.
Mr Jones
That is a perverse situation. On the drawing board, it was envisaged that there would be a station adjacent to the stadium. Unfortunately, it has never materialised. It has been under discussion for 10 years, I think, and, unfortunately, it was very much neglected by the previous Government.
The improvement of Nuneaton’s rail services has been recognised as an issue of great importance for nearly a decade. It is a conundrum that has been greatly ignored. I hope that the coalition Government will give the matter much more urgent and sympathetic consideration. Capacity can be improved, and frequency and usage increased by taking the following measures: improving the line’s infrastructure, including a new platform at Coventry; providing new stations at Bermuda in Nuneaton and at the Ricoh arena; and providing additional rolling stock.
There is a huge lack of capacity at Coventry station, because the Nuneaton-to-Coventry service currently shares a platform with the fast service that connects to the west coast main line. At the moment, providing more local services has to be traded against the loss of the fast services on the west coast main line from Coventry, which is clearly not going to happen and is not an option. An additional station bay at Coventry station would remove the current impediment and allow for a twice-hourly service between the two stations of Nuneaton and Coventry.
A new station at Bermuda in Nuneaton would further strengthen access to the service, particularly from the adjacent area of relative deprivation. The Ricoh arena station would increase opportunities for my constituents to reach a greater diversity of employment and provide much improved access to the arena when matches and events take place. It could also strengthen the position of Nuneaton as a pleasant place to stay during such events, thus increasing the chances of inward investment for the hotel, leisure and hospitality industry.
As I mentioned earlier, additional rolling stock will be required to achieve these improvements. I was glad to see in the Secretary of State’s recent statement that an additional amount of new rolling stock is to be introduced to the overall network. I hope that such an investment will enable existing stock to be moved to lines such as the Coventry to Nuneaton line. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take these arguments back to the Department, where I know that an assessment of the Coventry to Nuneaton upgrade project is now under way.
In conclusion, I hope that I have set out an argument based not just on narrow and parochial terms but on economic and social grounds because improvements in services would lead to real benefits for constituencies across Coventry, Warwickshire and Leicestershire. Such benefits would inevitably help a region that has really suffered under the recession that was bequeathed by the Labour Government and reinvigorate an area in which private-sector growth and jobs are badly needed after years of decline.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate and on providing an opportunity for the House to debate rail issues at Nuneaton. Let me preface my remarks by referring to recent statements by the Secretary of State. I hope that my hon. Friend is pleased with the level of the Government’s investment in rail. We recognise the value of rail both in helping growth and cutting carbon emissions.
Let me turn first to the west coast main line. The £9 billion west coast route modernisation project renewed and upgraded the country’s key main rail line. It accommodates many long-distance passenger trains and numerous local and regional passenger services, and handles 40% of the nation’s rail freight business. It was a good example of the railway industry pulling together to deliver a very important project.
Modernisation has delivered a successful and robust railway that has headroom for passenger and freight growth. The west coast main line regularly achieves more than 90% reliability. Passenger growth has been very encouraging, with 4 million additional journeys following the completion of route modernisation, and I expect the growth to continue. This week, I noted that the first new 11-car train of the 106 Pendolino vehicles on order was delivered to the UK for testing and approval ahead of passenger service. Given the level of investment in both the trains and the infrastructure, it is important that the west coast main line timetable secures the best return for taxpayers on the money spent. The timetable ensures that rail contributes the maximum possible to the overall transport network of the country. It has delivered a significant modal shift from car and air. Rail has now doubled its share of the London-to-Glasgow market to around 13%, and to between 75 and 80% of the London-to-Manchester market. Rail serves those markets well.
The current timetable maximises the use of line capacity and fleet resources. However, some difficult choices had to be made when the current west coast main line timetable was designed. As my hon. Friend knows, a few established services and calling patterns were changed. No towns were left isolated. Overall, the vast majority of passengers have benefited, as is demonstrated by the growth that is now being witnessed. Headline improvements delivered with the completion of modernisation include: three trains an hour to both Manchester and Birmingham; new hourly all-day services from London to the Trent valley, Crewe to London and London to Chester; significant journey time reductions, including London to Warrington and Preston to Glasgow services, which are now 30 minutes faster, and London to Liverpool, which is 25 minutes faster; and a full weekend service with journey times and frequencies very similar to weekdays.
I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that all such improvements are very welcome. One of the difficult choices was the decision to remove the Nuneaton stop from Virgin and west coast off-peak services. Unfortunately, it is not a high-earning station in off-peak times or one where business is likely to grow significantly when compared with other opportunities on the line. Quite simply the revenue and growth opportunities are much greater elsewhere.
The removal of the fast off-peak service was forecast to lose around £200,000 in revenue from Nuneaton. That needs to be set against the £600 million that modernisation will have generated between 2003 and 2011. In the current service pattern, London peak traffic, which accounts for the vast majority of demand and revenue at the station, benefits from a standard journey time of around one hour for the 97 miles. The fastest journey achieves an average speed of over 100 mph, which is one of the fastest commuter services in Europe. To serve more diffuse evening peak travel patterns, fast Virgin services continue to call at Nuneaton throughout the evening.
Off-peak services are provided by the new 100 mph air-conditioned Desiro trains that are operated by London Midland. These services give Nuneaton new hourly direct journey opportunities to towns such as Stoke, Tamworth, Rugby and Milton Keynes. They also provide the opportunity of cross-platform connections with Virgin west coast services at Rugby, giving a total journey time of one hour and 12 minutes to Euston. The previous direct hourly train completed the journey in the longer time of one hour and 15 minutes.
The timetable proposals for the current west coast main line services were widely consulted upon and welcomed in many parts, particularly in the north-west of England. However, I suspect that my hon. Friend wishes to promote Nuneaton’s case further. Therefore I urge him to comment on the consultation draft of the Network Rail west coast main line route utilisation strategy, which is published today. Nuneaton stakeholders will also get the opportunity to present their case during the consultation phase of the west coast franchise competition. The Government plan to issue an invitation in the Official Journal of the European Union for the competition in January 2011 and in due course we will issue the inter-city west coast franchise consultation document. I also urge my hon. Friend to discuss his ideas with the accredited franchise bidders once they have been selected.
The Secretary of State recently gave his approval for Network Rail to proceed with construction of the north chord, which will improve the capacity and reliability of the west coast main line and provide freight trains from the east coast with improved access to the midlands and the north-west. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman today, if he does not already know, that that project has recently attracted €5 million of European Union funding from the trans-European network towards its £29 million cost. I expect construction to start in spring 2011 and take about 18 months to complete.
The hon. Gentleman asked a couple of questions about the west coast main line. In particular, he asked what would happen when the new high-speed line opened. I am advised that it is too early to say what the stocking patterns will be on the west coast main line, but it is obviously anticipated that the faster inter-city services will use the new high-speed line. Perhaps he will want to have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), who is the rail Minister, closer to the time, to ensure that the inter-city services are properly factored into the timetable for the west coast main line as it pertains after High Speed 2 opens.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about spare train paths on the west coast main line, in particular whether there were any spare train paths for open access operators. I am advised that the Office of Rail Regulation is investigating that matter, but the key question is whether it is best for an open access operator or for an additional franchise service to use any spare train paths. Open access operators would provide perhaps five trains a day. London Midland has also applied to improve the London to Crewe service. So we must reach a balance in the public interest between the open access arrangements and what might come in from a franchise operation. Nevertheless, his comments are noted by my colleagues.
Let me consider the Coventry to Nuneaton upgrade. Earlier this year, we received a business case submission from Coventry city council, Centro and Warwickshire county council. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the upgrade consists of doubling the frequency of the service between Coventry and Nuneaton, new stations at Bermuda—is that right? I thought that Bermuda was elsewhere.
Norman Baker
As I was saying, there will be new stations at Bermuda and the Ricoh arena, and longer platforms at Bedworth. To accommodate the more frequent service, a new bay platform will be required at Coventry station, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As he knows, all those features are included in the bid.
Consideration of the bid was put on hold pending the spending review. The Department’s spending review settlement was a good outcome for transport, but it was not sufficient to fund the full pipeline of schemes prioritised under the previous system of regional funding allocations. Tough decisions are necessary to get the best value from the available public funding.
The Coventry to Nuneaton rail scheme has been included in the pre-qualification pool for funding from the local major transport schemes budget. That is because we have not yet verified the scheme’s value for money. We will conduct a preliminary sift and make decisions by January about whether that scheme and other such schemes can join the development pool. The decisions in January will be based largely on the ability to deliver significantly within the spending review period and the scope for reduced Department for Transport contributions from those most recently requested, as well as the potential for a scheme to demonstrate a compelling value-for-money case by the final 2011 deadline.
We also need to ensure that some of the more challenging aspects of the scheme are fully addressed. They relate primarily to the ability of the railway to handle the size of the crowds that are forecast for major events at the Ricoh arena and the availability of rolling stock, especially for evening events at the venue. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a safety issue in relation to huge numbers of people turning up at a relatively small station to try to access a short train; that is a serious issue with using rolling stock for such events at the Ricoh arena. We are now reviewing the business case and we are in regular contact with officials at the three authorities to seek further clarification about certain matters to ensure that we have all the information we need for the sifting process in January 2011.
As I have said, there are a large number of extant schemes in the pipeline. I am sure that some will drop out because they will not be progressed by the promoters of the schemes, and we hope that other schemes will see a reduced cost. Generally, the more we can reduce the cost of schemes, the more likely it is that we can proceed with more of those in the pipeline.
Dan Byles
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I am conscious that we are short of time. Some of my constituents are concerned that high-speed rail— HS 2—and the level of investment that will be required for that project could lead to a crowding-out of investment in more local rail services. Can the Minister give us an assurance that, if high-speed rail goes ahead, that will not happen?
Norman Baker
I hope that high-speed rail is going ahead. The Government have made it very clear in the coalition agreement that we are committed to it and the Secretary of State has been working very hard on it, taking personal responsibility for promoting it. However, my hon. Friend will also have noticed that, since the formation of the coalition Government, we have announced, for example, the progress of 2,100 new carriages; an electrification programme across the country; that Crossrail is going ahead in its entirety; that the Thameslink programme is going ahead, and new light rail extensions in Birmingham and Nottingham. The public at large can be in no doubt that the Government are committed to investment in rail: high-speed rail; conventional rail, and indeed light rail. We see that investment as a way of creating growth in the economy and cutting carbon emissions. I can therefore give him an absolute assurance that we will not see local services carved out. We are determined to ensure that rail has a future, both for local services and for high-speed services.
The Secretary of State will be happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton more detail about the Coventry-Nuneaton line in the meeting that I understand has been scheduled between them for later this month.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair
Order. As the Member who has secured the next debate and the Minister who will respond are present, we will begin.
Civilian Deaths (Ballymurphy)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a privilege to open this Adjournment debate under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
On Monday 9 August 1971, the then Northern Ireland Government introduced internment without trial. That policy was dramatically and drastically imposed by the British Army. It could only have been implemented with the sanction and counsel of the British Government and their agents. It was a misguided and counter-productive response to the security and political concerns of Government at the time. However, in today’s short debate, we need to consider first not the longer-term fallout from the disaster of internment, but an immediate fatal atrocity that was perpetrated with its imposition. On 9, 10 and 11 August 1971, 11 innocent civilians were killed in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast by the Parachute Regiment, the same regiment that was specially deployed to Derry months later on 30 January 1972—Bloody Sunday.
The fact that 11 innocent victims of Ballymurphy were killed over three days at a time of wider, serious conflagration, repression, violence and many other deaths meant that Ballymurphy was not really landmarked as an atrocity in its own right, either at the time or for some time after. That is why the victims’ families and the people of Ballymurphy have challenged us all to acknowledge that theirs has been the forgotten atrocity. They have resolved that it will be forgotten or passed over no more. They need to set their truth free, to have the innocence of their loved ones fully vindicated, to have the enormity of what was perpetrated and then papered over fully understood, and to have responsibility taken for those awful events by the forces and power of the state.
I salute the dignity and determination of the families who have come together in such a purposeful and powerful way, and who have lobbied all the parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government and the British Government. In recent times, they have been briefing Members of this Parliament about those dark events that have been frustratingly and disturbingly overshadowed for too long.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I was lobbied by the sons of one of the people murdered, and I was taken aback by the ferocity of the force used on that day. A mother had half her face blown away. People lying wounded on the ground were shot at point-blank range. Wounded people were taken to the barracks and killed there. Atrocities were committed, and I fully support my hon. Friend in his fight for justice.
Mark Durkan
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He rightly brings us to the details of what happened during those three days in Ballymurphy. I acknowledge that these were not the only deaths that occurred during that period; in fact, there were 28 deaths in total. The wider scale of the deaths should not be used by anyone to diminish the seriousness of the questions that must be asked about Ballymurphy, nor should those questions diminish the seriousness of the grief felt by the families of other victims killed then and since. It is important, if that atrocity is not to be forgotten, that the victims should not be forgotten. Particularly in a debate such as this, their names and what happened to them should be remembered.
The first victim, on 9 August, was Father Hugh Mullan, who was shot as he carried a white cloth while going to the aid of someone else who had been shot and wounded. In a debate in the main Chamber of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) spoke poignantly about his regard for the iconic image of Father Daly in Derry on Bloody Sunday. In Ballymurphy, another priest with a white cloth went to the aid of a victim, and that priest was shot. When Frank Quinn, seeing him lying wounded, went to his aid, he too was shot. Both of them were then shot further as they lay on the ground. A priest who went to the aid of an injured parishioner was killed, and someone else who came from his place of safety into Army gunfire was killed as well.
The third victim was 200 yards away. At exactly the time when Father Mullan and Frank Quinn were being shot, the Army was firing near the Taggart barracks at the top of Ballymurphy. Paratroopers were firing indiscriminately. Noel Phillips, a young man of 19, was shot and wounded. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, a woman, Joan Connolly, came to his aid, calling to Noel Phillips that it was all right; she was coming to him. She was then shot in the face. Joan Connolly was a mother of eight.
The fifth victim was Daniel Teggart, a father of 13. He was initially shot while running for cover, but was then repeatedly shot—up to 14 times—while he lay defenceless on the ground. Also on 9 August, Joseph Murphy, a father of 12, was shot in the leg. He received no medical attention; neither did some of the other victims, including Noel Phillips.
On 10 August, the seventh victim, Eddie Doherty, was killed as he made his way home along Whiterock road. A digger and a Saracen moved in to dismantle a barricade blocking the road. From the cab of the mechanical digger, a member of the Parachute Regiment shot Eddie Doherty in the back.
Early in the morning of 11 August, John Laverty, age 20, was shot dead by soldiers. Joseph Corr, a father of seven, was also shot and died of his injuries on 27 August. The Parachute Regiment alleged that both men were firing at the Army. Neither men were armed, and all ballistic and forensic evidence disproved that testimony.
The 10th victim was Paddy McCarthy, a community worker, who was wounded in the hand while attempting to leave the local community centre to distribute bread and milk. Hon. Members must understand that after the introduction of internment, no normal commercial or other services were running, so people engaged in that sort of operation at the community level. After Paddy McCarthy decided to continue with his deliveries hours later, he was stopped by soldiers and beaten. He suffered a massive heart attack and died as a result of that ordeal.
The 11th victim, John McKerr, was taking a break from his work at Corpus Christi church in Ballymurphy and had walked 50 yards from the chapel gates when a British sniper shot him. Local residents went to his aid and remained at his side until an ambulance arrived, but he died of his wounds on 20 August.
I read out those details because when we talk about events such as Ballymurphy, all of us can speak in shorthand using particular names and locations, but it is important to remember specific events. This is the first debate on this subject, although I believe that there will be others, so it is important that the background facts are spelled out.
One problem at the time was that the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not investigate the deaths, because that was not the done thing in those days. The arrangement was that killings and other actions by the Army were investigated by the Royal Military Police. As we know from the findings of the Historical Enquiries Team, those interviews seem to have been conducted on a tea-and-sympathy basis. Officers’ versions of the circumstances and their actions would become the RMP’s accepted version, which would then become the received version accepted by both the Northern Ireland Government and the British Government of the time. The RUC was basically left to accept those conclusions as a matter of fact. For those reasons, the killings were not properly investigated at the time.
Mark Durkan
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) first.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I commend my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I, too, have met the Ballymurphy families in Westminster, at Stormont and in Ballymurphy. I am struck not only by their innocence but by their sheer humility and need to find justice and truth. Does my hon. Friend agree that the activities of the Parachute Regiment must be examined in connection with their use and deployment at the time in Belfast, Derry and throughout Northern Ireland?
Mark Durkan
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Wider questions must be asked of the powers that be, in both military command and political oversight, about how the Parachute Regiment was deployed in Northern Ireland in those days. Clearly, the Parachute Regiment’s behaviour in Ballymurphy should have been factored into the thinking about its future deployment. People should have had that in mind when it was decided to send the Parachute Regiment, specifically, to Derry for Bloody Sunday. Of course, the Parachute Regiment must account not just for the deaths in Derry and Ballymurphy, but for the killing of two innocent Protestants, Mr Johnston and Mr McKinnie, in September 1972 on the Shankill.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend’s words hang heavy in the air, and it will take more than the wind of history to blow them away. In a speech last month, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to the stigma still attached to the families. Does he believe that an inquiry could finally establish the innocence of the victims, bearing in mind the statements that were released at the time, which appeared to give a contrary impression but were never substantiated?
Mark Durkan
Yes, I believe that it could. The state adopted the view at the time that what the Royal Military Police established in its inquiries with the soldiers who carried out the actions would be the official, received version of events. So long as the state does not specifically repudiate that version of events, it will be left hanging there. That is one of the reasons why the families want to see that version properly probed and resolved, not just for themselves, but because there are surely wider questions for us all about how the state could conduct itself in that way and ignore the serious questions that arose as a result.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing up the matter in a debate in Westminster. As Lord Mayor of Belfast, I had the opportunity last year, and even before that, to meet the families of the victims. Does he agree with me that in both Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday—the two incidents have to be looked at as related—the pain of loss was compounded by the fact that those who were victims of a crime were effectively treated as though they were in some way guilty?
Mark Durkan
The hon. Lady has put her finger on an important point. I do not talk about the victims of Ballymurphy or Bloody Sunday as if they were the only people who suffered grievously and need truth and justice, because there are many other victims of other forces or self-styled forces who are also due that. However, one thing that sets the victims of Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday apart is that they were denied the promises, albeit hollow promises, made by the state at the time that no stone would be left unturned in the pursuit of justice. The state and its political establishment denied them the sense of solidarity that other victims were given. They were accorded no sympathy or recognition of their innocence. Their innocence was impugned, because the suggestion was that they had somehow conspired to bring death on themselves or others.
That is one of the reasons why the other victims who not only received mortal injuries but found themselves in the twilight zone of state condemnation are due vindication and proper affirmation of their innocence through independent international assessment, and that is also why someone must be held responsible and why responsibility must be taken. That is important, not least in the light of the important and positive statements that the Prime Minister made when the Saville report was published, and in the light of those important findings themselves. The Prime Minister said several times on that day, and it was repeated on the day of the Saville statement and when the report was debated last month, that the Government take responsibility. It is important that the families of the victims of Ballymurphy hear someone take responsibility for those events.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion, as have his colleagues, of those families for many years, and I am sure that he will ensure that they are never forgotten. Does he agree with me that, although the role of the Parachute Regiment, who were quite clearly murderers in this case, should not be overlooked, the state itself had a failing, and is there not arguably a direct link between its inaction over Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday? Does he agree that, had the state done the right thing in Ballymurphy, we might have avoided what happened on Bloody Sunday?
Mark Durkan
That is a very pertinent point. The Parachute Regiment committed those killings in one area in a concentrated operation, and just because they did not take place in one day, it does not mean that it was not a concentrated operation. Those deaths were not properly investigated alongside other Army killings.
We now know, because of investigations by the Historical Enquiries Team and work done by the Pat Finucane Centre, that in the autumn of 1971 there were liaison meetings between a representative of the military and the then Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, Basil Kelly, to look at the possible risk of prosecution of soldiers for some of their conduct. The Attorney-General seems to have suggested that prosecutions might have to take place on some matters, such as traffic offences, but he was seized of the need to try to avoid prosecutions for more serious or controversial offences. In December 1971 he decided, on the basis of the shooting of Billy McGreanery that September, that no soldier should be prosecuted for anything they did in the line of duty. As I say, that decision was made in December 1971, and it is hard for those of us who know about that not to believe that in the minds of the Army, that became the going rate, as regards what the yellow card did or did not mean. It meant that they could behave with impunity. It is hard to believe that the Army, and certainly the Parachute Regiment, were unaware of the Attorney-General’s decision.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
I am listening with great interest. Some deeply pejorative statements have been made about an organisation that is being referred to as the Parachute Regiment. The Parachute Regiment is an enormous organisation consisting of three battalions. As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say during the debate on the Saville report, what we are talking about seems to relate to one battallion, and indeed to one specific company within it. The Parachute Regiment has given invaluable service to this country. It might have had some difficulties and problems and done some wrong things, but I beg that we be more specific about an organisation that is very gallant, and whose services have been well recognised.
Mark Durkan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. By referring to the Parachute Regiment in broad terms, I was certainly not trying to impugn anyone or extend my remarks to anyone who feels that they are in a position to disown and disclaim what happened that day. I am aware that today we heard condolences expressed in the House regarding a member of 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who lost his life tragically in Afghanistan. I am sensitive to those considerations and take the hon. Gentleman’s sensitive admonition in the spirit in which it was intended and in which it was conveyed.
When the Attorney-General made his judgment following the killing of Billy McGreanery, the RUC commander in Derry at the time, having read what the military police had said in relation to the shooting and the statement of the soldier concerned, recommended that that soldier be prosecuted for murder. That recommendation was endorsed at RUC headquarters, and it was the Attorney-General who subsequently created the new rule about prosecutions. That is why I think that all those events raise wider issues that need to be pursued. None of that information was available to the Saville inquiry, because it had not yet been discovered by the Historical Enquiries Team and the Pat Finucane Centre.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that that has to be described as an atrocity? Eleven people died, and yet 39 years on we still have no resolution, no apology has been offered to the families and there has been no independent inquiry. What do the Ballymurphy families need in order to be able to move on with their lives and draw a line under this?
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is a 30-minute debate, so if he expects a comprehensive response from the Minister, he will need to give him some time.
Mark Durkan
I was about to thank my hon. Friend for his question and say that I look forward to it perhaps being answered by the Minister. I spoke with the Minister earlier, and he told me how much time he would need and expressed a wish to see interventions taken so that we could have a free-flowing debate.
I hope that the Minister has heard all the points that other Members and I have made, but, most importantly, I hope that he is in a position, working with the Secretary of State, who has already met the families, to address some of the questions that he knows the families have. This debate is to let them and the Minister know that the questions do not come only from the families.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I am most grateful to you, Mr Crausby, for chairing this afternoon’s proceedings, and I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for securing this debate.
I start with a sin of omission rather than commission. Yesterday was my first encounter across the Floor with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). I congratulate him and welcome him to his new role as shadow Minister—indeed, he is my shadow. I know him well from the past. We served together on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, and I know that he has given that Committee long and distinguished service. Its current Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), is here today.
The hon. Member for Foyle spoke in detail today about the Ballymurphy families’ campaign. The hon. Members for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) stated that they had both met the families as, indeed, have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I. We met them in October to discuss their case. The families recounted their moving stories at length, and we both expressed our profound sympathy for the loss that they had suffered.
We also listened carefully to the families’ requests for an independent international investigation, recognition of the innocence of their loved ones, and an apology. We did, of course, note the ongoing independent investigation into the case being carried out by the Historical Enquiries Team. I understand that many of the families do not support that investigation, but it is right that I reiterate this afternoon the Government’s strong support for the work of the HET. It has demonstrated on several occasions, whether in the Majella O’Hare case or the McGreanery case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle, to which he referred, that it carries out its investigations with absolute professionalism and independence.
Furthermore, as I said last night in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, the HET’s projected spend to 2011 is £32.5 million. If we compare and contrast that with the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry at £191.5 million, the Rosemary Nelson inquiry at £45.5 million, the Robert Hamill inquiry at £32.4 million and the Billy Wright inquiry at £30.4 million, we can begin to see the good value for money that the HET provides. I understand that the families have presented information to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and have asked him to consider using his powers to reopen the inquests into the deaths. Such decisions are, of course, properly a matter for the Attorney-General, not the Government.
Several Members rightly pointed out that the Government need to consider their response to the Ballymurphy campaign in the wider context of how we deal with the painful legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. However, we must also consider the wider context of the events in Northern Ireland in August 1971, a time when violence was escalating at a rate that would lead to the bloodiest year in Northern Ireland’s history. Between 9 and 11 August, there were 28 deaths in total across Northern Ireland, 11 of which were in Ballymurphy.
The Government’s approach to the conclusions of individual reviews and reports is absolutely clear: where wrongdoing or failings by the state are clearly identified, we will accept responsibility and apologise. In that context, I would associate myself more closely with the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) than with the somewhat rash comments made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty).
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement on the Saville report, we do not honour all those who have served with distinction in upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth, but neither do the Government believe that the past can be adequately addressed by focusing solely on the actions of the state. To respond to the point made, I believe, by the hon. Member for Ealing North, that is why we do not believe that selecting a further series of cases to be subjected to a lengthy public inquiry is an appropriate means of addressing the legacy of a conflict that saw more than 3,500 people from all parts of the community lose their lives.
Naomi Long
I welcome the Minister’s strong support for the work of the HET, but does he agree that if we are not to have further individual inquiries, the Government must take—and lead—a comprehensive approach to dealing with the past and its legacy? I fear to say that, as yet, that has not been forthcoming.
Mr Swire
Indeed, if the hon. Lady will allow me, I will just say:
“Having recapitalised the banks, it seems as if we are recapitalising the legal profession in Northern Ireland. I’m sure the pain of the past has been eased in the case of the barristers but I’m not sure whether any material benefit has been achieved for the people of Northern Ireland.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Ealing North, as reported in the Belfast Telegraph on 5 November 2004.
Thomas Docherty
Without wishing to compound his ire towards me, can the Minister clarify whether he is therefore criticising the decision to hold the Bloody Sunday inquiry? It sounds as if he is saying that it was held only to line the pockets of lawyers rather than to help bring some comfort and closure to the families.
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman should not conflate the two things. I was repeating what the Belfast Telegraph reported the hon. Member for Ealing North as saying about further costly inquiries. As for ire directed towards the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, if I heard him correctly, he made some severe criticisms of the Parachute Regiment which were then picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark.
Various Members, not least the hon. Member for Belfast East just now, asked how the Government thought inquiries could be replaced. We are committed to listening to the views of people across Northern Ireland on dealing with the past. It was clear from the summary of responses that we published to the previous Government’s consultation on Eames-Bradley that there is little consensus at present. However, as we emphatically do not believe that the past can simply be shut down, we will continue to seek a way forward.
Stephen Pound
I thank the Minister for his kind words earlier. Much of what he is saying is outside the remit of the HET—and I understand and support his comments about it. What assurance can he give us tonight, what process can he offer, what peace can he bring to those family members who still desperately need nothing more than the truth to be brought out? If not the HET, what?
Mr Swire
The Government are looking in a measured way at options that might command support across the community, including the option of creating an information-sharing process that could help families and the wider society achieve greater understanding of the events of the past 40 years. We are consulting on that. There is no easy or quick answer. I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman that further costly inquiries are not the way forward, but I stress again that that does not mean that we can bury the past. We have to address the issues, and we will do so in a measured and, I hope, sensitive way.
In conclusion, I welcome this important and valuable debate and again thank the hon. Member for Foyle for bringing the matter to the House. I reiterate that the Government are committed to considering carefully the Ballymurphy case in the context of how we deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s troubled past.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Higher Education Funding and Student Finance
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I am today announcing further improvements to the proposed package of reforms to higher education funding and student finance in England.
Our proposed reforms were announced by the Minister for Universities and Science on 3 November. They will introduce a significantly fairer and more progressive new system in which no eligible student has to pay upfront fees, there is a better deal for students while they are studying, and a fairer system of repayments for those who have completed their studies and are realising the benefits of a university education.
Since that announcement, we have continued to discuss the proposals in detail with Members of Parliament, universities, students and other stakeholders. In the light of those discussions, we have decided to make three further enhancements to the package to ensure that the package is as progressive as we can make it for full-time students, while at the same time providing better support for part-time students.
First, the proposals announced on 3 November already make significant steps to improve the support available for part-time students. For the first time, eligible part-time students would qualify for loan support for their tuition costs on the same basis as full-time students. These changes have been welcomed by many as a critical measure in redressing long-standing discrimination against part-time students. However, discussion with the higher education sector has highlighted that the proposed threshold of 33% intensity for full loan entitlement may inadvertently deprive a significant number of learners from receiving support. We therefore propose that the level of intensity be reduced to 25%—that is, any eligible student studying for more than a quarter of their time will be eligible for full loan support for their tuition costs. This will better reflect the way that many part-time courses are structured.
Secondly, we have been keen to ensure that there is adequate protection for lower earning graduates in our new system. One critical component of this protection is the income threshold at which graduates start repaying, and the way that threshold is then uprated in future years. As announced on 3 November, that income threshold will be £21,000 as from 2016, compared with the current threshold of £15,000. Our modelling to date has assumed that that threshold should be uprated every five years in line with earnings. In order to give better protection for those on lower incomes, we now propose that the uprating should instead be made every year. Around a quarter of graduates will be better off in this new, more progressive regime than under the current regime.
Thirdly, we have reviewed the repayment position of students and graduates under the existing student finance system. The current income threshold for repayments was first announced by the previous Government in 2004, and has never since been uprated. The effect is that the value of that threshold has been declining with inflation, with graduates required to start paying at relatively lower levels of income. That is not fair to existing students and graduates. So we have decided that the £15,000 income threshold for those in the existing system should be uprated annually in line with inflation from 2012 to 2016.
These improvements further enhance a reform package which will put higher education funding and student finance on a sustainable footing, improve the quality and viability of our university system, offer more progressive support to those on lower incomes both while studying in higher education and when repaying as graduates, and contribute to paying down the deficit.
Foreign Affairs Council in Defence Formation
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Please find the agenda of discussion points for the Foreign Affairs Council in Defence Formation on 9 December 2010 detailed below. I am writing as Duty Minister. The Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for international security strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), will attend.
Informal meeting with NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen: Ministers will be accompanied by the NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for an informal discussion of EU-NATO relations. No firm agenda has been released for this session, but it is likely to encompass capability development in the form of “quick win” projects, and ongoing contact between the European Defence Agency and the Allied Command Transformation. The UK’s objectives are to welcome the renewed focus on EU/NATO relations under Ashton and Rasmussen and to continue to press for improved co-operation.
Formal working session on military capabilities: This formal discussion of capabilities will follow on from the informal meeting in Ghent in September. Again, no agenda has been issued, but we expect the discussion to concentrate on initiatives for pooling and sharing capabilities, and on bilateral and multilateral co-operation in capability development. This will highlight the UK-France defence agreement. The UK will welcome the continued emphasis on capability development, but resist calls for the creation of any additional institutions or processes.
EDA Steering Board: Ministers will discuss the work programme for 2011, the nomination of the new chief executive, the level playing field, Single European Sky, defence research, and pooling and sharing. The UK will work with the agency and its member states to develop and improve the agency effectiveness and performance, but will urge the EDA to be realistic about its budget requirements. Unless postponed, the EDA budget will be discussed as an agenda item in the Council meeting. On current plans, we intend to oppose any budget increase for the agency in 2011.
Informal working lunch discussing operations: Ministers will be accompanied over lunch by the three EU operational commanders (Op ATALANTA/ Op ALTHEA/ EUTM Somalia) in an informal discussion of progress. Some member states will also wish to discuss possible future operations, likely to focus on the Sahel and the Sudan. The UK supports the ongoing operations, and will stress the urgency of developing an internationally recognised strategy for Somalia.
Taskforce on the Military Covenant
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
In July the Prime Minister asked Professor Hew Strachan of Oxford University to lead an independent taskforce to develop innovative ideas to help rebuild the military covenant.
His report, published today, looks at support that can be provided across Government and throughout society and makes many recommendations for the Government to consider. A copy of the taskforce report will be placed in the Library of the House.
I will publish a full response to this report’s recommendations on behalf of the Government in spring 2011. However, we intend to take forward work on two of the report’s recommendations in advance of that. The first is for an armed forces community covenant, which will encourage communities across the UK to volunteer support for their local armed forces. The second is for a chief of defence staff commendation scheme, which will allow the head of the UK’s armed forces to thank individuals or bodies who give exceptional support to our armed forces.
The Government are very grateful to Professor Strachan and his team for their contribution to rebuilding the military covenant.
“Valuing People Now: Summary Report March 2009 - September 2010”
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I am today publishing the “Valuing People Now: Summary Report March 2009 - September 2010” along with the easy read summary and good practice examples.
The report includes findings from all the 152 learning disability partnership board self-assessments in 2009-10. It shows that good progress has been made in improving outcomes for people with learning disabilities and their family carers over the 18 months to September 2010. It includes many examples of good practice which show how to drive forward efficiencies while improving the lives of individuals.
We know that there is still more to do to ensure that the Government’s vision of equity and excellence and personalised services delivers for all people with learning disabilities.
Achieving genuine equality and tackling disadvantage requires continued engagement across the health and social care system and across the community and voluntary sector in the three priority areas of health, housing and employment to improve outcomes for people with learning disabilities and their families.
Today’s publications have been placed in the Library. Copies of the summary report are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and for noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
CRB Independent Complaint Monitor (Annual Report)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
The 2009-10 Independent Complaints Monitor annual report for the Criminal Records Bureau has been published today. It is available on the CRB website and a copy has been placed in the House Library.
Drug Strategy
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I am pleased to announce that we are today publishing the cross-Government drug strategy “Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery—Supporting People to live a Drug Free Life”. The strategy sets out a fundamentally different approach to preventing drug use in our communities and in supporting recovery from drug and alcohol dependence.
In a major change to Government policy, the strategy puts recovery at the heart of our response, with more responsibility on individuals to seek help and overcome their dependency. The strategy sets out a more holistic approach to supporting people dependent on drugs or alcohol, not just through treatment, but also by addressing offending, employment and housing issues, all of which are critical to overcoming drug or alcohol abuse.
This is an ambitious strategy aimed at reducing demand. It takes an uncompromising approach to cracking down on those involved in drug supply, both at home and abroad. There will be renewed focus on seizing the assets of those involved in the drugs trade and we will strengthen our ability to respond swiftly to so-called “legal highs”.
Power and accountability to tackle drugs and the harms they cause will be passed to local areas. With the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the reform of the NHS and the creation of Public Health England, local partnerships will be responsible for designing and commissioning services that meet the needs of their communities.
We received over 1,800 responses to the targeted consultation held over the summer and we are grateful to all those who responded and, in doing so, supported the development of this strategy.
The drug strategy will be available on the Home Office website and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Foreign Affairs Council (Development Ministers)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Foreign Affairs Council (Development) will meet in Brussels on 9 December. The meeting will be chaired by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, and Vice-President of the European Commission, Baroness Ashton.
Due to priority parliamentary business that day, I regret that my ministerial colleagues and I will not be able to attend. The UK will be represented by the UK’s Permanent Representative to the EU (Kim Darroch). The expected agenda items are as follows:
Green Paper on EU development policy in support of inclusive growth and sustainable development—Increasing the impact of EU development co-operation.
There will be an initial discussion on the main issues presented in the Commission’s recent Green Paper on inclusive growth and sustainable development. This wide-ranging paper is currently the subject of a public consultation. Discussion topics include governance, security and fragility, the co-ordination of aid, budget support, growth, regional integration, climate change and biodiversity, energy and development and agriculture and food security. This is a welcome initiative and a chance to put forward our broader views on the future of EU development policy, albeit with a specific focus on growth.
Afghanistan
EU Special Representative to Afghanistan, Ambassador Usackas, will give a report and update the Council about the latest situation in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a key UK development priority and we look forward to a productive discussion about how best to co-ordinate efforts in the context of the EU action plan on Afghanistan and the Kabul conference. Afghanistan is also on the agenda for Foreign Ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council on 13 December.
Haiti
Given the desperate humanitarian crisis in Haiti, and the recent cholera outbreak, this discussion will focus on how to best deliver support to the Haitian people. This is particularly poignant as we are approaching the first anniversary of the Haitian earthquake on 12 January. The post-earthquake humanitarian support provided by the UK has funded vital work by UN agencies and international NGOs, and helped to provide 380,000 people with food, clean water and medical care.
In response to the cholera crisis I have announced additional help to supply clean water and improve sanitation and hygiene for up to 340,000 people in the north of the country. UK support will also bring in emergency supplies and more than a thousand trained medical practitioners to staff up to 12 major cholera treatment centres and 60 subsidiary cholera treatment units, capable of treating several thousands of cholera victims over the next two months and helping to stop the outbreak spreading across the region.
Mutual Accountability and Transparency
My Swedish counterpart will lead a discussion focused on transparency as a prerequisite for better accountability and more effective development results. This is a UK priority, and we are working hard to encourage other EU member states to agree steps to improve transparency and to ensure EU aid information is published in comprehensive, accessible and comparable ways. We are also working towards an international standard in aid transparency, which will help us to bring aid information closer to user needs as well as meeting our international transparency commitments. We are also supportive of work to encourage greater accountability between those receiving and those providing aid, and their respective citizens.
Innovative Financing Mechanism
The High Representative and Belgian presidency will lead a broad discussion about innovative forms of development financing. The UK is supportive of exploring new innovative finance mechanisms, while emphasising that these should complement, and not deflect from, commitments made by member states to meet agreed targets of 0.7% of GNI for official development assistance by 2015.
International Development Conferences in 2011
The Council will have a first discussion of the key issues to be tackled in two important conferences in 2011.
The least developed countries (LDC) summit will take place in Istanbul from 30 May to 3 June 2011, under the Hungarian EU presidency. We are keen to ensure the outcome of the summit builds on the 2010-15 action agenda agreed at the UN MDG summit in New York in September 2010.
The fourth high-level forum on aid effectiveness will take place in Busan, Korea from 29 November to 1 December 2011 under the Polish EU presidency. The UK is looking forward to working closely with our EU partners in the lead up to the forum, including on strengthening the emphasis on results, value for money, transparency and accountability.
EU-US Summit
The High Representative will report back on the development discussions that took place at the EU-US summit in Lisbon on 20 November 2010. In the summit statement, the EU and US pledged to continue and strengthen co-operation on food security, climate change and the millennium development goals, including health. Discussions will continue through the EU-US dialogue on development and the UK is supportive of this process.
Maritime Industry and Light Dues
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I am today announcing a package of measures relating to the maritime industry following the spending review and a recent review I have undertaken of light dues.
Shipping is important to the UK both as the means by which the majority of goods are moved in and out of the country and as a significant contributor to the UK economy in its own right. The Government therefore wish to see a strong and sustainable maritime sector for the future and to minimise the burdens the industry faces.
With this in mind, the Government have listened carefully to the views of both the shipping industry and the general lighthouse authorities on the need for stability in the future level of charges set by the Department for Transport for marine aids to navigation.
In my written ministerial statement of 26 July 2010, Official Report, columns 75-76WS, on marine aids to navigation, I announced that the Government do not intend to change the basis on which light dues are currently charged. I am now pleased to announce a commitment that there will be no increases in light dues for at least the next three years.
I am also inviting the views of the Lights Finance Committee, which includes representatives of the payers of light dues, on what an appropriate level of dues for the future would be that balances the need to reduce demands on the shipping industry with the need to maintain essential aids to navigation. I have asked the committee to report its conclusions to me by February 2011.
Sustainable economic growth also requires investment in training and skills. I am therefore also pleased to be able to announce that, despite the difficult public spending climate, the Government will continue to provide a partial financial contribution towards the cost of training seafarers under the existing support for maritime training scheme, with the remainder of those costs being met by employers.
Within its spending review settlement the Department for Transport has been able to allocate some £12 million to support maritime training in the next financial year. I intend that the majority of this money should be focused on supporting initial training for cadets studying at junior officer level (SMarT 1). I estimate that this will enable the Department to contribute to the training of up to 1,000 new cadets starting their training during the next academic year. In order to provide reassurance, I can also confirm that we will make funding available beyond next year for all cadets starting SMarT 1 training in 2011-12, and those already undergoing SMarT l training, for the duration of their studies to officer of the watch certificate.
In addition, I intend that funding should also remain available next year for ratings training and for ratings to officer conversion training and I anticipate that some funding should be available to support the first instalment of SMarT 2—helping those SMarT 1 officer cadets who are also working towards foundation and other degrees, higher national diplomas or Scottish diplomas to complete their studies.
For the remaining parts of the SMarT programme, including SMarT 2 training beyond the first instalment, the Government believe that in current circumstances it is more appropriate that the cost of this additional training should be met in full by employers.
During the year I intend to commission a review of the support for maritime training scheme to consider the continuing requirement for Government support for training and skills development in this sector and how best to spend any continuing Government funding. I will report back to the House on the terms of reference for the review in due course.
In current fiscal circumstances, the Government have also had to look hard at other areas of taxpayer support to shipping.
The current crew relief costs scheme (CRCS) provides limited financial assistance to shipping companies towards the cost of officers or ratings joining or leaving their ships abroad. Shipping companies gain many benefits from the employment of British officers and ratings and, in light of this, the Government have come to the conclusion that continuing to provide commercial shipping companies with a subsidy to meet part of the costs of fares for seafarers can no longer be justified. The current CRCS will therefore cease on 8 March 2011. However, under the Merchant Shipping Act, the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, will still be able to provide financial assistance in respect of travel and other costs in exceptional cases. I am also inviting those with an interest in CRCS to submit suggestions for how the Department may be able to provide non-monetary assistance to encourage the continued employment of UK seafarers.
The Department for Transport also currently provides a financial contribution towards the costs of the confidential hazardous incident reporting programme for shipping (CHIRP) which provides an outlet for mariners to voice safety concerns. However, the scheme has not gained the traction hoped for in the commercial shipping and fishing sectors and there are other services established by the industry such as the Nautical Institute’s mariners’ alerting and reporting scheme. I have therefore concluded that the Department should cease to provide financial support for this scheme at the end of this financial year. The Department will work closely with the commercial, fishing and recreational sectors to see how confidential reporting opportunities might be provided in the future without financial assistance from Government.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond)
My Lords, before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in the case of each statutory instrument the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instruments in question. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motions to approve the statutory instruments will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. If there is a Division in the House the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft regulations, which we hope will be agreed by the House later. The coalition Government are, as always, committed to improved standards of animal welfare. It certainly forms part of my own department, Defra’s, structural reform plan.
These regulations remove the ban on beak-trimming of laying hens which is due to come in on 1 January 2011, to allow for routine beak-trimming of day-old chicks intended for laying to be carried out using the infra-red technique only, with other methods restricted to emergency use only. I recognise that this issue has generated a lot of interest in another place. A Written Statement was provided to both Houses last month setting out the background behind these amending regulations, explaining the Government’s determination to work closely with the industry with the objective of making a ban on beak-trimming possible in 2016. That is a commitment that I made and that my honourable friend Mr Jim Paice made in a Written Statement some two months ago.
The current position is that the UK makes use of a derogation in the EU Council Directive 99/74/EC on the welfare of laying hens, which allows for beak-trimming of laying hens that are less than 10 days old if carried out by qualified staff. The procedure is only permitted to prevent feather-pecking and cannibalism, which is a common but unpredictable behaviour in commercial flocks of laying hens and a significant welfare issue. The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 implement this derogation but only allow routine beak-trimming to be carried out until 31 December 2010, after which beak-trimming of laying hens would be banned.
The ban was put in place when the laying hens directive was implemented in the UK in 2002, allowing eight years to develop a strategy to manage birds without the need to beak-trim. The Beak Trimming Action Group—comprising representatives from industry, welfare groups, Defra, scientific and veterinary professions—was established to develop this strategy. However, progress in the control of injurious pecking in England has not been sufficient to implement a ban on beak-trimming without causing a significant risk to animal welfare. In the mean time, a new infra-red technique was developed and is now used to beak-trim birds commercially, as an alternative to hot-blading. Currently, the infra-red technique is used on 95 per cent of all beak-trimmed laying hens.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council reviewed the evidence in 2007 and 2009 and recommended that the ban on beak-trimming should be deferred until it can be demonstrated reliably under commercial conditions that laying hens can be managed without beak-trimming, without a greater risk to their welfare than that caused by beak-trimming itself. The FAWC recommended that infra-red beak treatment should be the only method used routinely, as the evidence indicated that it does not induce chronic pain.
The Government’s long-term goal is to ban routine beak-trimming, but FAWC’s advice represents a sensible and pragmatic approach in the circumstances. A ban on beak-trimming for laying hens at this time would result in significant welfare problems through outbreaks of feather-pecking and cannibalism. It is therefore right that the legislation needs to be amended to remove the impending ban, which would otherwise come into force on 1 January 2011.
The Government see the proposed removal of the ban very much as an interim solution. The previous Government’s consultation on proposals to amend the legislation did not propose any dates to review the policy or for a future ban. This Government have taken heed of the strength of feeling on this issue and decided to adopt the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s recommendation of setting a review date of 2015. We will assess the output of this work, with the objective of banning routine beak-trimming in 2016. The Beak Trimming Action Group will be reconvened; its first meeting has been arranged for January. We are committed to working with the group to find solutions to this very complex issue. The group will establish an action plan to include the key milestones which were laid out in the Written Statement, leading up to a full review of beak-trimming in 2015.
The review will consider results of ongoing research projects that are investigating practical and realistic ways to rear laying hens without the need for beak- trimming. Bristol University, for example, funded by the Tubney Charitable Trust, is carrying out a three-year intervention study. It is developing a trialling and advisory package to help producers reduce the risk of injurious pecking through changes to housing and husbandry. All the key stakeholder groups are on the steering group for this project, with representatives from industry, welfare organisations, researchers, economists and Defra. The Beak Trimming Action Group will begin to consider the outputs from this study next summer.
We recognise that any future strategy will have to identify the lessons that can be learnt from those countries that already have a ban in place or just do not beak-trim, such as Austria, Sweden and Switzerland, so we have asked the industry to undertake some study tours to such countries. Feather-pecking is greatest in systems of management which do not house birds in cages. Therefore, the risk to the welfare of laying hens from injurious pecking is likely to increase after the ban on conventional cages comes into force on 1 January 2012. A review in 2015 will allow producers time to increase their experience of managing flocks in alternative systems.
The review in 2015 will assess the achievements on eliminating beak-trimming to date and advise whether a ban on routine beak-trimming of laying hens will achieve the maximum welfare outcome, which is what we desire, with a view to reinstating the ban in 2016. These regulations will improve existing welfare standards for laying hens in the short term while we work hard to find a lasting solution, which will bring an end to the need for routine beak-trimming. They also complete the implementation of Council Directive 2007/43/EC by implementing the mutilations provisions for meat chickens and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the instrument. We fully support the aim of ending beak-trimming and the general desire across government to do so. As the Minister explained, without this instrument the ban would legally have come into force although, given the difficulties, I imagine that even had there not been a change of Government we would have been in a similar situation, particularly given the responses to the consultation that the previous Government held earlier this year. There is the difficult equation of balancing a possible deterioration in animal welfare standards by not continuing with the derogation and the concern that changing the system at this point could have meant that we would have had extra imports coming in from countries with lower welfare standards. I can therefore see some of the difficulties that were involved in calculating how to take this issue forward for the future and, for that reason, I understand the action that the Government are proposing in these regulations.
As the Minister said, however, there is considerable public and parliamentary interest in this issue. That is not surprising because there is a strong degree of commitment to animal welfare among the public and in Parliament and to seeing increased animal welfare standards for the future. Certainly, that concern was reflected in an Early Day Motion in the other House, which was proposed by a Conservative but endorsed by Members from many parties, particularly my own. Their desire is that beak-trimming should be brought to an end as soon as practicable. Indeed, that underlines the idea of creating some kind of deadline for this to happen, which the Government have done in deciding on the review period and the ban date as the Minister outlined to us.
Obviously, 2016 is some time off. I am not trying to make a party-political point because I know that the process has already been a long one. None the less, if there are any other ways of trying to shorten the timetable I would certainly encourage the Government look at them. One aspect of the work that needs to be undertaken between now and then is the study tour of EU and other European countries that do not have beak- trimming. I would have thought that that work could start soon and I understand that it will be proceeded with expeditiously. I understand what the Minister said about the three-year research project. That obviously takes us to some time in the future. However, having said that, I certainly hope that at the very least the timetable that has been set out can be adhered to.
I do not know whether the Government considered putting the deadlines in the regulations, but I hope that it will be made very clear that this is the deadline to which the Government are working. It would not be good for a signal to be sent out that nothing much will be happening immediately so therefore people do not need to worry about it. That has been a problem in the past and we do not want it to be a problem in the future.
On another issue, I strongly support what the Minister said in terms of favouring the infra-red method as opposed to the hot-blade method. As he said, 95 per cent of production is subject to the infra-red method. However, the regulations say that in the case of a sudden outbreak, it would be possible to use the hot-blade procedure. I understand from the debate that took place in the other House that such emergencies have not occurred recently. None the less, I note that the British Veterinary Association, in its response to the Government, is concerned that the regulations could be interpreted as allowing the arbitrary use of hot-blade beak-trimming after 10 days to control moderate or even minor outbreaks of injurious pecking. The association felt that in order to counteract that, the term “emergency” should be more clearly defined. Has consideration been given to that as a way forward? Or is it that, as was described in the other House, the concerns of the British Veterinary Association are not causing too much worry to the Government at present because this procedure is not really being used at the moment?
The regulations state that holdings with fewer than 350 birds are exempt from the regulations. I would like to ask the Minister a little more about that. Why should not the infra-red technique be prescribed for those holdings as well? I do not know whether there is routing beak-trimming in holdings with fewer than 350 birdsI note that in the debate in the other place the Minister said that such holdings would in any case be covered under the Animal Welfare Act, which was passed by the previous Government with all-party support. If the provisions in that Act were sufficient, why would these regulations be necessary? I am not quite sure why the older Act is sufficient in the case of holdings with fewer than 350 birds but not for holdings with more than 350 birds. The very helpful Explanatory Memorandum says that there are 1,323 holdings housing more than 350 laying hens. Does the Minister have any statistics for how many holdings have fewer than 350 birds? I could not see that information in the Explanatory Memorandum. If it is there, I apologise for having missed it.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations. I am sure that the poultry industry is most grateful for the derogation being extended. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, spoke about the public’s enthusiasm for free-range and enriched colony cages in terms of production. That is where the problems of cannibalism and pecking occur most readily. Coming from Glasgow, I was most glad to hear that the University of Glasgow was able to make a positive contribution towards resolving some of the issues linked to beak-trimming and to developing infra-red treatment. Does the Minister know whether infra-red treatment is reckoned to cause any suffering, or is it objected to because it alters the physical properties of the beak?
I was grateful to my noble friend also for taking so much time to explain the rationale behind the 2015 review, because there was some doubt as to what its purpose and outcome would be.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I, too, accept the regulations as an interim measure ahead of a ban on beak-trimming. There is much common ground between both sides of the Committee, so I shall not repeat any of the very good points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.
I was slightly disappointed that no firm date for a ban has been given. The Explanatory Memorandum says clearly,
“with a view to banning … in 2016”.
How can we ensure that pressure is maintained on the industry to deliver to that timetable which we all want to see? I ask that question as a member of EU Sub-Committee D on agriculture, environment and fisheries, which is undertaking a review of innovation in agriculture. Many of the submissions that we have received tell of how the industry is struggling with the twin challenges of addressing climate change and the need for food security. Given that the industry is coping with finding funding for innovative research in those areas, how, without a firm cut-off date of 2016 for beak-trimming, can pressure be maintained on the industry to ensure that the necessary funding for research is delivered? I acknowledge what the Minister said about the research project in Bristol and the work of the Beak Trimming Action Group, but I should like to hear specifically how he will seek to keep pressure on the industry at a time when it is already struggling to find funding for innovative research in other areas of agriculture.
Lord Henley
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I shall try to deal with the various questions that have been put to me.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for accepting the difficulties involved, but she went on to say that 2016 is a long time off. I hate ever to make party-political points and, as the noble Baroness knows, I never do—well, I try not to—but I should point out that the previous Government had eight years in which to deal with this matter and they found it difficult. We are seeking another six years to take us up to 2016, and I hope that we shall be able to do what we can. We will work as quickly as possible in these matters. The noble Baroness asked particularly how we would expedite the process and start study tours to other countries—which is a very good idea. I can assure her that, early in the new year, the industry will present its plan for getting these things looked at and seeing what happens overseas.
Both the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Parminter said that they would like “2016” to appear in the regulations. I appreciate that it was in the previous regulations; that is why we are here today debating these regulations—it is possibly no bad thing on occasions to force Governments to come back. The commitments made by my honourable friend, which I repeated in a Written Statement, should be sufficient. However, my honourable friend made it clear that that we would do it only if it was possible. We do not want to compromise animal welfare provisions. Therefore, we will work as hard as we can and push forward as fast as we can but only, as I stress again to the noble Baroness, if these matters are possible.
The noble Baroness then asked for some idea of what we meant by “in emergencies” and when we would use something other than the infra-red treatment—that is, when we would use hot-blading. I must stress that hot-blading is intended only as a last resort and is carried out only in the interests of animal welfare. It is suitable only for the older birds and only after other provisions have been tried. Beak-trimming an adult flock is not a task that is undertaken lightly. All those poultry farmers who are involved understand the wish not to do so. I would not want to define what “emergency” means but those on the ground know what it means.
Moving on to statistics, the noble Baroness asked how many flocks had fewer than 350 laying birds. I am afraid I do not have a figure but there are a substantial number. There is, as the noble Baroness will know, no need for farmers with fewer than 50 birds to be registered. I have seven laying birds, which lay the odd egg but not that many. Those with more must be registered. I could find her an answer on the number of farmers who have between 50 and 350 birds. If that is possible, as long as it is not too expensive, I will do so.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about the evidence that infra-red technology was better than other methods. I accept that, like all methods, it is extremely likely to cause short-term pain but this has not yet been confirmed. However, on balance, the current evidence suggests that infra-red beak-trimming does not induce long-term pain. For those reasons, we are satisfied.
Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, rightly asked about what we are doing to build alliances in Europe, in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. I am glad that she stressed the importance of both. She spoke from her experience as a former Member of the European Parliament. It is important that we concentrate on both the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. We will certainly do what we can to build up the appropriate allowances and work with people. This will be generally true of everything that Defra does. Defra probably has more to do with the EU than any other department. I certainly notice that my honourable friends in Defra in another place are frequently in Brussels. The noble Baroness will know this from her own experience. We shall continue to work with others and we will certainly continue to keep other member states updated on the progress of what we are doing in our industry, just as we will continue to try to learn as much as possible from other member states. I referred in particular to Sweden and Austria; I forget which the third was.
I hope I have dealt with most of the questions that have been put to me.
Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, these regulations implement Council directive 2007/43, which establishes for the first time rules governing the conditions under which meat chickens are kept and the monitoring of the birds in slaughterhouses for poor on-farm welfare. The directive is unique in that it looks not only at inputs but at welfare outcomes.
A small section of the directive dealing with mutilations will be implemented through the regulations which the Committee has just discussed.
These regulations apply to holdings with 500 or more birds. They do not apply to breeding stocks of meat chickens, hatcheries or chickens marketed as extensive indoor, free-range or organic. However, these birds are subject to the provisions of Schedule 1 to the welfare of farmed animals regulations 2007, which sets down general conditions for the way in which animals are kept. For the purposes of these regulations, we have defined the chickens in scope as “conventionally reared meat chicken”.
Meat chicken welfare is an important issue. Around 850 million meat chickens are produced in the UK per year and 4 billion across the European Union. The United Kingdom is one of the largest meat chicken producers in the EU, and the total value of the UK industry is estimated at £1.6 billion. There has also been an increase in public awareness of meat chicken welfare over recent years, reflected in significant sales of chicken produced to higher welfare standards by major retailers.
The directive came into force on 30 June 2010. There has been a delay in implementing it in English law due to the change of government and the new processes that have been put in place to ensure the close scrutiny of all new legislation. However, I know that the industry and enforcement bodies have started to take account of the EU legislation in their activities, including training, and I much appreciate their commitment and good will in working with us on implementation. It has been an example of partnership working at its best.
Currently, there is no legal maximum stocking density for meat chickens in England. The directive permits member states to allow a maximum stocking density of up to 42 kilograms per square metre provided that certain criteria are met, including a challenging cumulative daily mortality figure over seven consecutive flocks. Therefore, a producer would have to meet these criteria and provide the evidence before being allowed to stock at 42 kilograms per square metre.
We have decided not to take advantage of this derogation on animal welfare grounds. The draft regulations set instead a maximum stocking density for conventionally reared meat chickens of 33 kilograms per square metre, with the opportunity to stock up to 39 kilograms per square metre provided that additional house documentation requirements and environmental parameters are met. This is in line with the commitment in the coalition agreement to improved standards of farm animal welfare.
There is evidence that meat chicken welfare can be compromised at densities higher than 40 kilograms per square metre. A Defra-funded study at Oxford University showed that, while mortality and leg defects were not compromised at higher stocking densities, other measures were affected, such as jostling, a reduction in growth rate and fewer birds showing the best gait scores, which is an assessment of chicken walking ability. The Farm Animal Welfare Council has also advised against the adoption of a maximum stocking density of 42 kilograms per square metre. In addition, more than 90 per cent of domestic chicken production is currently subject to assurance scheme requirements, which operate at stocking densities at or lower than 38 kilograms per square metre.
Adopting this approach allows us to show leadership on animal welfare. The industry should aim to provide consumers with this information and promote the fact that English chicken meat meets the higher welfare standards set by this Government. Consumers can then make an informed choice. We are not alone in setting a maximum stocking density of 39 kilograms per square metre. I understand that Wales and Scotland have also already taken this approach.
However, we are not going to set this stocking density and walk away. The maximum stocking density will be reviewed as part of the post-implementation review of the regulations. In addition, the EU Commission will publish a report in 2012 looking at the directive’s application and influence on chicken welfare.
We intend to commission a socioeconomic research project to assess the impact of implementing the regulations on the relevant monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits identified in the impact assessment. As part of that, the analysis will look at the impact of the regulations on the industry, enforcement body activity, the effectiveness of slaughterhouse welfare triggers, welfare outcomes and the experience of other member states, some of which will be operating a maximum stocking density of 42 kilograms per square metre.
As I mentioned earlier, the regulations are unique in that they will also look at the welfare outcomes for the birds. All birds will be subject to post-mortem inspections in the slaughterhouse for possible indications of poor on-farm welfare.
For flocks stocked at over 33 kilograms per square metre, mortality information will also be assessed as an indicator of poor welfare. “Poor welfare” will be defined through the setting of welfare triggers for mortality and post-mortem inspections in the slaughterhouse. Any concerns will be communicated to the producer and to Animal Health in order for them to take appropriate action. That might include the drawing up of an action plan in conjunction with Animal Health to outline how a welfare problem will be addressed.
This system of welfare triggers will allow for a more consistent approach across slaughterhouses to the identification of potential on-farm welfare problems. The welfare triggers have been based in part on a pilot study that saw some of the largest meat chicken companies working with us and Animal Health. This is another good example of people working together to improve welfare.
As highlighted, these draft regulations are certainly an important step in improving the welfare of meat chickens and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, the Opposition are generally supportive of these regulations and the directive behind them. Indeed, the directive was agreed in European Union negotiations under the previous Government, and the regulations implement the directive here. The Minister is correct in saying that this is a useful and important step forward. This is the first time that rules governing conditions under which meat chickens are kept have been agreed at EU level and there is monitoring of birds for poor on-farm welfare. That incorporates some of the animal welfare concerns, which are very recent concerns in EU legislation, so I welcome that.
The Minister was also right to stress that this is an important industry for us. Very often in the EU context we tend to think that other countries are more agriculturally focused than we are, but in terms of this industry, as the Minister pointed out, the UK is one of the largest chicken producers in the European Union. The industry's total value has been estimated at £1.6 billion.
Obviously, the regulations also relate to public concern in terms of the increased demand for food that is produced to higher welfare standards. There has been an increase in the number of consumers wanting assured produce in terms of animal welfare as well as other things. Speaking as a consumer rather than a parliamentarian, I find that the labels can sometimes be confusing with all the different assurance schemes that exist. I know that this has been tried for a number of years, but it would be good if we could move towards more simplification and greater certainty for consumers in this respect. None the less, the trend that we have seen overall is a welcome one.
In general, the Government have tried to strike a balance between animal welfare concerns and the dangers of getting into a situation where we become over-reliant on imports that do not meet the same high standards. It has been a difficult balance to strike. I agree with the Government that the limit of 39 kilos per square metre should be supported, as should not going up to 42.
The Minister rightly said that Wales and Scotland are working along similar lines. I understand, however, that in Northern Ireland a limit of 42 kilos per square metre has been sought. While I fully respect the devolution settlement and the ability of different jurisdictions to decide on their policies, it none the less would be a desirable goal for the UK to operate similar conditions for trading reasons, just as it is a good idea for similar high standards to operate throughout the EU as a whole, even though that is a much more ambitious goal. I do not know whether the Minister has had any discussions with his Northern Ireland counterparts about this, or whether there are special reasons for this of which I am not aware.
The Minister also said that we are not going to walk away from trying to improve standards as time goes on. I think that those were his words. While we have not gone much beyond the minimum standards of the EU in these regulations, what does the Minister see as the possibilities for reducing stocking densities further—from, say, 39 to 33 kilograms per square metre? Does he see us moving in that direction over the next few years?
The regulations are slightly late in being introduced to Parliament but that is not surprising, given that an election took place earlier this year. Does the Minister have any information about whether the regulations and the directive have now come into force in other member states, or whether there are some member states that have not yet adopted the legislation in the way that they are supposed to?
Information from the British Veterinary Association raised some concerns that it originally had about the proposed regulations. It wanted more detail on environmental enrichment to reduce the risk of leg problems in poultry, on litter management to maintain optimum conditions and on the importance of floor temperature. Does the Minister know whether the various concerns raised by the British Veterinary Association have been met?
I recognise that there are costs attached to these regulations. What I did not quite understand from the Explanatory Memorandum is how much of the costs involved are on-farm costs and how much are off-farm, relating to slaughterhouses, inspection processes and so on, to see whether animal welfare issues have arisen. If the Minister does not have that information immediately to hand, I would be happy for him to write to me. It could be, however, that it is in the information and I just have not managed to spot it.
Compliance with these regulations will be very important. The impact assessment accompanying the directive states that there was a 19.1 per cent failure rate for compliance with existing meat chicken welfare standards. Do the bodies concerned, which I understand are the Food Standards Agency and Animal Health, have the resources to try to ensure full compliance with these regulations? I know that the Minister in another place said firmly that he was determined to stamp out abuses in animal welfare practice, but it would be good if the Minister could give us any further information on this.
Finally, repeating something that I said earlier, which the Minister was kind enough to agree with, building alliances for higher welfare standards will be very important at European Union level. I wish the Government well in that task.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, the stocking densities of chickens cause huge animal welfare problems, so I can be a little more congratulatory to the Government on taking this step in setting a lower density for the housing of chickens in England and for some of our counterparts across Europe and elsewhere. It is hugely to be welcomed and I hope that many animal welfare organisations will take the opportunity to ensure that a wider public see this as an early indication of how this Government intend to treat animal welfare as the coalition moves forward.
I have one question, which follows on from what the Baroness, Lady Quin, said, because one of the issues is around not just stocking density but the enrichment of the cages. I think the Minister mentioned the potential review in 2012. Will the enrichment of cages be part of that review? It clearly has benefits not just for the chickens but for the industry in minimising lameness and the resulting costs of treating it.
I am not sure whether I am allowed a quick comment, so please stop me if I am not. As these regulations show the Government’s commitment to dealing with the welfare issues around the stocking density for chickens, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to look urgently at the housing issues for dairy cows in view of a planning application in Lincolnshire, where an early indication of the Government’s approach to stocking densities is needed to ensure that some of the application’s appalling welfare implications do not come into being.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer, although it has absolutely nothing to do with poultry. My noble friend said that this was the first time that these regulations had been brought into the poultry industry, and I notice that one of the provisions says that every keeper will have to have a certificate. This is a novelty in the agricultural industry as a whole, and some farming elements are very sensitive to it and to the question of whether having a certificate will become a requirement for agricultural production generally.
I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the measure; it certainly is welcome. I wonder whether the quantity of record-keeping required is likely to increase greatly from what the industry currently does. I am sure that people keep records in the interests of their own production and so on, and the current requirement is fairly detailed, but Regulation 13 talks about recording,
“the number of chickens introduced … the number of chickens found dead ... and … the number of chickens”,
removed. I wonder whether the inspection will require reconciliation at the end of the day, which is always a headache in farming. I do not suppose that chickens evaporate in quite the same way as hill sheep tend to, but it is sometimes a rather difficult job to reconcile numbers. The regulations also want a record kept of the daily mortality rate. I presume that that is for every day that the chickens are kept.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her general support for the regulations and for her comments on the meat chicken industry, which, as she suggests, is very important. I would like to deal with one or two points.
First, the noble Baroness talked about problems for the consumer in terms of confusion about labelling. I agree that there is still much confusion here, but I hope that, gradually, bit by bit, through the industry and in other ways, we can address it so that there is greater transparency and so that consumers can ultimately make appropriate and rational choices. However, it should mainly be a matter for the industry to get these things right, and I am pleased with what has recently been happening in this area.
Secondly, the noble Baroness talked about what was happening in Northern Ireland, where they have a higher limit and have gone for 42 kilograms per square metre. One has to say that this is devolution and that is where we are. That decision was taken following a consultation in Northern Ireland about these matters and we have to accept that. I have certainly had no discussions with devolved Ministers there, although I do not know whether my honourable friend Mr Paice has. However, I agree with the noble Baroness to some extent, in that these things are important not just in relation to Northern Ireland but across the whole EU. We should all be talking to each other, particularly if it is felt that there is an unfair advantage with one country having a higher stocking rate. In terms of animal welfare, we never want to be in a position where we are, as it were, exporting bad treatment of animals to other countries by sometimes overdoing our rules when other countries do not do the same.
That leads me to what was almost the noble Baroness’s final statement, in which she asked whether we would continue to discuss these matters with colleagues in the EU Parliament and Council. We will certainly do that because it is important to get things right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, also asked whether we wanted to go further in reviewing the stocking density in the future. Certainly, as part of our consideration of policy, a post-implementation review of the new legislation is required to be carried out. In addition, the Commission will publish a report in 2012 looking at the directive’s application and influence on chicken welfare and, as I said, we intend to commission further research into that. Therefore, we will look at this matter, although I obviously cannot give any assurances at the moment.
As regards implementation of the legislation in the rest of the EU, the noble Baroness understood why there had been a delay. This year we had an election, which often causes delays in these matters. My understanding is that it is now in force in the majority of other member states. However, we are aware that Italy and the Netherlands have only just started the process of implementation, so we will not necessarily be the last to do so.
The noble Baroness also asked about the costs on-farm and elsewhere—in slaughterhouses. I am afraid that I do not have the figures, so I shall write to the noble Baroness in due course if I can find something of use to say to her, otherwise I shall not do so. I am sure she will accept that.
Again, I thank my noble friend Lady Parminter for offering congratulations to the Government on doing something. She asked about the enrichment of cages. These regulations relate to meat chickens and do not cover the enrichment of cages. I understand that meat chickens are not kept in cages in this country, so that matter is not relevant.
My noble friend then moved on to problems which go slightly wide of the regulations. She asked about cattle and some of the new super-dairies. I shall not comment on that, other than to say that this is very much a planning issue and not one for us. However, whatever the conditions in which cattle, chicken or other animals are kept and stored, we will ensure that animal welfare issues are always taken into account.
I hope that I have dealt with the questions put to me and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2010.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order. The purpose of this order is to prescribe the amount of financial penalty deposit that can be requested from an alleged offender—by the police or by an examiner from the Department for Transport’s Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, VOSA—in respect of some particular fixed penalty offences.
This draft order before the Committee is one of three related draft statutory instruments which are needed to keep the provisions affecting the issue of fixed penalties and financial penalty deposits for road traffic offences up to date. The other two draft instruments are subject to the negative resolution, so we have only the one to consider here today. However, since the three instruments are interrelated I will be saying a few words about the draft negative instruments because doing so will help to explain what the order before the Committee is about.
Before doing so, the Committee may wish to be reminded that the purpose of financial penalty deposits is to provide a convenient mechanism for fixed penalties to be effective. The point is that when a fixed penalty is issued to an alleged offender who does not have a “satisfactory UK address”, there is no enforcement mechanism in existence that could subsequently ensure that a fixed penalty is paid. Consequently, by taking a deposit payment from such a person on the spot, it is possible to guarantee payment, since the deposit will automatically be used to pay off the fixed penalty after 28 days, unless the alleged offender asks before that time for the case to proceed instead to court.
Deposits are commonly taken from drivers from abroad, who may fail to respond to a fixed penalty on leaving the UK, though the law applies to any individual who fails to provide a satisfactory UK address to the enforcement authorities. As the Committee will see, this is an essential procedure because it enables the enforcement authorities to deal in a practical way with offenders based outside of the UK, who are otherwise extremely difficult to pursue.
All fixed penalty levels, and the deposit amount corresponding to the relevant fixed penalty, are kept under review, and there are three main reasons why this needs to be done: first, in order to ensure that penalty levels and deposit amounts are set appropriately, to help deter offending; secondly, to ensure that penalty levels and deposit amounts are broadly consistent for similar offences—in other words to help ensure that the fixed penalty scheme itself is self-consistent; and, thirdly, to ensure that fixed penalties and the corresponding deposit amounts remain broadly in line with average court fines for the relevant offence.
Returning to this particular order, its purpose is to harmonise the financial penalty deposit amounts for similar registration plate offences, and for three offences relating to seat-belt wearing, so that all of these deposit amounts correspond with the relevant fixed penalty levels for these offences. Its purpose is also to reduce the deposit payable in respect of the offence of having insufficient motorcycle tyre tread depth, which is a necessary change for a reason I will explain in a moment.
As I mentioned, the two related statutory instruments are subject to the negative resolution procedure, although they are necessarily being taken forward as part of a package, together with the draft order before the Committee. One of the draft negative instruments is the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Amendment) Order 2010. This will make the offence of failing to fix a prescribed registration mark to a vehicle a fixed penalty offence in respect of which a financial penalty deposit can be requested.
The other draft negative instrument is the Fixed Penalty (Amendment) Order 2010. This will increase the fixed penalty level from £30 to £60 for driving or keeping a vehicle without a registration mark on display; and increase from £30 to £60 the fixed penalty level for driving or keeping a vehicle with an obscured registration mark. That order will also reduce from £120 to £60 the fixed penalty level for insufficient tyre tread depth on a motorcycle tyre.
Of course, failing to have a clearly visible registration mark can have significant implications for law enforcement and tracing criminals. The need to have a correct and visible registration mark on display is especially important from the point of view of the police and their increasing use of modern technology to help trace criminals and other persons in whom they may have an interest. Indeed, many people in whom the police have an interest are nowadays detected and apprehended as a result of the use of so-called automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—cameras. Consequently, increasing the fixed penalty and financial penalty deposit amounts in respect of registration mark offences will help to encourage compliance with the rules, and therefore be helpful for law enforcement more generally.
The fixed penalty scheme also prescribes a £60 fixed penalty for failing to have a registration plate of the correct size, shape and colour, and the Fixed Penalty (Amendment) Order 2010 will increase from £30 to £60 the two other registration mark offences I have already mentioned. The intention is therefore to make equivalent provision in the order we are considering here for the financial penalty deposits, which will secure payment from offenders without a satisfactory address in the UK who might otherwise not pay. If we were not to make these changes we would be left in the situation where no deposit amount would be prescribed for having an incorrect registration mark, and none could be taken in respect of a £60 fixed penalty. It would also mean that in the case of an obscured registration mark, or having none at all, a deposit of only £30 could be taken against a fixed penalty of twice that sum.
The changes in this order will also increase the financial penalty deposit level for certain seat-belt offences from £30 to £60. The reason for making this change is so that the amount of deposit that can be taken from offenders for these offences is the same as the existing fixed penalty level. Currently there is a £30 differential between the fixed penalty for these offences and the deposit amount that may be taken in respect of them.
Finally, the changes in this order will reduce from £120 to £60 the financial penalty deposit amount for insufficient tyre tread depth on a motorcycle tyre. This change is necessary in order to mirror a similar change in the fixed penalty level for this offence which will be made under the Fixed Penalty (Amendment) Order 2010.
The reason for the reduction in the fixed penalty level for this offence, and consequently for the reduction in the deposit amount for this offence, is that the penalty level was inadvertently increased to £120 in April 2009, and the action being taken now is simply to restore the penalty to its former level. The reason why the fixed penalty and deposit levels for this offence were unintentionally increased in 2009 was due to the fact that such a large number of legislative changes were needed when the financial penalty deposits scheme was introduced and a small error occurred.
To summarise, the overall purpose of prescribing financial penalty deposit appropriate amounts is to enable the fixed penalty scheme to operate effectively for offenders based outside the UK in the same way as it does for those with a satisfactory UK address. Small maintenance changes need to be made to this scheme from time to time, as I have explained. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, neither have I, but I am going to speak at slightly greater length than the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, if only to congratulate the Minister on the lucid way in which he presented the order. He deserves a larger audience when the Government are for once doing good things. I commend him on what he is doing and I am sorry that he has a limited response here today. He has wholehearted support on my part and, so far as I can detect from the brief remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, he has 100 per cent from him too.
I appreciate the particular and gentle way in which the Minister indicated that there had been an error with regard to motorcycles in 2009. I am glad that that has been corrected, not least because those in the motorbike community sometimes feel that they are hard pressed even to the point of being victimised because they travel on two wheels. We all know from the incidence of accidents that it is a more hazardous form of travel. Therefore, at times motor cyclists are prone to considerable criticism for the accident rate, particularly since, as we know, a very small number are guilty of offending against speed limits in ways that cannot possibly be condoned. I am therefore glad that, on this occasion, we are indicating that fair is fair and making sure that the minor error that occurred in 2009 is put right.
We particularly commend that part of the order dealing with seat belts. There is no doubt that in the range of legislation that has helped to reduce fatalities and injuries over the years, seat-belt legislation takes pride of place. It has been of enormous significance. That is why successive Governments have extended its range and salience. We are entirely in favour of this order, which increases the deposit as far as seat belts are concerned.
I am interested in the noble Earl’s point about registration numbers. Perhaps he will correct what may be my somewhat dated perspective; can he make it absolutely clear whether number plate law obtains to the same specifications across the European Community? He emphasised the aspect to do with foreign vehicles and he is absolutely right that number plate recognition is an important part of law enforcement. I believe, for instance, that at present several countries do not expect motor bikes to have front number plates. I recall—this is where I am slightly hesitant because I may be a little dated—when Italian front number plates, particularly on fast Alfa Romeos, were of a microscopic quality, so even those with the keenest eyesight had difficulty in recognising them. I am not sure that the new technology is up to that. Can the Minister therefore offer that element of reassurance on number plates? Is there a degree of standardisation, and does that which obtains as far as the British motorist is concerned apply also to foreign motorists when they bring cars into this country and may be guilty of traffic offences?
I know we have tightened up on this matter but there is always the tendency for people to select a number plate that has an affectionate dimension to it. Therefore, the characters are produced in ways that mean they may not always be entirely recognisable. I saw one the other day that I was certain was the driver’s favourite nickname for his girlfriend. You had to get pretty close to the car—I do not know about the girlfriend—before you could easily recognise the number plate. I am just seeking reassurance on that score.
The noble Earl should recognise that we very much approve of the order and realise that it is under the affirmative procedure. That is why we are debating it today. If not, we would have been content for the order to go through.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their response to the order. As I explained at the outset, this is one of three related statutory instruments. The other two have been laid before the House under the negative resolution procedure.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, did not have a good go at me about foreign lorries; I had a lovely speech ready to roll but I did not need to use it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for his contribution. He raised a number of points. This order builds on the work of the Road Safety Act, which the noble Lord himself piloted through your Lordships’ House. I remember our debates on that. The noble Lord talked about seat belts. I cannot sit in a moving car fitted with seat belts without fitting them. I would feel so uncomfortable. It is a mystery to me why anyone would want to travel in a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt, but they do. We do as much as we possibly can to stop people from doing that. I went out with the Metropolitan Police, and one of the things that they were paying attention to was motorists driving without wearing a seat belt.
The noble Lord talked about number plates. He is right that there is a wide range of styles of number plates. VOSA is particularly concerned about foreign goods vehicles. I believe that VOSA can read foreign number plates with its automatic number plate reading equipment. That is important because VOSA targets its efforts against certain operators and certain vehicles when it knows that they are rogue operators. The fixed penalties might seem to be quite small in relation to the operation of a goods vehicle. However, every fixed penalty offence will be recorded on the VOSA database. If the vehicle is detected again, it will be stopped to try to ensure that it is operating in compliance with the law.
The financial penalty deposit scheme helps to provide our enforcement authorities with an effective enforcement mechanism for dealing with alleged road traffic offenders who would otherwise be extremely difficult to pursue. The scheme needs minor housekeeping changes from time to time to keep it in line with the fixed penalty scheme so that UK resident offenders and offenders who have no satisfactory address in the UK can be dealt with in an equivalent way. Such minor changes are being proposed under this order and I believe that most motorists would understand and support these amendments irrespective of whether they are UK residents or non-UK residents. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Wilcox
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I remember, as other noble Lords certainly will, a time when what we now call Royal Mail was known as the Post Office, and then, briefly, Consignia. So perhaps I may start by being absolutely clear about what we mean by the Post Office and what we are here to discuss. The Post Office is an unrivalled network of around 11,500 shops where you can post your parcel or collect your pension. Royal Mail is responsible for collecting and delivering our letters. It provides the universal postal service that connects any post box to every address in the country.
The Government are committed to a strong and sustainable Post Office network. That is why on 27 October we announced funding of £1.34 billion for the Post Office network over the spending review period, subject to state aid approval from the European Commission. On 9 November, we published the policy statement, Securing the Post Office Network in the Digital Age, setting out our plans and commitments for the network. On 13 October, we published the Postal Services Bill, which is currently being debated in Committee in the other place. I shall expand on our plans for the Post Office network shortly, but perhaps I may first address the substance of the instrument currently before the Committee—which is all we are really seeking to discuss today.
The previous Administration introduced the Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme Order 2007 under provisions in Section 103 of the Postal Services Act 2000. The Act allows the Secretary of State to make an order permitting payments for the purpose of assisting in the provision of public post offices or assisting in the provision of services to be provided from public post offices.
Under the terms of the subsidy scheme order, the Government can provide funding to keep post offices open or to enable the establishment of post offices in areas of the country where, without funding, it is unlikely that they would be provided. The current scheme allows the Secretary of State to make payments of up to £160 million in any 12-month period beginning on 1 April. As we want to provide more funding than at present, we are seeking to amend the current order to increase the limit to £500 million.
For the next four years, the largest tranche of funding that we have committed in any one year is £415 million. Increasing the cap on the level of payments made under the subsidy scheme order to £500 million allows for some flexibility and contingency; for example, in case of changes to the tax treatment of the funding. We know that this is a large increase but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the Post Office is a valuable national asset. It is much more than a commercial entity and serves a distinct social purpose. That is why the Postal Services Bill ensures that the Post Office will not be for sale.
The previous Government provided funding for the closure of 5,000 post offices; our approach is different. We will address the real economic challenges that the network faces. Our funding will enable the Post Office to do more than simply maintain the status quo. As well as receiving funding for loss-making branches, the Post Office will be able to invest in the network and introduce new technologies so that branches can be brought up to date. As the previous Government did not fully compensate Post Office Ltd in association with its maintenance of the Post Office network, our funding will give it the opportunity to invest its own resources in developing new revenue streams.
There will be no programme of post office closures on our watch. This funding will ensure that there continues to be a network of around 11,500 post office branches in the UK that continues to meet the post office access criteria. They ensure that 99 per cent of the UK population is within three miles of the nearest post office outlet, while 90 per cent is within one mile. They also contain specific protections for people in rural and deprived urban areas.
Furthermore, the proposed modernisation of the network which we set out in the policy statement will allow for longer opening hours and a faster service. This will make the Post Office more convenient for customers. It will also make it a stronger retail partner for Royal Mail.
However, the number of letters that we send is projected to continue declining over the coming years. Although the growth of online shopping and parcels offers opportunities for the Post Office, it will also need to develop revenues from other sources. These can be divided into two main areas: government services and financial services. We want the Post Office to become a genuine front office for government at both national and local levels. We are exploring the scope for greater local authority involvement in the planning, delivery and level of post office service provision. In terms of financial services, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Post Office reached agreement last month to allow their customers, including those of NatWest, to access their accounts at post offices. This means that almost 80 per cent of current account customers will be able to withdraw cash free of charge at a Post Office branch.
However, we—and especially me, as I am getting rather over-excited by all this—must remember that today we are here to discuss the Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2010. New funding will help to ensure that the Post Office network has a secure and sustainable future. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Post Office network should continue to play an important role throughout this country and will therefore approve the order.
Lord Cotter
I support the Minister on this measure. It is extremely encouraging that the coalition’s approach is a determination to keep our sub-post offices open. I do not wish to have a go at the Opposition but that is extremely welcome in contrast with the previous Government, under whom there were a lot of closures.
When it comes to regulations and Bills, I am always very keen to see whether there is an impact assessment. On this occasion, there is apparently no impact, but I simply raise it as a point that I always tend to raise because, if there is an impact, we must be sure that the matter is addressed when a regulation is brought forward. However, in this case, it does not apply.
I congratulate the Minister on taking the wind out of my sails. I was going to ask for details of what the subsidy would be used towards and so on, but she came forward with some very tangible points which, as I said, took the wind out of my sails. I was going to ask what measures there might be, particularly with, as the Minister said, the decline in the number of letters and in the sale of stamps and so on. Therefore, it is very good to talk about new revenue schemes, longer opening hours and the network being a very strong part of Royal Mail. The Minister also talked about central and local government services being directed, wherever possible, to the Post Office, and of course we have learnt that the banks are going to be engaged in the new arrangements.
Therefore, I shall not waste Members’ time and shall say no more, other than that I very much applaud what has been discussed and I thank the Minister very much for explaining it so clearly. Tangible measures and initiatives will be brought forward to implement what is proposed.
Lord Jones
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction, which was helpful. I support the order and think that those who originated the network subsidy scheme deserve high praise. It is heartening to hear of a continued determination to keep what is left of the Post Office network. Support for the network of 11,500 branches is good news and I think that it will be acclaimed across the nation.
From my work in another place over many years, it quickly became obvious that any community worthy of the name needed a post office and a school, and this order may well hold the line in terms of our communities. These are big amounts of money and they must be welcomed.
One always speaks from experience, so I instance the sub-post office of Llanfynydd in Flintshire. It is tiny, it is valued and it is the village centre. Nothing is too much trouble for the family who run it. Situated on a Welsh hillside at 800 feet, adjacent to a church and a school, it is the centre of a far-flung, Welsh-speaking community. I do not think that any praise is too high for this particular sub-post office, and I make that statement in the knowledge that there are many hundreds of such sub-post offices across the nation. Long may they remain open, giving our communities the service that they need.
I hope that this order will guarantee the survival of post offices such as the one in Llanfynydd in Flintshire. I think that Wales will benefit from what is being proposed and I welcome the order very much.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I could not help smiling when the Minister defined the Royal Mail and the Post Office because I remember when it was called the GPO, which dates me slightly. I was also an employee and, as I recall, the postmaster-general at the time was Anthony Wedgwood Benn. How time passes when you are enjoying yourself.
We welcome the increased subsidy. However, as the Merits Committee helpfully issued a health warning and said that the Order should be considered in conjunction with the Postal Services Bill, it is only appropriate that we register our concern about the impact of the Postal Services Bill. Of course we welcome the increased subsidy, but we would like to see enshrined in legislation the principle that the Post Office network should be used as the access points for Royal Mail.
We believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to specify exactly how many access points there should be. The reason for that is that it has been suggested that a privatised Royal Mail company might think that its needs could be served by a network of some 4,000 outlets. Currently, we have 11,900 post offices. I certainly endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Jones about the vital importance of these post offices to the local community. Of that number, some 7,000 or so could be adequate to meet the access criteria that were introduced by the last Labour Government and have been accepted by this Government and spelt out again in their recent document on the future of the Post Office network in the digital age.
The criteria spell out that the access criteria introduced by Labour meant that, as the Minister said, 99 per cent are to be within three miles of their nearest outlet and 90 per cent should be within one mile. The access criteria continue with a more detailed definition in relation to urban and rural areas. The purpose of the criteria is to ensure reasonable access to post offices in both urban and rural areas. Without them, there would be no control of the overall shape of the Post Office network. We believe that a viable sustainable Post Office network is a critical part of the social infrastructure for many communities, which I was pleased to hear the Minister seemed to endorse. That is why we introduced the access criteria: to ensure that communities would continue to be fairly served by a national Post Office network. As I said, these access criteria could be met with something like 7,000 post offices, but we put in an additional investment so that we could keep the number at 11,900.
If the Government are serious about wanting to keep that number of post offices open and keep the network as we know it now, there should be a mechanism that the Government can use. The Secretary of State should have the power to specify the number of post offices to be used as access points for the services of the provider of the universal postal service. I am talking about that in the context of a privatised Royal Mail.
The Minister might argue that it is up to the privatised business what it decides to do, how many access points it uses and where those access point are located. That is precisely our concern. The nature of the relationship between Royal Mail and the Post Office in a privatised environment would be different. Will there be the current inter-business agreement that safeguards that relationship? We are talking about a national network and a universal service that we all agree we want to be easily accessible to everyone in the UK. Given that all parties on both sides of the House now agree on the access criteria of post offices, we cannot see any good argument for the Secretary of State not having the power to specify not only that the provider of the universal service should use post offices as access points but how many post offices that should be. If the Government are serious about protecting the Post Office network, the straightforward solution would be to enshrine in the Postal Services Bill that the Secretary of State should have that power.
We are talking about using large amounts of taxpayers’ money to subsidise the Post Office network. Therefore we want to make sure that that money is used to preserve that as part of the universal postal service. It seems that other countries have no problem about not letting the Government have a say in this. Elsewhere, where there has been privatisation of the mail service—we make it clear that we are opposed to complete privatisation—there has also been legislation to protect the post office network and specify its use as access points for the universal postal service.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have participated. The Post Office network is an important national asset and it is important that we ensure it has a secure and sustainable future. My noble friend Lord Cotter paid me the compliment of saying that I had taken the wind out of his sails. As I am a sailing woman, I hope very much that I can reverse that. I hope that I raised the wind in his sails rather than taking it out of them.
My noble friend went on to talk about an impact assessment and I have a little note here on why we do not have one. It says that, as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order, we do not believe that this order requires an impact assessment. The Government’s core policy is to ensure a Post Office network of at least 11,500 branches, which continues to meet the access criteria that were implemented in 2007 after national public consultation. This is a continuation of existing government policy and therefore does not constitute change for which the impact should be assessed. Moreover, the Government’s guidance on impact assessments states that spending proposals do not generally require them, as they are developed through a business case process. Well, there we are. However, I was delighted to have his support and I hope to continue to have it when the Bill comes to this House, fairly soon.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for his support. I was listening to his experience in another place and heard of the Flintshire village in the Welsh hillside, whose name I could not pronounce.
Lord Jones
Which, being translated, means the little church on the hillside.
Baroness Wilcox
Well, how lovely indeed. Of the post offices, the rural ones are obviously those which we are all most concerned to do everything that we can to try and keep open.
In the last two outings that we have had facing each other, I have managed each time to call the noble Lord, Lord Young, “the Minister”. I shall try this time not to do it and to remember that I am the Minister. I also forgot the noble Lord’s background in the industry, when he reminded us of the GPO. I am not going to be tempted by him—I have been warned about this—to wander into the Bill, which will of course be with us some time at the beginning of next year. I look forward very much indeed to debating with him when the Bill comes, because of all his experience when he was a Minister. I am sure that he will have some pretty splendid arguments to put up.
I think that I have covered most of the points made. People have been very good. Your Lordships have seemed to be in support so all I need say at this stage, Deputy Chairman, is that I commend the order to the Committee.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Wilcox
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I am pleased today to present these regulations to the Committee. The regulations before us provide that, where an employer makes money payments for travelling expenses that are eligible for tax relief, these payments do not count towards the national minimum wage. They address the problems we have identified with what are commonly called travel and subsistence schemes, operated by some employment businesses that involve low-paid workers. I will briefly outline how these schemes work and why we are tightening their rules.
Traditionally, employment businesses have engaged workers under agency contracts. In this situation, the worker is not an employee of the employment business. As a result, each assignment with a client is, for tax legislation purposes, considered to be the worker’s permanent place of employment. Increasingly, however, some employment businesses are engaging workers under an employment contract, rather than under an agency contract. These contracts are also sometimes referred to as “overarching contracts of employment” because they link, or claim to link, a series of different assignments into one overarching employment with the employment business. One of the consequences of this approach is that, for the purposes of tax legislation, each assignment with a client is considered to be the worker’s temporary place of employment.
This distinction between a temporary and permanent place of employment is an important one. Since 1998, workers travelling from home to a temporary workplace have been eligible for tax relief on their travel expenses, which includes associated subsistence costs. Travel from home to a permanent workplace, on the other hand, does not qualify for tax relief. Therefore, by engaging workers under employment contracts, employment businesses are able to use travel and subsistence schemes to reduce the amount of tax and national insurance contributions that the worker pays and the amount of national insurance contributions that the employer pays.
Travel and subsistence schemes operate through an arrangement known as salary sacrifice. Under it, an employee contractually agrees to give up part of their taxable income in exchange for something else that is either non-taxable or taxable at a lower rate. In this case, the employee receives travel—and usually subsistence—expenses. These expenses are free of tax and national insurance contributions because they relate to travel to a temporary workplace. Payments of expenses for travel from home to these temporary workplaces and associated subsistence count as pay under national minimum wage rules. Therefore, as long as the taxable pay and the expenses paid by the employer are equal to or greater than the minimum wage, the employer is compliant for minimum wage purposes. The worker benefits from these arrangements as they receive a slightly higher take-home pay than they would otherwise have done. The employer also benefits, as the amount of salary on which they have to pay the employer’s national insurance contributions is decreased. In many cases, the expenses that the employer pays to the worker are less than the salary that the worker has surrendered.
The Government consider that there are several problems with the use of travel and subsistence schemes for workers on the national minimum wage. The first is about preserving the integrity of the minimum wage as a wage floor. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the coalition Government are committed to the minimum wage because we recognise the protection it gives to low-income workers and the incentive to work that it provides. For the minimum wage regime to be effective, employers must be able to demonstrate easily that they have met their legal obligations.
Workers need to know what they are entitled to, which is particularly important given the vulnerability of those with whom we are concerned today. Allowing some salary sacrifices to count towards the minimum wage where others, such as childcare vouchers, do not unduly complicates the regime. There is evidence that the employer gains far more from these schemes than the worker, and that the majority of workers do not understand how the schemes work. The Government consider this to be a form of exploitation of low-paid workers.
A number of adverse consequences flow from the participation of low-paid workers in such schemes. The amount that a worker pays in national insurance contributions potentially affects their entitlement to certain benefits. For low-paid workers in travel and subsistence schemes, the most significant impact is on the basic and additional state pension. If they participate in the schemes, the pay that is liable for national insurance contributions is reduced, thereby increasing the number of weeks that they must work and pay national insurance contributions to secure the qualifying earnings for the state pension. It thus increases the risk of the worker not meeting the eligibility criteria for contributory benefits.
In addition, businesses not using travel and subsistence schemes can find themselves at a competitive disadvantage to those which do. Businesses using such schemes can undercut them on price or general profit margins, which would not be possible without the tax and national insurance contribution benefits available.
Some businesses have told us that they do not wish to implement travel and subsistence schemes for employees because they consider them to be exploitative and morally wrong. For some, this is an ethical matter. They believe that such schemes might be against low-paid workers’ long-term interests, that workers do not properly understand how the schemes work and that some schemes do not, in reality, give workers the employment rights associated with an employment contract. For others, the implementation costs mean they are cost-effective only where a large number of workers is involved. As a result, smaller businesses are less able to use such schemes.
There are further issues of fairness. Artificially reducing the pay liable for tax and national insurance contributions means that a low-paid worker in a travel scheme becomes entitled to an higher level of certain benefits, such as tax credits, than a low-paid worker who is paid the same amount but not through a travel scheme. We do not believe that this is right. Nor do we consider it right that the burden of financing benefits should be passed from the employer and the worker to the general taxpayer.
For the reasons that I have set out, the Government consider that payments of travel and associated subsistence expenses relating to travel from home to a temporary workplace should not count as pay for minimum wage purposes. The draft regulations before us today will preserve the integrity of the minimum wage. They will reduce the risk of reducing low-paid workers’ entitlement to certain social security benefits. They will ensure a level playing field for those businesses unwilling or unable to use such schemes. They will remove the unfairness in the present situation. I beg to move.
Lord Cotter
I thank the Minister. I declare an interest as having been a member of the committee on the national minimum wage in the other place. I was very pleased to play a part in seeing that legislation through. We sat on one occasion for what I think was the longest-ever sitting in Parliament—close to 24 hours—going overnight to consider the Bill. While many others spoke all the time, I spoke only occasionally. I promise not to speak for 24 hours today, which I am sure is a great relief to everybody. That includes me, because I would run out of steam.
Suffice to say, I thank the Minister once again for the explanation and for drawing out the intention of this measure to preserve the minimum wage, preserve its integrity and ensure that the workforce is not exploited in any way. The regulations are being put before Parliament for approval and I see no reason not to approve their implementation today. In terms of impact, I was glad that small businesses were also mentioned in the regulations. On that basis, I thank the Minister and hope that this goes forward successfully.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Low Pay Commission. I am grateful to the Minister for her clear explanation of the regulations. I welcome the simplification that is being suggested and I am delighted to be reminded again of the coalition Government’s commitment to the national minimum wage.
I have four questions relating to the regulations. Would I be correct in understanding that an employee currently receiving precisely the adult national minimum wage who was also receiving assistance for transport to work would, as a result of this regulation, effectively have a lower benefit as a consequence of employment?
Secondly, I was somewhat surprised to see the explanation in paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum that,
“only around 90,000 low paid workers”,
will be affected. The figure of 90,000 seems to be quite large. What percentage is that of the total number of employees estimated to be earning the national minimum wage? I suspect that the use of the word “only” may be misleading.
I would also like to know a little more about the impact of the judicial review explained at paragraph 8.2 and what impact that might have on the timing of the implementation of these revised regulations. Finally, perhaps the Minister can explain paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which makes no sense to me at all.
While officials in the Box prepare the answers, I will do the Minister the courtesy of talking on another subject so that they can prepare their notes. I know how much anxiety can be prompted when you look around and they are filing their nails and not writing a note for you.
I have four general points on the national minimum wage. I was delighted to hear the Minister reiterate her commitment to the minimum wage in a Question to the House last week in connection with internship. Am I correct in understanding that her clear statement that there would be no change in the way in which the minimum wage operates reflects the fact that we continue to believe that the RPI is the appropriate index for inflation that should be used when assessing whether the minimum wage represents an increase or decrease in real income?
Secondly, can the Low Pay Commission be asked to look at the accommodation allowance, which has not kept pace with the cost of accommodation and is falling behind in terms of value?
Thirdly, the Low Pay Commission should also give its attention to piece work. For example, hotel service operatives—or chambermaids as we used to call them—are sometimes assumed to be able to complete four bedrooms an hour for the purposes of earning the minimum wage. There is a lot of evidence that the rate of productivity assumed is altogether too high. Therefore, the minimum wage is being breached in both spirit and purpose.
Finally, can the Minister confirm that, as part of the coalition Government’s commitment to the minimum wage, there will be no diminution in the resource available for compliance and enforcement? The word “fairness” was used earlier. The national minimum wage has to be fair both to employees and to employers who comply. When employers in the vicinity do not comply, that means a disadvantage for businesses which meet their legal obligations. I came across many examples of firms which did not comply. Resource was already very stretched in terms of monitoring compliance and enforcement. If the Government were in any way to reduce the resource made available for these functions, that would undermine the national minimum wage, which I believe the Institute for Government recently listed as one of the top 10 achievements of recent Governments. I think it is fair to say that the national minimum wage has had universal support from all political parties, and commitment to compliance, monitoring and enforcement is critical.
I think that I have now allowed sufficient time for those in the Box to perform their duties. I support the proposed regulations.
Lord Jones
Perhaps I will give them a little more time. I thank the Minister for her exposition at the onset. I am very glad to follow my noble friend Lord Myners, who on these matters has a very distinguished track record. The Committee may well learn from his expertise.
I welcome the details given, which were detailed enough. I support the regulations and would not be able to contribute without praising the minimum wage legislation overall. It was a very great social advance in Britain. It has been hugely beneficial to my own country of Wales and perhaps also particularly to sparsely populated areas across Britain—those, for example, which are dependent on tourism, the hospitality industry and aspects of agriculture and forestry for employment. It is a huge advance for many ordinary people in our nation.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, in another place I observed the clamour, controversy and opposition when the Blair Administration brought forward the minimum wage legislation. It was almost unbelievable. The opposition was strong and, looking back, there was much sound and fury. I am glad that I was able to support that legislation and use my vote in the other place. I, for one, am very proud that the minimum wage is on the statute book and I am grateful for the information that the Minister has given us today.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I, too, welcome the statutory instrument before us, which proposes to make a change so that payments by an employer for travel expenses to a temporary workplace which are eligible for tax relief will not count as pay for national minimum wage purposes. I certainly endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Jones, and I shall come later to the tour de force and analysis from my noble friend Lord Myners.
It is right to remind ourselves that the national minimum wage was introduced by the Labour Government in 1999 in spite of all manner of scaremongering. I remember talk from some sections of the right-wing press of 2 million jobs being at risk, and of course the legislation was opposed by the Conservative Party at the time, so we welcome the conversion, although I would not call it a pauline conversion. When it was introduced, the minimum wage raised pay for more than 2 million people. Thereafter, the Labour Government ensured that there were regular above-inflation increases so that, in the first 10 years of its existence, the national minimum wage rose by 59 per cent. Those increases raised the living standards of the lowest paid and helped to close the gap between men’s and women’s pay. We should not forget those fundamental changes that took place.
I certainly endorse the point that my noble friend Lord Myners made about the importance of compliance and enforcement. It took us a while before HMRC and the employment agency services group got around to ensuring that they prosecuted those people who failed to pay the minimum wage. I would welcome some reassurance on that. I very much hope that the coalition parties will continue our policy—to endorse again a point made by my noble friend Lord Myners—of increasing the national minimum wage at or above the level of inflation. I also hope that there is no intention on the coalition’s part to allow the national minimum wage to wither on the vine. I express those fears because we have already seen the coalition Government decide to use the consumer prices index instead of the retail prices index to calculate rises in pensions and benefits, which will gradually erode pensioners’ income.
How does the use of such a scheme affect the workers? I pay tribute to the helpful analysis of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which gave us a useful assessment of the effect on workers and their take-home pay. Just as important is what it will mean for them in future entitlements. If the money that one takes home equates to the minimum wage and is made up partly of wages and partly of an amount for travel, the actual wage is rather less than the minimum wage. In cases that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has seen, workers who are paid the national minimum wage and who use a travel and subsistence scheme can find that as much as 40 per cent of their wages are paid as travel and subsistence expenses.
In making up our mind about whether we should support the proposed instrument, one of the things that certainly influenced us was that the Low Pay Commission, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority all endorsed it, as the Minister said. Over the past five years the HMRC compliance teams have interviewed an estimated 400 to 500 workers, the majority of whom were paid at or near the minimum wage. Virtually none of them understood in any meaningful way the contractual terms of their engagement. The possibility of exploitation is a real worry.
The access to earnings-related contributory benefits, which is based on a worker attaining the qualifying earnings factor, can therefore be affected. The effect of participating in travel and subsistence schemes is to reduce the amount of a worker’s pay on which national insurance contributions are paid, depending on how many weeks they are unable to work for, and puts at risk their ability to achieve the qualifying earnings factor. That is most likely to affect eligibility for both basic and additional state pension.
I understand from the impact assessment that the schemes we are discussing are likely to involve some 90,000 out of a possible 1 million people. I would like some confirmation of that. It endorses another point that my noble friend Lord Myners made. The change proposed in the legislation could have a negative impact on some workers who are currently in such travel and subsistence schemes because only part of the amount that a worker takes home is pay, and gross pay is assessed for tax purposes. Some workers, because they receive less pay, may be entitled to more working tax credit. Under the regulations, some people could find that they are entitled to less working tax credit because more of their take-home money will be pay. However, such individuals have until now had an advantage over other workers with similar levels of income who are not in such schemes. This legislation will end the unfairness that travel and subsistence schemes create. We endorse the point that the Minister made: workers who participate in them artificially benefit from enhanced eligibility for tax credits, compared to other workers who do not or cannot participate.
What steps will the Government take to ensure that any workers whose eligibility for working tax credit will be affected are properly informed about the change? That is important. We know that tax credits have been a huge boost to those on low incomes and have been recognised as helping to reduce the gap between rich and poor. I am sure that I am not the only Peer who has had to deal with people whose circumstances have changed and where workers are then faced with a clawback, where they must pay back an overpayment of tax credit. I stress that we want to know what the Government will do to ensure that anyone affected by the measure is kept fully informed and does not end up, months down the line, in a situation of being asked to pay back money that they simply do not have.
That said, we support the motivation behind this statutory instrument because we believe that it will prevent exploitation and ensure that the contributory benefit position of temporary workers paid at or near the national minimum wage is not prejudiced by the reduction of earnings liable to pass on national insurance contributions. We also support it because the intention is to ensure that employment businesses and umbrella companies do not gain an unfair competitive advantage through the use of travel and subsistence schemes for temporary workers. I, too, look forward to the answers to the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Myners.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I believe that the regulations raise important issues of principle about the minimum wage and the rights of workers and employers, so it is essential that we give them very careful consideration. I was therefore happy to hear the comments today and to hear some supporting views, which is always nice. I really had not taken it on board that my noble friend Lord Cotter had been a member of the national minimum wage committee in another place. Hearing that he sat for 24 hours, our Chief Whip would, no doubt, remind us that other people in other places sit longer than we do. However, it was a wonderful piece of work and it has been supported over the years.
The noble Lord, Lord Myners, asked several questions and I think that I can answer a goodly few. On the first, we recognise that workers participating in travel and subsistence schemes may see a small reduction in their take-home pay as a result of the changes in the regulations. However, our experience is that the direct cash benefit to the worker is minimal in comparison to the direct cash benefit to the employment business. We consider it wrong in principle that profits should be made by employers from low-paid workers through the application of salary sacrifice schemes. There is evidence that significant numbers of low-paid workers do not understand the way in which these schemes work. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed that out in his remarks.
The regulations will remove the risk that, by participating in travel schemes, low-paid workers will not be able to meet the requirements for entitlements to earnings-related benefits, in particular the basic and additional state pension. Again, I pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Young, said: let us make sure that everybody knows and understands what is happening to them because they are already complaining that they do not at the minute. We must be very sure that what we do makes that clearer.
On the second question from the noble Lord, Lord Myners, about a percentage of temporary workers as opposed to workers on the national minimum wage, we estimate that approximately 1 million workers are earning that national minimum wage so 90,000 is, for interest, roughly 10 per cent of that total. His third question was on why we have not waited until the result of the judicial review to put forward the regulations. We consider that the judicial review application has no merit and we are strongly defending ourselves against it. There are good reasons for the Government to make these regulations and we are confident that the court will agree with us. We therefore see no reason to delay the regulations until the result of the judicial review is known.
On the noble Lord’s fourth question, it says here that there is an error in paragraph 10.1 of the memorandum, for which we apologise. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Myners, very much for bringing it to our attention. Yes, jolly good. On enforcement compliance, this Government are firmly committed to the national minimum wage and to effective risk-based enforcement. Enforcement is essential in ensuring a level playing field for legitimate businesses and in protecting workers who are at risk of abuse by those who refuse to play by the rules. BIS has published a strategy for national minimum wage compliance. It focuses on how the compliance and enforcement landscape should look over the next three to five years and recognises that our approach must continue to be based on intelligence and data. In the context of reduced budgets we will need to prioritise, but we are clear that underpayment is not an option. The strategy will help us to make informed choices to ensure that we have the right tools for the job and that resources are focused where they are most effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, also talked about his time in the other place. He spoke with Welsh passion about the national minimum wage. It was very nice to hear him and good to have his support for the work going forward. I hope that we do not disappoint him.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, talked of the beneficial effects of the previous Government’s work in this area and of closing the gap between men and women’s pay. To that, I would say, “Yes, but we are not there yet”. We will keep trying to improve on the previous Government’s work. The noble Lord also paid tribute to the excellent work of the Merits Committee. I agree with that, as I am sure would all other noble Lords.
I was asked whether we would make sure that people were properly informed of the changes. Yes, we certainly will. I was asked also whether workers will face a claw-back of overpaid tax credits at the end of the year as a result of their pay being adjusted. No, they will not. For tax credits to be adjusted downwards for 2010-11, there would need to be a substantially greater increase in taxable pay for 2010-11 than will arise from the proposed amendment to the regulations.
There were one or two other questions which the noble Lord, Lord Myners, very kindly put to me as I was waiting for the answers to the first ones. I am not sure that I am able to answer them all at the moment; if that is the case, I shall write to him.
Lord Myners
I congratulate the Minister on doing a superb job in answering the questions. Many members of the coalition Government would do well to study the skill, openness and sincerity with which she attempts to answer questions and, indeed, succeeds in doing so.
I have only one question to ask at this point; it is fortunate that we have a Minister from the Department of Business with us to answer it. Which is the right rate of inflation? The Government are using CPI for changing benefits and pensions, but they are using RPI for increasing the payments that students make in connection with university education. Both decisions come from the same department of state. Can the Minister put my mind at ease and tell me which is the relevant index to be used for the purpose of determining fair value for people on low incomes or of paying for their education?
Baroness Wilcox
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, will understand the answer that I can give him. The Government will consider the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission when deciding on the appropriate rates for the national minimum wage.
Lord Myners
That is a very good answer to a question that I did not ask but I am happy to leave it at that.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
That was exactly the point that I was coming to. When the Minister said that she would “consider”, did that mean that she is not committed to accepting the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission? Are the Government prepared to accept its recommendations, as previous Governments have done?
Baroness Wilcox
I am told that this Government never commit—at least, not at this moment—so I think that I just have to say that we are considering the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations.
Lord Myners
This Government may never commit. They pledge, but we know what the pledges are worth. However, it is right to point out that the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations on hourly rates have never been rejected by government. I sincerely hope that this Government will respect the commission’s independence, integrity, foresight and professionalism and not lightly even contemplate rejecting its recommendations.
Baroness Wilcox
I am sorry, my Lords. I was being flippant and was somewhat thrown by the question, which is a little wide of the regulations that I am introducing today. Yes, of course, we shall be listening very carefully to the Low Pay Commission. We shall remember its independence and integrity, which we will honour. If there are no further questions that anyone wishes to put at the moment, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Youth Justice Board
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how, when taking the Youth Justice Board into the Ministry of Justice, they will ensure that there remains a distinct focus on youth justice separate from the adult system.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government are committed to maintaining a distinct focus on the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system. By integrating the Youth Justice Board into the Ministry of Justice, we will bring together the existing experience and knowledge of the YJB and the MoJ. Independent oversight of the youth justice system is no longer required and the MoJ is best placed to lead an effective system going forward that builds on the improvements that have already been made.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and for the Green Paper. He will know that in the past two years of the Youth Justice Board’s operation there has been a reduction of some 27 per cent in the use of custody for young offenders. How will this strategy be taken forward in the Ministry of Justice, especially in the light of the decentralising emphasis of the Green Paper?
Lord McNally
My Lords, in many ways, the YJB is a success story. In the late 1990s, youth services were Cinderella organisations but they are also mainly the responsibility of local authorities. We are ensuring that the system is decentralised and devolved in a positive way. In the past few years, there has been a very successful move away from putting young people into custody and towards using other methods, which has brought about the reduction. We will continue to encourage and follow this process.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I was the Chief Inspector of Prisons when the Youth Justice Board was introduced. I entirely agree with the Minister that the board has been a success story. One of the very telling things that occurred was that, at last, a named person was responsible and accountable for looking after these people—and that told. Can the Minister say whether, when the arrangements are changed, there will be someone in the system who is responsible and accountable for young people?
Lord McNally
Most certainly so. I have made it very clear that the Ministry of Justice is taking on the responsibility for continuing a success story. Therefore, what is put in place to carry forward these responsibilities must maintain that very clear and distinct responsibility for the service. I assure noble Lords that the new system will reflect that kind of structure.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Why change something that has been so successful? Is change for change’s sake the watchword of this Government?
Lord McNally
I am sorry to hear that barb at the end. The job of the Youth Justice Board was to establish an effective, local system of operating youth justice, which is now carried out by the youth offending teams. Therefore, this extra layer of administration and control is not required. That success means that youth justice is now under local control and is carried out by youth offending teams. We at the Ministry of Justice will carry out an arm’s-length supervisory role, but youth justice is a local responsibility that will be carried out at local level.
Lord Elton
My Lords, to complete the reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, could the Minister kindly tell us which Minister within the department will be responsible for children within the criminal justice system?
Lord McNally
I would love to say that the relevant Minister would be Mr X or Mr Y, or even Lord B, but the appropriate time for that is when the legislation has gone through. It is no use the Front Bench clucking—they know darn well that this process has to be gone through. There are transitional arrangements to be made, and at the appropriate time, the appropriate line of responsibility will be defined very clearly. I can assure noble Lords of that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, is not the noble Lord rather dismayed by his own answer? Cannot he tell us which officeholder will be responsible for this role? The noble Lord knows perfectly well that, before we introduced the Youth Justice Board, the criminal justice system’s response to young people was in a parlous state. The noble Lord is quite right to say that the Youth Justice Board has been a total success, as it has reduced the level of young people coming into the criminal justice system. The board does exactly what the Lord Chancellor wants in reducing prisoner numbers. Can the noble Lord tell us, first, why the board is being changed and, secondly, how it will be changed for the better?
Lord McNally
That is extraordinary from someone who has held the position that the noble and learned Baroness has held. The straight answer is that, because the board is coming into the Ministry of Justice, the responsibility will be that of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. That is very clear. However, within the Ministry of Justice, we are in a transition period. We are going through this along with the Youth Justice Board, which is co-operating very effectively in the transition. When those lines of responsibility are cleared and when the legislation has cleared Parliament, we will be able to go ahead with implementation and those lines will be clear. As I said, I acknowledge that the system of youth justice has moved from being a Cinderella organisation in the 1990s to one that has been extremely effective, but we are now removing that layer of national control to ensure that there is proper, local responsibility by devolving responsibility to youth offending teams. That was also part of the initial plans that the previous Government put in place.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Will my noble friend consider, in the medium term, investigating the way that youth justice operates and replacing youth courts with something along the lines of the children’s panels that operate very successfully in Scotland, in which the magistrates sit down together with parents and social workers to try to work out the proper solution for the individual offender?
Lord McNally
That is the kind of constructive suggestion that I hope will come forward from the Green Paper that my department published yesterday. The Green Paper shows that we have been successful in establishing youth justice as a priority in our system, as the paper has a distinct chapter on youth justice. There is an invitation to all parts of this House—and indeed to all bodies—to feed in constructive views. This is not the end of the youth justice story. The Youth Justice Board has been a successful chapter and we intend to carry on with that work. We will study ideas that come from the Scottish and Northern Irish systems.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Glentoran
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in light of the proposed cuts in public expenditure, how they will maintain the standard expected from HM Coastguard; and how they will protect the international reputation of the organisation.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Coastguard rightly enjoys a proud history of initiating and co-ordinating responses to search and rescue incidents at sea and around our coasts. The Government are committed to maintaining standards and protecting the reputation of HM Coastguard in the years ahead. HM Coastguard will continue to task and co-ordinate the efforts of our national search and rescue capability, including lifeboats, helicopters and Coastguard Rescue Service volunteers.
Lord Glentoran
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that positive Answer. I declare an interest as a long-term seafarer who has a number of concerns about the future of Her Majesty’s Coastguard. First, the VHF DF system for quickly locating distress signals and the like is being removed. Apparently, the system is not going to be replaced. What do the Government propose to do about that? I have it on good authority that the decision was made as a result of a series of wrong and misleading intelligence. Secondly, my information is that HM Coastguard intends to reduce the number of coastguard centres around the entire coast of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales and Ireland, from the present considerable number, which I am afraid I do not know, to two. What does the noble Earl intend his department to do, and is it correct that all the coastguard stations around the coast will disappear and we will be left with two, with people sitting in boxes with radios?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord should be aware that the UK coast is fully covered by radio aerials to receive distress alerts. This network is second to none, is more comprehensive than in many other EU countries, and will be maintained. Noble Lords may wish to note that all UK commercial vessels have to carry a radio for use in an emergency. Modern technology, including rescue beacons, has now overtaken the need for DF systems in operation rooms. However, lifeboats and helicopters are still fitted with direction-finding equipment, as necessary. There is less need for the search element of search and rescue.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, given the noble Earl’s answer, in which he indicated the technological basis upon which the coastguard service relies, and given the cuts in public expenditure, what assurance can he give us that those systems will be adequately protected against some form of cyberattack or cybervirus? In May 2004, at a time of rather more lavish public spending, the coastguard service’s systems collapsed because it had failed to ignore no fewer than six separate alerts sent to it through the Cabinet Office about patching the systems. What assurance can he give us that that will not happen in the future?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I would be surprised if that had not been covered by the studies of our critical national infrastructure, but I shall write to the noble Lord on the detail.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, the Minister quite rightly referred to the need for the best possible technology. I was witness to the work of the coastguard helicopters and others at Boscastle and Crackington Haven during the devastating floods of six years ago. Can he assure me that the problems encountered then of liaison between the helicopters in difficult terrain along our coastline have been dealt with in terms of improved technology?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I cannot give specific assurances, but the proposal is to make sure that the radio systems are up to date, particularly in the use of digital networks.
Lord Greenway
My Lords, financial implications apart, is it not true that Her Majesty’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency has been going through a rather difficult period over the past five years? Does the Minister share my confidence in the new chief executive, which is felt widely in the maritime community, and agree with me that he will sort out the present problems, although it may take a little time to do so?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I, too, hope that we can ensure that we have the very best Maritime and Coastguard Agency that we can provide. We are reviewing it and we will be making an announcement about consultation shortly.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, could the Minister please guarantee that the input by the coastguard agency to the NMIC, the National Maritime Information Centre, which is so crucial to the counterterrorist security of this nation, will not be touched by what is being agreed to at the moment in terms of reductions.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, unfortunately I am not briefed on that. It is a very good point and I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, is the Minister briefed on his obvious point? This is the second question where we have had a response from the Front Bench which is driven by the necessity for cuts and not for protection of the quality of the service. Will he address himself to that question?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the necessity for the cuts arises from the party opposite.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are committed to maintaining an effective coastguard service.
Youth Sport Trust
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the decision to withdraw the grant from the Youth Sport Trust; and what consultations were undertaken before the decision was made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, we looked carefully at the impact of the Youth Sport Trust and the school sport partnerships in recent years. While there has certainly been progress in some areas, the overall level of participation in competitive sport remains disappointingly low. The Government are bringing forward proposals to promote an Olympic and Paralympic-style programme where the Youth Sport Trust has been on the steering committee. We hope that this will lead to more involvement by more children at all levels.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but it is important to understand that the decision by the Secretary of State to cut completely the dedicated fund for school sports, condemned by head teachers, sports people and 600,000 young people yesterday, will mean the demolition of the 450 school sport partnerships across the country; partnerships that include every single school, including the smallest primaries and special schools. Despite the Secretary of State’s view that they are inefficient, repeated I understand by the Prime Minister today, independent evaluation has said that the partnerships have led a remarkable revival in school sports. I also understand that the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport want them to continue.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
In that regard, will the Minister not ensure that funding at least for the continuation of that infrastructure will be found within the department?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, as the debates in another place revealed a couple of weeks ago, there is broad agreement across the House on the importance of sport and on the fact that we want to have a very strong legacy from the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
In terms of the performance of the school sport partnerships, again there was broad acceptance that the record is mixed. I certainly do not subscribe to the view that there was not good work done—there clearly was good work done—but equally there is acceptance that it was not universally good across the piece, and there are many people in sport who would also make that argument. In terms of going forward, what I hope we are united on is the need to find an effective way—we may differ on the means—of making sure that there is a strong and lasting Olympic and Paralympic legacy.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, can the Minister explain what options were considered for consulting more locally—perhaps with head teachers, schools, or even some of the children who were so vocal outside yesterday—before this decision was made? It is not just about an elite sports pathway; it is about the serious impact that a fall in participation could have on all our children’s future health and well-being.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I always listen with particular care to the points made by the noble Baroness. In a debate a few weeks ago, she made a very powerful intervention. I take her points very much to heart. My honourable friend Mr Loughton, the Minister for Children, is working with colleagues at DCMS to make sure that head teachers have the opportunity to express their views. As someone who could never have been described as an elite sports person—unlike the noble Baroness—I also agree very much with the point that we want to encourage participation for people at all levels, as well as making sure that there is a proper legacy.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, many of our Olympians and top sports stars were discovered and cultivated by sport specialists at schools and went on to make our country very proud—the noble Baroness is an example. Can my noble friend the Minister assure us that measures will be put in place to compel head teachers to spend money on sports and sport specialists, and not to divert funds into other areas at the long-term expense of sport and sporting legends?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with the thrust of the point made by my noble friend about the need to make sure that sport is given due weight. Part of what we need to look at in our overall considerations is the review of the national curriculum, to make sure that the emphasis that PE is given—in particular the competitive aspects of PE—is properly reflected. Our contention, as the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, suggested, is that we are trying to devolve responsibility and funds to heads of schools across the board to make those decisions. We expect that heads will want to continue to make sure that sport is given due and proper weight.
Baroness Billingham
I apologise. Members of this House will remember that when the announcement was made about the withdrawal of funding, there was a firestorm of fury across the whole sporting family. It came from schools, colleges, elite athletes and people supporting the legacy of the Olympics. This outrage was no surprise. I think that No. 10 was somewhat taken by surprise, to the extent that it issued a statement saying that it would rethink this. At today's PMQs, the Prime Minister said that there would be no rethink. My question to the Minister is: will you have a rethink or will you rush headlong into the devastation of sport for a whole generation and many years to come?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The situation is that, in the light of the debate around sport following our announcement, my department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are considering how best to ensure that we have a proper legacy for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. In due course, we will come forward to set out more detail.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
As a mere Back-Bencher, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether it is true that this function was previously devolved to headmasters. They had the responsibility for ensuring that there was competitive sport. However, in practice it did not work, which is why we had to establish the bodies that we have been speaking about. If they are to be abolished, what will the Government put in place to make sure that we do not slip back to what we had previously?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As I said in my previous reply, work is going on to set out our thoughts going forward. It is also true that when the system with the Youth Sport Trust and the school sport partnerships was set up, a former Labour Sports Minister said that the expectation had always been that if it worked well—and after £2.4 billion of expenditure, there are good examples of where obviously it has worked—it would be embedded in the system, and therefore it would be more appropriate for head teachers to take that responsibility.
World Cup: Football
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what lessons can be learnt from the failure of England’s 2018 FIFA World Cup bid.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an unpaid interest as vice-president of the Football Conference and as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Football Group.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, there is obviously great disappointment over FIFA’s decision. England’s 2018 team put together a strong technical bid which FIFA recognised. It is difficult to think what more the Government could have done to support it. I congratulate Russia and Qatar on being selected and wish them luck for hosting the tournaments in 2018 and 2022. It is too early to draw lessons at this stage but that process will now begin.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I think most reasonable people will take the view that this Government and their predecessor did all they legally could to win the bid. I suspect that many of your Lordships will have had the experience of being promised votes from people who turn out to be inveterate liars. Does the Minister agree that this is now the time for a far-reaching government inquiry into the state of English football, looking at such matters as the governance of the Football Association, the influence of the Premier League on the England national team and the effects of all these developments on the grassroots of the game?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Lord’s long-standing commitment to football and his wide-ranging contributions to the sport. On the matters of governance, it is not for the Government to run football. We have been clear that we are looking to football to put its house in order and we would expect it to address governance and regulation issues internally before there is any question of government regulation. But on the broad gist of his remarks, yes, we would agree with that.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as deputy chairman of England’s 2018 bid and, secondly, as honorary president of the Football League. I have two questions for my noble friend. Does she accept on behalf of the Government that when an excess of money combines with a deficit in truthfulness, the main casualty is the integrity of competition, whether it is national or international football? Secondly, is it the Government’s view that the charges and issues raised by the Sunday Times and by the BBC “Panorama” programme remain on the table to be resolved?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, one of the aspects of the Sunday Times exposé is that FIFA responded by expelling two executive committee members in November. Its ethics committee has shown that it takes allegations of corruption seriously, but the issues and the sanctions FIFA imposes are a matter for it.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, is there not one clear lesson from this, and that is the gross injustice done to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who was right but was right before his time?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I think perhaps on that matter I had better not comment.
Lord Addington
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that if football wants help from the Government, it must, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, says, put its own house in order before it goes back to Parliament or any other part of Government asking for any support or help? In that light, can my noble friend give us an assurance that the Government will make sure that football has at least started on that process before we start listening to it again?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank my noble friend for that question. It refers back to what I previously said. We would expect the Football Association to put its house in order and we look forward to that being learnt. Quite possibly, the result of not getting the World Cup will mean that football takes another look at the way in which it operates, although in no way would I suggest that football was at fault in our not gaining the World Cup in 2018.
Baroness Billingham
Many people have said that the best antidote to the rebuttal that we have had is to actually get on the pitch and win the World Cup at the next possible opportunity. If it is any help to the Minister, is she aware that there is already the Burns report which did an amazing review of football governance in this country? It may well be time that we looked at the Burns report again and brought it into action.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that getting on the pitch and winning some matches would be a very good rebuttal of what has happened with FIFA. On the funding side, the Government remain committed to investing in grassroots football through the money which Sport England provides to the Football Association and, as she says, learning lessons from the Burns review.
Lord Inglewood
Does the Minister agree that it is open to those against whom these very serious allegations have been made by the Sunday Times and “Panorama” to issue court proceedings for defamation, and that we can draw our own conclusion on whether they do so?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Again, my noble friend makes a very valid point but, I think, that is outside the remit of government to control.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, can the Minister confirm the accuracy of a report in the Guardian newspaper on 1 December that, as a condition of being allowed to bid, the Government agreed to exempt FIFA and its representatives from aspects of the money-laundering regulations if they were to come to this country for the tournament in 2018? Can she also confirm that no such extraordinary condition was imposed by the IOC in relation to the Olympic bid for London 2012?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, a number of conditions were agreed by the previous Administration before the bid went forward and guarantees were required by FIFA. The guarantees were generic and did not take into account matters such as EU law. There were also some things that we were required to do—for example, we were required to charge VAT by EU law—but we made it clear to FIFA that, as with the Olympics, arrangements would be put in place to minimise the impact and not distort our own systems.
Energy Bill [HL]
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:22 - Division on Amendment 31 - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 196 - Amendment 31 disagreed.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 25. In moving this amendment, I need to step back, without in any way wishing to delay the House, to remind the House and those unable to be present last week that the central argument in the case for many of us is that the Government have picked the wrong system in the referendum question. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I both support electoral reform, but we oppose the multioptional preferential voting system as set out in the legislation. The problem is that the Government failed to do their homework when deciding upon a system. They had three systems from which they could select. First is the classic AV federal system that is operated in Australia. Secondly, there is the multioptional preferential system—the one that they have selected in the Bill. Thirdly, there is the supplementary vote, otherwise known as the London alternative vote.
The Government picked the system in a rush against a background of frantic coalition negotiations. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in his speech the day before yesterday, it seems that they had in mind when they selected the scheme the fact that the Labour Government had picked a similar scheme when we presented our Bill earlier this year.
My view, and that of many of my colleagues, is that the system that has been selected is nonsense and riddled with flaws. That is why I argue for an inquiry in Amendment 22. I am convinced that whenever more than two or three are gathered together to consider AV systems, they invariably end up with the supplementary vote or London AV, which is the basis for Amendment 25. This amendment would modify the question in Clause 1 where it states:
“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?”.
I simply delete the word “the” alternative vote, and change it to read “an” alternative vote system.
Amendment 25 would enable Parliament to select an alternative voting system out of the three variants of AV available, to which I have referred. The Bill preselects an AV system which many of us reject, as indeed an overwhelming majority of the House would probably do on a free vote. An affirmative vote in a referendum would lead to an inquiry being established to recommend an electoral system to the House, and that inquiry would be able to select from the three systems. It deals with the distinction alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on Second Reading on 15 November—at col. 569 of Hansard—when he drew a distinction between pre-legislative referendums procedure as proposed by the Labour Government during the Scots and Welsh referendums: in other words, a referendum decision first and legislative detail after; as against the post-legislative referendum as set out in the Bill, which means legislative detail first followed by a referendum.
The question is simple: why cannot we have a referendum that simply seeks approval for the introduction of an AV system in principle? Parliament could then carry out a timetabled inquiry—perhaps even an independent commission of inquiry—to do the work. The Government could then introduce an order following a debate in Parliament, and at least then the merits of the various forms of AV would be debated. We would then have a system that might prove more acceptable to the voting public. My amendment would secure that pre-legislative referendum, which clearly preoccupies the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and many of his colleagues on those Benches. It would mean that the building block of an electoral system, which I want to see in place—the supplementary vote, or London AV as it is otherwise known—would be on the agenda for consideration in an inquiry.
Amendment 25—the second of my amendments in this block—is the supplementary vote amendment. This would substitute the alternative vote proposal in the Bill in the referendum question with the supplementary vote, which is a tried and tested system in the United Kingdom. It is a variant of the alternative vote. The system has been the subject of substantial international debate among academics who specialise in electoral systems. It has been the subject of critical and supportive review in both its theory and its practice by academics in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Holland, Australia and Belgium. It is the system which supporters of AV have consistently sought to rubbish, as it exposes the flaws in AV. It is simpler to use, is more easily understood by the electors and is invariably supported when subjected to rigorous debate. It is opposed by the Liberal Democrat element in the coalition because Liberal Democrats, and only they, believe that it would not deliver for them the windfall gains which they believe are available to them under the optional preferential system of the Bill.
The supplementary vote is the system that is used to elect the United Kingdom's 13 elected mayors, including Boris Johnson. The coalition hopes to create a further 12 directly elected mayors—which many of us support—presumably under the same, successful system which is now being used and supported by millions of voters in more than 30 mayoral election contests nationally in London, Bedford, Doncaster, Hartlepool, Hackney, Lewisham, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Mansfield, Middlesbrough, Northside, Torbay and Watford.
It is curious to note that when a noticeable number of advocates in the United Kingdom of AV or even full proportional representation are commenting on electoral systems, they studiously avoid reference to the supplementary vote. It is the system that the Government adopted when they were forced to choose between AV and SV in 1998. How does it work? With the supplementary vote, there are two columns on the ballot paper: one for the first choice and one for the second. Voters can mark an X in each column if they so wish. All the first preferences are counted. If a candidate has more than 50 per cent of the votes, they are elected. If no candidate receives 50 per cent, the top two remain and the rest are eliminated. The second preference votes of the eliminated are added to the votes of the top two candidates and counted. The candidate with most first and second preferences is the winner: simple and fair. I say to the Conservative end of the coalition that when we first presented that in 1989—it is 21 years since it was first presented in Parliament—there was support on their Benches in the Commons for that system.
I have been promoting the supplementary vote since 1989. It arose after a dinner in the Commons where there had been argument over a number of weeks about proportional representation and a system that would be acceptable to Parliament. At the end of the conversation at the last dinner, I announced to my colleagues that I would go away to research a new system, drawing on the experience of others in different parts of the world, which I believed would be favourably treated if it was fairly debated in Westminster. I spent nine months researching that system. I brought in Professor Patrick Dunleavy from the London School of Economics, who gave the work academic substance by testing the system using a whole series of electoral scenarios and subjecting it to the rigour of academic examination under his close supervision. We named the new system “supplementary” over a dinner in my constituency, and followed it up with a number of articles in the press and other journals in 1990. It has been the subject of a large number of reviews over all those years.
Soon after, the Labour Party established the Plant commission, which examined electoral systems including AV over four months, again in great detail. It produced the Plant report. The Plant commission, while not completely rejecting AV, came down in favour of a single-member constituency system in recognition of the desire of MPs of all parties in the Commons to retain single-member constituencies. In its comprehensive canter around the course of electoral systems, it came down strongly in favour of the supplementary vote with the following words:
“While other systems provide scope for variation from time to time, according to fashion or political whim, SV is relatively immutable; although it could be abolished (or turned into AV), there is little scope for altering the formula by which it operates. Hence, it is more likely to be durable in an unchanged form, and therefore to acquire legitimacy.
Secondly:
“Although it does not entail ‘proportional representation’ (in the sense of a direct link between votes cast nationally or regionally for a party, and the number of seats allocated to that party), it is possible that it would go some way to limit the imbalance between votes and seats that has characterised many election results ... While it would reduce the likelihood of any one party gaining an overall majority on the basis of much less than an overall majority of votes, it would not make single-party overall majorities impossible. Landslide victories, firmly establishing a major party in government without minor party support, would still be possible … In sum, the Supplementary Vote appears to have the advantages that it is a reform which, although possibly far reaching in its consequences, would nevertheless be practical, straightforward, comparatively modest, and would generally be perceived to be fair. However, it emerged that, while there was a clear majority in favour of some form of change from the present system, there was also a clear majority in favour of a single-member constituency majoritarian system. Both the Alternative Vote and the Supplementary Vote would represent a change retaining these features. Between the two, there was, though, a clear preference for the Supplementary Vote; and, accordingly, this is the majority recommendation of the Working Party”.
However, what should be of interest to the Liberal Democrats is the comments of the minority on Plant who favoured first past the post. Its view was that:
“The Supplementary Vote would be likely to increase the representation of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons—and so be more likely to produce hung parliaments and thus the possibility of coalition or minority government”.
That is why I simply cannot understand the scale of their opposition. In some ways, I hope that that comment deals with remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, at our team meeting the other week in Room 3A when he put it to the meeting that it was some sort of Labour Party stitch-up. It was never a Labour Party stitch-up; it was a very neutrally-based system.
The problem with the whole AV/SV debate is that the benefits of SV are often attributed by proponents of AV to the alternative vote, more often than not out of ignorance or a failure to subject both systems to detailed examination. Even the House of Lords Constitution Committee in its report on the Bill likened the system to AV when it stated in paragraph 14:
“This voting system”—
AV—
“is not currently used for any other public election in the United Kingdom, although a similar system, the Supplementary Vote, is used for mayoral elections in London and elsewhere”.
It is similar, but it is very different in operation and in how the votes are counted. For a start, under SV, bottom-placed candidates’ additional preferences do not have priority over the additional preferences cast for other candidates other than those cast for the top two. This avoids results where extremes, such as the BNP, can determine the results of elections, which can happen under the AV system in the Bill.
Also under SV, third and fourth-placed candidates cannot leapfrog into first place, undermining the credibility of election results. I understand that leapfrogging is the reason why the Liberal Democrats support AV—because it does precisely that—but that is a two-edged sword. They may wish to consider what would happen if there was an election tomorrow under the AV system in the Bill. They should remember that they are part of a coalition that is having to take some very unpopular and difficult decisions. As Plant put it:
“The main disadvantages of AV are as follows … it is possible for low ranked candidates actually to break through and be elected so that the most weakly preferred candidate could gain a majority … Following from the fact that the winning candidate has to get”
—at that stage he thought that was the case—
“50 per cent of the vote plus one might seem to be a less compelling principle, if that absolute majority involves weak preferences being counted”.
However, that was under the Australian system, which we are not even considering. Only under the Australian system do you have to get more than 50 per cent of the vote.
The other day I referred to the work of Professor Rawlings and Professor Thrasher at length, and I do not want to repeat what I said, except to say that, following their research into voting behaviour in Queensland, Australia, which uses the same optional preference AV system as proposed in the Bill, they concluded that,
“the most likely scenario over time is that many voters will treat an AV election just like ‘first past the post’, and not cast multiple preferences. Incredibly, under this very same AV system, in Queensland in 2009, fully 63 per cent of those who turned out in the state elections voted for just one candidate”.
Their comments on the operation of optional preferential AV completely undermine the justification for AV in this Bill whereby you give the electorate the opportunity to cast multiple preferences.
Rawlings and Thrasher argue that not everyone uses their additional preferences, whereas under SV they are more likely to do so. On 10 November 2010, in an article, they stated:
“At the three London mayoral elections in 2000, 2004 and 2008”,
under SV only, 20 per cent of,
“voters either voted just once or cast both their available votes for a single party candidate”.
In other words, 80 per cent voted for more. I would add that the complication in that early SV election arose from the way in which the question was tabled on the ballot paper.
I argue that SV is simple, easily understood, well tried, internationally recognised, more likely to lead to the casting of additional preference votes and easy to count. I have not even dealt with the problems that arise over counting—perhaps I can do that on Report. In replying to this debate, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us whether it is proposed under their system to count the votes manually or electronically, which is significant. Unless they are counted electronically it will not be possible to work out how effective this system is. That view is expressed by returning officers in Scotland, with whom our people have spoken over the past few days. It reduces the influence of the extremes. Finally, it concentrates the mind of the voter on the need not to waste votes. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker
I support my noble friend in this amendment. I do not want to repeat what I have said in previous debates, but we are given an opportunity here to deploy once again—certainly, it will be deployed if and when a referendum takes place—the fact that the proposal in the Bill is fraught with difficulties. What is more, untruths are told about it. It will be the case that every time someone appears on a platform or a television station and says, “Oh, they have got to get more than 50 per cent to win”, someone will pop up and say, “Not true”. It is not true under the system in this Bill that every MP will be elected with more than 50 per cent of the votes. It cannot happen with an open system. It is impossible. Every time it is said, whether by the Deputy Prime Minister or anyone else, it is not the case. The public are being misled.
We have to look at which system of AV is being used. I know that it is the case—it was the case with the previous Cabinet and will be with this one—that there has been no proper discussion in the Government. There has been no seminar in the Cabinet Room for Cabinet Ministers to say, “There are three ways of doing AV. Which one do you want in the Bill?”. There has been no discussion at all. That is why we have a Bill based on ignorance. I am not saying that people are personally ignorant; I am saying that there is ignorance of the system.
It would not be so bad if the Government were offering up the system and telling the whole truth about it or if they said, “Well, this is the system we have got. It is not perfect, but none of them is. Most MPs will be elected with more than 50 per cent of the vote, but some of them won’t be. So we won’t make the claim that they all will be”. But the Government are not saying that, because they cannot say it under this system. They must know that by now because their advisers must have told them about it. As I have said, there is ignorance and lack of party discussion. It was the same with the last lot—no one was ever consulted and it just turned up in the Bill earlier in the year. Part of the reason why there has been no discussion is that there are never any discussions because the Government never meet. The public think that they do, of course, but they do not. That is a difficulty and it is where the Government face a problem.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, a question. Under the supplementary system, would it be possible for a candidate who had no first preferences to be elected?
Lord Rooker
No, as my noble friend explained in even greater detail. However many candidates there are on the list, noble Lords should envisage the current ballot paper but with two columns. Voters put an X in the first column and an X in the second column—obviously for different people—and the contest is then between those two candidates only. One person could get elected, of course, with more than 50 per cent in the first column, as is the case with AV now, and that would be great. However, it would not be possible for the least popular candidate to leapfrog the popular candidate, as can happen with AV.
Lord Greaves
This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill. I apologise that I did not speak at Second Reading and I do not expect to speak very often in Committee, which will please my noble friends.
I rise to speak because the debate is about the supplementary vote, which I consider to be an awful voting system. I want to explain why. Before I do, however, in response to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I should explain that it is not possible under AV for a candidate who gets no first preference votes to be elected. It is possible, but highly unlikely, under STV in a multimember seat; it is not possible under AV. That is a red herring.
I normally expect the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to speak a great deal of sense and to put forward sensible proposals, even when I am not allowed to support them. Nevertheless, I am astonished that he thinks that the supplementary vote is a good system. However, as he said, he was in at the genesis of the system, which was put together at a dinner party when people were talking around the table. It was something like that, anyway; it is a nice story. The noble Lord also said that it is tried and tested—as, indeed, it is—and that many people seek to rubbish it. That may be because it is a rubbish system. It is inefficient—I shall explain why in a moment—and it results in people being cheated. They think that they are voting and expect their vote to be counted, but it is not counted.
As the noble Lord said, the system is used in 12 mayoral elections for councils and for the election of the Mayor of London, so there is, indeed, a great deal of experience. However, on the evidence that we have, it is not particularly beneficial to any of the political parties. It often seems beneficial to candidates of weird and wonderful varieties but, at the moment, of the 12 mayors, three are Labour, two are Conservative, two are Liberal Democrat, four are independent and one is an English Democrat. People ought to at least ask questions about any system that allows the election of an English Democrat, as the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, against AV included the suggestion that that system might lead to influence for BNP voters.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On that point, will the noble Lord confirm that in the cases that he referred to the successful candidates would all have been elected under first past the post as well?
Lord Greaves
They would, yes. However, whether they would have stood and whether it would have resulted in their election is a different matter altogether. It may be that the problem is with elected mayors and not with the system used to elect them. However, we will have that discussion under the localism Bill when we come to it. Indeed, at least five of the existing elected mayors were elected with over 50 per cent of first preferences, so whatever electoral system you have makes no difference whatsoever.
I think that you have to look at the outcomes, but my objections and, I think, those of the Liberal Democrats to the supplementary vote are not based on whether it is good for Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord was seductive in trying to find an electoral system that would be best for us, but that is not how we look at election systems. It is certainly not how I look at election systems. We look at election systems as a matter of principle.
Lord Greaves
That is certainly how I look at election systems. We have here a system that is bad in principle but also shown in practice to be defective. I shall refer to three or four actual elections to explain what happened.
At the last ordinary election in Bedford—we have had a by-election since then—the total number of votes cast was 43,525. The top two candidates, who, under the supplementary vote system, as the noble Lord accurately described, go through to the final round, got 26,676. That means that the first preferences of other candidates amounted to 16,849. Of those, only 6,335 transferred to one of the two candidates who remained in the final round. Therefore, of the second preference votes, 10,514 could not transfer—62.4 per cent of the second votes did not transfer. Some of them may have been spoiled, but I cannot get that information. Nearly a quarter of the total—24.2 per cent—voted for candidates in the second column, for their second preference, but their second preference was thrown away without being counted. I believe that those voters were being cheated of what the system pretends that they can do, which is to cast a first preference and then cast a second preference.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On that matter, again, if the noble Lord is comparing the system with AV and alluding to what he might regard as wasted votes, or unused votes, is it not true that under the system in the Bill a bottom-placed candidate could take a top-placed candidate over the 50 per cent limit? Therefore, every additional preference for all the other candidates would be unused under the Government’s proposed system. You would have a whole ballot paper wiped out on the basis of the simple transfer of the bottom eliminated candidate taking the first-placed candidate over 50 per cent. That is an outrageous waste of votes. If the noble Lord’s case is based on wasted votes, there are far more votes wasted under AV when you start doing research into election results.
Lord Greaves
I do not want to talk about AV; I want to talk about the supplementary vote. However, the main votes wasted under AV are where people do not express any further preferences and therefore that vote is not transferable, but that is their decision. It is their decision not to express a further preference after they have decided whom they want to vote for down to however far they vote. Under this system, people very clearly express a preference and that preference is discarded. In Bedford in 2007, as I said, it was a quarter of the vote.
In Mansfield in 2007, where the two top candidates got a much larger proportion of the total vote, it was still the case that, of those eliminated on the second count, 2,350 transferred and 3,853 did not transfer. Of those, 1,199 were void as unmarked or for reasons of uncertainty. It may be, of course, that people did not want to express a second preference, but one of the problems of the supplementary vote is that it leads to a much higher proportion of votes being void because they are not filled in accurately. For example, there are many people who vote for the same candidate in both columns. It is perfectly easy to do that, but you cannot do it under the alternative vote system, only under the supplementary vote system. It is clear that that is what people did.
Lord Greaves
The noble Lord will have plenty of opportunities to respond. However, I will give way.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I just want to correct the noble Lord. The reason why that happened in the first mayoral elections in London was that the civil servants meddled with the drafting of the ballot paper that some of us had proposed to the Government. Thanks to that meddling, people ended up misunderstanding how to use their votes in the first London elections. Following that mistake, there was an argument in the House of Commons and the ballot paper was corrected. In the subsequent elections, the problem did not arise.
Lord Greaves
The problem did not arise to the same extent. I do not have the figures for the London mayoral elections, although those are available—for most counts, no figures are issued to show exactly why people’s votes were rejected.
In the 2007 Mansfield mayoral elections, 892 votes were rejected at the first count. At 3 per cent of the total, that is significantly higher than the normal number of rejected ballot papers in an election. Of those 892 ballot papers, 483 were rejected because the person had voted for more than one candidate in the first column. Such errors are to be expected when people are told only, “You’ve got two votes—you vote for one person as your first preference and one person as your second preference”. It is not surprising that a significant number of people vote twice in the first column. Only an inefficient voting system encourages people to make mistakes like that.
Lord Campbell-Savours
These points should be answered because this is a debate on the technical working of the system. Research into AV in Australia found that the requirement to number the candidates meant that people simply numbered “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”, “7” and so on down the ballot paper, without even thinking of the candidates involved. That is how people thought that they had to use the system, so there are equally problems with AV over how people understand the ballot paper.
Lord Greaves
I am talking about the supplementary vote and trying to point out why that is a bad system. However, in any long ballot paper with lots of candidates, people near the top of the ballot paper always do better than people near the bottom. That happens with multiseat elections under the first-past-the-post system, for example. If noble Lords have ideas on how to counter that issue—there are several ideas around—perhaps they can put them forward, but that is not what we are talking about today.
In the 2010 Watford mayoral election—which was won by a Liberal Democrat, so I am not making a party-political point about rejected votes, which might have been against the Liberal Democrat candidate—the number of eliminated ballot papers was 12,202. Of those, the number of valid ballot papers was only 5,381, which is less than half.
The most ludicrous example of all comes from the most recent mayoral election in Torbay in 2005—I do not think that there has been another election since—where the 14 candidates, which I agree is an extreme example, included a Conservative, a Liberal Democrat, a Labour candidate and 11 independents. The Conservative was elected on the second count after the first preferences were added to those few second preferences that transferred to the top two candidates, with a grand total of 28.9 per cent of the vote. Surely that is not a particularly efficient electoral system. The 9,094 first-preference votes for the top two candidates—who were Conservative and Liberal Democrat—accounted for 37.6 per cent of the vote. The other candidates got 15,076 first-preference votes, which is 62.4 per cent of the vote, but only 3,199 of those 15,000-odd votes—that is, 21 per cent—could be transferred. Almost half—49 per cent—of all second preferences votes did not count because they were not transferred, although they accounted for nearly 79 per cent of second preferences. I am not complaining about the fact that the Conservative was elected—the Conservative might have been elected under AV—but what a hopeless voting system to end up with a result like that.
The supplementary vote results in people being cheated out of their second preferences. SV is an inefficient and unnecessary system that was invented for party-political reasons by the Labour Party, which imposed it on the mayoral elections. The supplementary vote is a very bad system that should be rejected.
Lord Howarth of Newport
In Amendment 25, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has offered a lifeboat to the coalition, just as my noble friend Lord Rooker did the other day, when—slightly to their surprise—the coalition Government found themselves in another lifeboat. For two reasons, they might do well to take a ride in it.
First, the alternative vote system proposed in the Bill plainly will not work. It would be very foolish for the Government to plough ahead with the proposal because the inadequacies of the system will be exposed in the process of the campaign. There may not have been a seminar on that in the Cabinet room, but there will be a national seminar. If the system is as fallacious as I believe it to be, those weaknesses will ineluctably be exposed and the campaign for the alternative vote will disintegrate and become a fiasco. That might be a matter for some quiet satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but it should be a matter of some anxiety to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and indeed to all of us. Whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of holding a referendum, getting rid of first past the post and having AV instead, none of us wants to see this process reduced to complete impracticality and ridicule, which is what I fear will happen.
Noble Lords would do well to heed the arguments of, and to use the opportunity put forward by, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has sought to persuade the House that the supplementary vote is a bad system. In those very interesting exchanges, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours seemed to have the better of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in the argument. The supplementary vote system has been road-tested in this country through the practicalities of election campaigns. I am not aware of any significant public dissatisfaction of the practical operation of the supplementary vote system. In Amendments 22 and 25, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has offered a lifeboat to the Government; they would be very wise to accept the opportunity that he has presented to them.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is an important debate on an issue that might figure in the course of the referendum campaign. Clause 9 sets out in detail the alternative vote system that the referendum will be about, which is a system in which people could vote “1”, “2”, “3”, “4” and “5” but would not have to use all five preferences. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has identified two other AV systems. Under the AV system used in the federation of Australia, voters are compelled to use all their preferences. Under the third alternative vote system—called the supplementary vote system—voters identify their top two preferences and the second preferences of those who voted for the other candidates are shared out between the top two.
As Clause 9 establishes, the Government have chosen the AV system that is used in Queensland, Australia. For the sake of the electorate, it is important for the Government to set out why they have chosen that alternative vote system in preference to both the system used in federal elections in Australia and the supplementary vote system that has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. Once the Government set out what their reasoning is, this House can judge whether the AV system chosen is the right one or whether amendments should be made in relation to the alternative vote. Perhaps more importantly, the public voting in the referendum will be able to judge whether it is sensible to vote in favour of the particular alternative vote system that the Government have adopted. As we have identified before, this is—as it were—a compulsory referendum because our previous amendment failed. The effect of a majority yes vote, once the new constituency boundaries are in—those are tied in as well in Clause 8—is that the system in Clause 9 will automatically come into effect. The public will be voting not just on the principle of AV but on the detail of the particular system adopted. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister would set out the reasoning behind Clause 9.
My children have always thought that I am a bit of a nerd because I am so interested in politics, but if they had heard the invigorating debate between the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, they would think that I was the coolest man alive.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I very much admire the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, introduced the amendment. I also admire his perseverance, eloquence and sincerity. He gave us the history of the genesis of the supplementary vote since one of his dinner parties that occurred in 1989. I make no joke about his dinner parties, as I am sure that it was very good. Historians will want to know what on earth he ate at that dinner party, but that is for history.
My Lords, I am a reader of the Guardian newspaper—
Lord Strathclyde
That might shock some of my noble friends. However, I was astonished to read in this morning’s Guardian a letter from the leading lights of the Labour Party, including many Labour Peers, who support AV in a very different way from that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. Therefore, he has not quite won over all Labour Party members since 1989. He prayed in aid the noble Lord, Lord Plant—who was not present at the time but appeared later and has now gone again, which is a pity—who was one of the signatories to the letter in the Guardian. Whatever the Plant commission thought then, the noble Lord, Lord Plant, now thinks that AV is the right system to champion and he will vote for it.
Before I get into the detail of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, intends by Amendments 22 and 25, I must stress again that it is fundamentally important that the referendum gives the public a clear choice about the systems that they are asked to choose between. That is the only way that we will get a clear result that will allow voters truly to express what they want. We cannot simply ask the people whether they want “an alternative voting system”; we need to be honest with them right from the start by letting them know exactly which alternative system they are being asked to vote on.
A key problem with Amendment 22 is that, by its very nature, it does not make clear whether the revised question would ask whether voters want an alternative to the current voting system—meaning a system that is not first past the post—or, more specifically, the alternative vote electoral system. Consequently, the noble Lord's amendment raises a very significant risk that some members of the public might vote in favour of “an alternative vote system” because they want something different from the current first-past-the-post system, but they may think that they are voting for the single transferable vote system or the additional member system—they might not want a form of “the” alternative vote system at all. The crucial change of “the” to “an” would make the question so ambiguous that the result of the referendum could be impossible to decipher. We would not know what the people really wanted at all.
Given the noble Lord’s interest in the various alternative vote systems—in particular, the supplementary vote system to which Amendment 25 refers—he may intend by Amendments 22 and 25 to debate the merits of those different types of alternative vote systems. The noble Lord referred to his amendment concerning a committee of inquiry that we discussed on the first Committee day. I do not wish to reopen that debate, but I understand that the point that he made then is at least tangential to the point that he is making today. We had a full debate on that then, so I will not reopen it.
However, a number of noble Lords have suggested—including, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton—that they would welcome a clear explanation of why the Government are putting forward this specific form of AV. I will address that point here, which I hope will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on why the alternative vote system set out in the Bill is the right choice to put before the public in the referendum.
Lord Rooker
The Leader of the House is deploying arguments that he has not used so far in this debate. He is to be congratulated for the exposition that he has just given. It naturally follows from what he has just said that it would be completely misleading for members of the Government to persist in claiming that the proposed system will mean that MPs will be elected with more than 50 per cent of the vote. That has got to stop. If he said that that will stop, that would knock one of the misleading issues off the agenda so far as the public are concerned.
Lord Strathclyde
I like to think that I have made an authoritative statement from the Dispatch Box as to what the Government believe to be the case. However, as the noble Lord knows, we will not be controlling the campaign—different people will make their different views known as to the merits or demerits of AV. However, the noble Lord is right. I have agreed with him, and I thank him for his earlier words about this case.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to come back at this stage, but the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, so we really need to have this sorted out. During the course of an interview on Monday 15 November on the Radio 4 “Today” programme, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was asked a question, to which he replied:
“This reform will mean you will go to Parliament with at least half of your constituents having consciously voted for you”.
Now, that is why my noble friend intervened. It is really important that this is sorted out if Ministers from now on are to go on television and admit that. I would make the same point to the very articulate Mr Barclay, I think, who is part of the AV campaign, who also goes on television and repeats this 50-plus per cent argument. Can we be sure now that that is really at an end?
Lord Strathclyde
Those who are in favour of the system will no doubt be responsible for what they say during the course of the campaign, but that is not part of the debate that we need to have now. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the Electoral Commission—
Lord Grocott
My Lords, it is no use saying that those who are in favour of the proposal will deploy whatever arguments they like. Given that the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the House of Lords have joint responsibility for presenting the Bill to Parliament, presumably they have joint responsibility for presenting some of the arguments to people in the country. If it is not true, as my noble friend has made perfectly clear, that successful candidates under the proposed system would have the support of 50 per cent of the voters in their constituency, could we have that loud and clear, preferably from both the Leader of the House and—after all, this is a double act—the Deputy Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box? Accuracy is important. Surely the noble Lord would agree with me on that?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on this Front Bench we are entirely tied by collective responsibility and my noble friend is totally aware of that. The point is that in the generality we would expect more than 50 per cent of voters to have voted for MPs, but there are circumstances, as I and the noble Lord have explained, where that will not be the case.
I was saying as a matter of assurance that the Electoral Commission will provide information on the different voting systems so that people will understand how the optional preferential system works.
Lord Wills
Exactly what are the circumstances in which someone could be elected with less than the 50 per cent support of some of the voters?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the circumstance is when most people who vote express only a first preference and do not then list any further preferences.
The Electoral Commission will be providing this kind of information, and voters will know what they are voting for in the referendum. If they choose AV, it will, I assume, be because they want to express more than one preference at an election, because if they do not, they may as well vote for what we have currently got. So I do not think that there is really any need to worry about voters not exercising this right, if that is the very system that they voted for in the first place. Just as we are not convinced that voters should be made to express a preference for all candidates, we are not persuaded that the Bill should limit the number of preferences that a voter may express at an election. Therefore, we do not agree that the supplementary vote system is the appropriate alternative vote system to present.
I have set out our reasoning and I do not want to go on about arguments that I have already made, but I assume that this is the same reasoning that was behind the previous Government’s proposals for a referendum on this same type of alternative vote system. I know that we have spent some time on this amendment, but it was worth while doing so and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I shall briefly comment on the interventions. I say to my noble friend Lord Rooker that we have travelled down exactly that route—from first past the post, through an AV variant to an additional member system. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that I dispute the figures he used during his intervention and I shall trawl over them. He is perhaps unaware of the failure to use additional preferences, which goes to the heart of the argument over the AV system that he supports. During the debate on whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, I hope to produce evidence of what happened in Scotland on these very matters.
My noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport is absolutely right to identify the TV campaign as being critical to what is going to happen. I can envisage circumstances in which advocates of this AV system are demolished in argument in front of the nation on news bulletins, on “Newsnight” and so on. We will see slowly dripping away any residual support that there is for this system. I say to the Government that they might be looking forward to that prospect, but on that basis the Liberal Democrats should certainly not be looking forward to it.
I again thank my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for his clear, lawyer’s explanation of my system, and I apologise to the House for intervening repeatedly. However, I did so because it is important in advance of the referendum that we strike down some of the myths that have been used throughout this whole debate. I understand the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on the wording of the amendment and the question of “an” alternative vote system, and I might well return at Report with another amendment precisely to deal with that matter.
Finally, I say this to the Government because I really think that Conservative Back-Benchers, Conservative members of the coalition, should carefully consider what they are doing. In my mind, the question to ask is whether they, as Conservative Members of Parliament, Members of the House, are prepared, for the sake of a possible five-year survival of a coalition, to take the immense risk of allowing a referendum result which could completely transform the British electoral system, could cause huge damage and undermine the whole credibility of parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom. Maybe it is that they are confident that the referendum will be lost, but are they really prepared to take that risk? I say to Conservative noble Lords: be very careful, you are playing with fire.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rooker
Lord Rooker
With respect to Amendment 24, in view of the clarity of the Leader’s speech this afternoon, as a reward and to avoid further embarrassment to the Liberal Democrats, I will not move Amendment 24.
Lord Snape
“( ) There is to be another question on the ballot papers as follows—
For electing your Member of Parliament in future, would you prefer to vote on a—
(a) Thursday; or(b) Saturday?”
Lord Snape
A lot of the debate that has taken place so far on this Bill has been about the referendum itself, about the wording of the referendum or whether different voting systems should be adopted. But, whatever the views that have been expressed by both sides in your Lordships’ House, by all parties and by none, the one thing I suspect unites us all is the desire to see higher turnouts in elections generally in the United Kingdom. For that reason, my noble friend Lady McDonagh and I have tabled this amendment about polling day.
It seems to be generally accepted that, in elections, polling day should be held on a Thursday. That is a fairly modern trend. It is not something that we have had for centuries, or even decades. Indeed, my first election to a local authority—to the Bredbury and Romiley urban district council in 1971—took place on a Saturday. Polling for local authorities, particularly UDCs and RDCs, at that time took place on various days of the week. It allowed those of us who had perhaps outgrown train spotting, but were looking for something else to do, to campaign on behalf of colleagues in other elections in other parts—in my case, in the north-west.
Thursday as polling day for elections is not set in stone or in concrete. Nor is it set in stone or in concrete as regards parliamentary elections, or, for that matter, parliamentary by-elections. Back in July 2007, the previous Government published a Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, and followed it with a consultation paper about this very point: whether turnout in elections would be increased or improved if polling was held at the weekend rather than during the week. Perhaps I may quote briefly from the foreword to that consultation document written by my noble friend Lord Wills, who at that time was the Minister of State for Justice. The Government envisaged a summit and notified over 20 bodies as well as publicising to the general public as widely as possible the desire for people to participate in this particular exercise. In this document, my noble friend proposed a citizens’ summit to look at the point. He stated:
“I also want to use that Summit to have a broader discussion about the factors that motivate people to exercise their right to vote. The sense of a civic ‘duty’ to vote has eroded over the last 50 years. It is vital for all of us that we understand the reasons”.
Whether turnout on polling day would be improved if we moved the day is perhaps an issue on which he received some replies. I am not sure why we did not take those replies forward. If my noble friend intervenes in this debate, no doubt he will tell us. The idea that polling should not necessarily be held on a Thursday is one that we should look at.
It is only since the Local Government Act 1972, which abolished the Bredbury and Romiley urban district council along with many other units of local government throughout the United Kingdom, that Thursday has been set as the day on which elections should be held. When one looks back at the history of general elections, Thursday appears only infrequently. Up to and including the First World War, it was possible in many parts of the country to vote over a four-week period. I am not suggesting that we return to those days. However, the election on 14 December 1918, immediately after the cessation of the First World War, was held on a Saturday. Until 1931, general elections were held on three or four other days of the week. We should not regard Thursday as the only possible day to exercise our democratic right. I would be interested in the Government’s view on whether it would be better to hold elections on a Saturday, or at the weekend, rather than on a Thursday.
It is a similar story with by-elections. They have been held on various days of the week over many years. As recently as 1978, the Hamilton by-election in Scotland was held on 31 May, which happens to be a Wednesday. I tread carefully here. It was held on Wednesday because the first match in Scotland's World Cup campaign was held the following day. As a supporter of Stockport County, I well understand the desire of my Scottish colleagues not to see the by-election clash with a major football match. I hesitate to mention, particularly with so many Scots present in the Chamber—but I will do so, perhaps recklessly—that on that occasion the Scots came up against the footballing might of Iran and were disappointed at the outcome. In case my Scottish colleagues feel that I am making an undue point, I suggest that perhaps, given England's dismal performance in this year's World Cup, we should set polling day on whatever day our national side happens to be playing, in order to distract the populace of both our countries from the resulting misery.
I hope that the Government will look seriously at this. It is sensible to look at weekend voting in the United Kingdom. Whether this would be on Saturdays or Sundays I will leave to the opinion of the Government Front Bench. Of course, there are objections to both days on religious grounds, but most of our EU neighbours vote on Sundays and the attendance at various churches throughout the EU does not seem to be adversely affected. It would even be possible to hold elections over both Saturday and Sunday. This would deprive the Dimbleby family of the opportunity to appear on our various television channels presenting the results during the evening, but that is probably a cross that all of us would be able to bear, if not with equanimity than at least without too much disappointment. I will not detain your Lordships further on this point. It is worthy of consideration and I will be interested to hear the views either of the Leader of the House or of his deputy.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I remember the words of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, in an earlier debate when he said, “If it’s not broke, don’t break it”. That seems to fit most of the prejudices with which I approach politics. But I think we should look again at the question of voting on Thursdays. That was set up in an age when people did not move very much. We are now dealing with a much more mobile population and people who travel all over the country. How many of us have canvassed on election day, knocking on doors to find that somebody has travelled the length of the country and is sitting in some city a very long way away from where they can vote? There are arguments for moving the date of an election to the weekend because it is much more likely that people would then be at home. This is something that needs consideration. As the noble Lord, Lord Snape, pointed out, the Europeans on the whole vote on Sundays and that seems to be eminently sensible. This has a degree of merit and should be seriously considered because the habits of people are changing.
A noble friend said to me when I was considering supporting this amendment that we now have postal voting and so therefore this becomes less of a problem. I am not certain about that. Postal voting has opened up enormous opportunities for fraud and it seems to be possible to create electors in inordinately large numbers who do not actually exist. There is something to be said for restraining the growth in postal voting and possibly considering moving the election day to the weekend when there will be more people at home and in a position to vote.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on this and to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Snape. Both noble Lords are right to draw attention to the fact that in the past there has been a great flexibility on election day and the changing circumstances of the British people now suggest that we ought to be looking at this again. That is why the previous Government held a consultation on this issue. That consultation, for which I was the Minister responsible, proved a very interesting one. There was a mixed response, as one would expect. There were a lot of voices in favour of moving election day. There were equally, I think it is fair to say, a lot of voices very much opposed to it. But what it showed was that there are a great number of issues that have to be taken into account on this: participation in elections, which is a fundamental of our democracy, questions of faith, the patterns of the working day for the great majority of the British electorate and the cost of shifting the election day.
These are complex issues. In the end the previous Government took the view that it was right that the British people should have a decisive say in that. It is their democracy. It is not for us but for them to decide what day would be most convenient, bearing in mind all those other considerations that both noble Lords have alluded to and which the consultation highlighted. We thought in Government that the best way of allowing the British people to have their say was through a citizens’ summit, as my noble friend Lord Snape has reminded us. I still think that probably is the best way but I realise that that is not on offer from the Government. I regret that, but we have a unique opportunity with a referendum. It is the next best thing and I urge the Government to consider this. Both noble Lords have made powerful cases for the consideration of this. It is not a question of deciding to shift it from Thursday. This is really about giving the British people the right to decide. I have heard the Leader of the House say many times that the British people are wise and sagacious enough to make these decisions for themselves. Those on both sides of the debate will put their arguments forward but then the British people in their wisdom will decide. He has said that many times in our debates on this Bill already so I urge him to follow his own logic and accept the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Snape and at least put it to the British people to decide.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
Before the noble Lord sits down, I am rather surprised by what he is saying. I apologise for the fact that I was not in the House for the beginning of this debate, but is he saying that he would like to see the British people being given the choice as to whether it is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday? If he is, the people will simply split and you will have 10 per cent saying one thing, 10 per cent saying another, et cetera. I have stood in seven or eight general elections, all of them on a Thursday, and I never saw anything wrong with it being on a Thursday. People are used to that and personally I would continue having them on Thursdays only.
Lord Wills
I had sat down, but I shall briefly respond to the noble Lord’s question. He asked what was wrong with having elections on a Thursday. Quite simply, we have seen turnout falling. It is extraordinarily low in local elections and deplorably low even in general elections, which is the British people deciding on the future of their country and 60 per cent of them turn out. We owe it to them to look at every obstacle to people turning out. I absolutely accept that it is not only to do with the convenience of polling and whether there is electronic voting or voting on election day. Politicians—I include myself in this—are at fault as well in this deplorably low turnout. We should do everything we possibly can. At the very least we have to examine, as one of the options, the question of polling day. That is why I think it is worth examining this matter. The Government in their wisdom have already made a judgment on how we should judge the outcome of a referendum on the alternative vote system. We do this every time we have a referendum. This is not an insoluble problem. The need is pressing and we owe the British people the option of deciding on this.
Lord Monson
If one is thinking of opting for weekend voting, it would be preferable to choose a Sunday rather than a Saturday. Of course, it is true that many shops and places of entertainment are open on Sundays nowadays but not nearly as many as are open on a Saturday, when there are a great many choices which the average voter might prefer to queuing up at a polling station. If one wants to optimise turnout, as I think most of us do, of the two I would certainly plump for a Sunday.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I would not follow my noble friend along that very controversial path, but perhaps I may make a broader point, broader than the amendment itself. It seems to me that there is a case for drawing a clear distinction between general elections and all other elections. General elections have, for many decades, been held on a Thursday for a particular reason, which is that by Friday morning one pretty well knows who is likely to form the government and it gives the new Prime Minister, or the continuing Prime Minister, the opportunity of a couple of days to cobble together all those considerations that are so pertinent to the formation of a new government. That applies only to general elections and not to all other elections. Therefore, it seems to me that one should draw that distinction. I have a fairly open mind about the amendment, but if one considers that there is much greater latitude for all non-general elections than for general elections, I think that should be a practical background to our consideration.
Lord Grenfell
I wish to express my support for the amendment of my noble friend, Lord Snape. This may be an esoteric point but reference has been made to elections in other parts of Europe. Over the years, I have witnessed many elections in France and it is not just tradition that demands that they be held at a weekend; there are also some practical reasons and I shall cite just one. It may sound a little bit like French Cartesian logic gone mad, but it is much easier to get people to the polls at a weekend than on a weekday. Where there are still many one-car families, as there are in France, on the weekend the car will be at home and not at the office. That is one example of the kind of thinking in France and it is the kind of thinking that we might want to apply here to see what kind of practical advantages there are as regards weekend elections as opposed to elections on a Thursday.
Lord Rooker
I was not going to speak on the amendment but perhaps I could add to the debate by referring to the next amendment. Everything short of compulsory voting should be tried to raise the turnout. I am dead against compulsory voting. In my view, that is quite preposterous in a democracy. However, the barriers to increased turnout, such as the hours of polling, or the days of voting, are all things that could be addressed. There is a lot more as well. All these things should be in play. I realise that the Leader of the House is going to ask what on earth this has to do with this Bill, but one has to look for a peg to hang these things on. The localism Bill will probably be another one—it is exactly the same. I have been disabused of the history this afternoon. I always thought that it was a Thursday—and I have repeated this at meetings—because in the old days, that was the day the squires went to market and bought and sold constituencies. It seems as though I may have been wrong.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, it strikes me that the amendment prompts three questions. The first is whether we should change the date, and that is what my noble friend Lord Hamilton and some others have addressed. The second is whether this is a question that is appropriate to be included in the referendum. That is the substantial point that we should address. There are various problems in including this question. One has already been alluded to: it is a limited choice. It may be that electors prefer to go on a Monday or a Sunday, so we do not know whether providing this dichotomous choice will reflect the actual preferences of electors, as they are being offered too limited a choice. Another problem—it is a technical point—concerns what would happen if electors expressed a preference for Saturday rather than Thursday as far as the Bill is drawn. We know what will happen if they vote yes on the question of AV, but the Bill is merely silent as to what the consequence would be, so in effect it would be akin to an opinion poll.
The third and most important point is why we should have this question rather than others. We will be looking at other questions to be included, but priorities are important. If we start adding to it, there is a danger of overdoing it, and I am not sure this question should take priority for the simple reason that we could find out through an opinion poll. I think that that would be sufficient for these purposes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. It is one that is had practically every time we have any Bill that mentions voting. The facts are interesting. Since 1935, every general election has been held on a Thursday. In 1931, it was held on a Tuesday. In 1922 and 1924, elections took place on Wednesdays, and in December 1918, as my noble friend Lord Snape said, election day was a Saturday, so weekend voting is not a new idea. There is no statutory requirement for elections to held on Thursdays. They could be held on any weekday except Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Good Friday, a Bank Holiday, or any day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning. It was in 1983 that Saturday and Sunday were also designated as dies non under the parliamentary election rules in the Representation of the People Act. This amendment gives an opportunity to debate whether Saturday should be a dies non, but not Sunday.
To deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, I emphatically think this is obviously not a question for a referendum. If we start voting in a referendum on whether it should be Thursday or Saturday, goodness knows what we will then be voting on in a referendum. I am opposed to it being in a referendum. Referendums should be kept for constitutional questions. I know from talking to my noble friend Lord Snape that that of course was not his intention. His intention was that we should debate the issue in relation to whether it is appropriate. I agree completely with the approach taken by my noble friend Lord Rooker on whether it increases turnout. We all agree that we should try to increase turnout. Attractive as the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry is, that he has never had any trouble on Thursdays—because he has always won his elections, presumably, that is why he likes Thursday—I am not necessarily sure that should be the bar to it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that we should look into the question. In fact, pilots have taken place in local elections in relation to Saturdays and it would be helpful to hear from the Government what the evaluation of those pilots was and what the conclusion in relation to it is. Ultimately the test is the one that my noble friend Lord Rooker sets: does it increase turnout? If it does, then I hope that the Government will think about doing it seriously.
Lord Strathclyde
The main reason why I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Snape, is precisely the one that we have witnessed over the past 23 minutes. It is a fascinating debate and different people have different views about different days of the week. This debate has yet to mature, so it is not one for the Bill, which is about a specific referendum on AV. In fact, I remember the noble Lord and some of his colleagues complaining that we should not have more than one difficult issue on a day, but here he is proposing one himself. However, I also know that he wanted to tease out the Government's view on this subject.
We believe that a further question on the referendum ballot paper would detract from the Government’s main purpose, which is to see whether voters wish to change from the current first past the post voting system to the alternative vote system. As we have heard this afternoon, there are arguments for and against moving polling day from the traditional Thursday to a Saturday, and lots of evidence, supporting or not, on turnout and the use of postal votes. In experiments and consultation, there are divided opinions on whether such a change would be more convenient for voters and whether it would lead to an increased turnout. There are also resource and cost issues, alongside concerns about practicability.
In weighing up those arguments, the Government have seen no evidence that such a move would bring any clear benefits. It is not obvious that moving polling day from the traditional Thursday to a Saturday or Sunday would make it easier for electors to vote. This is probably the subject of a wider debate, or even a Private Member’s Bill. I am unable to support the noble Lord.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I appreciate that the noble Lord may not have the answer, but could he write to me with the results of the pilots?
Lord Snape
I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for participating in this debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that this is not a particularly suitable amendment for the Bill, but if not here, where? We repeat as a mantra from all quarters of the House that we are desperate to involve more people in our democratic processes, and this strikes me as one way of doing so.
I am especially grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, who knows what I am thinking when I move these amendments before I have thought of it myself. It is truly the mark of a major and outstanding parliamentarian that he can be so perceptive. I not only accept that this legislation is not suitable for the amendment but I accept the views of the government Front Bench. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for what he had to say. I was not aware that I had complained personally about the number of different issues in the Bill; indeed, I thought that I was responsible for some of them rather than complaining about them. However, in the spirit of co-operation with which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replied to the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Snape
“( ) There is to be another question on the ballot papers as follows—
Do you think there should be compulsory voting for general elections?
(a) Yes; or(b) No”
Lord Snape
My Lords, I fear that this is yet another amendment that may rouse the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, because of its lack of suitability, but there is perhaps a more important point in this amendment than in the previous one. As I have said, and has been said from all quarters of the House, we are interested in increasing turnout at elections. This is one certain way to do that.
We are aware from previous debates that although only Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia have favoured the system of AV inherent in the Bill, lots more countries have a system of compulsory voting. Across all those countries, turnout has increased dramatically. One might argue that that is because of the punishments for those who fail to vote, but by and large those punishments are minimal, if they are enforced at all. Yet, in Australia, for example, which has the system of AV that we are going to wish on ourselves if this Bill is carried, turnout at general elections is consistently over 90 per cent, although the penalties for failure to vote are very small indeed.
My noble friend Lord Rooker pre-empted this amendment in his comments on the previous amendment by saying that he feels that compulsory voting is unacceptable in a democracy. Instead of having punitive punishments for those who fail to vote, why not have some sort of incentive if we are going to have compulsory voting? A voucher for £10, £15 or £20 off your rates bill, for example, would provide an incentive without the fear of punitive punishment if one fails to vote.
Interestingly enough, countries closer to us than Australia have compulsory voting. I had not realised until I researched this amendment that in France it is compulsory to vote in a Senate election, although I have no doubt that experts on these matters in other parts of your Lordships' House would have realised that. That compulsion is not enforced, but it is believed to bring about an increase in turnout for Senate elections. Although I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will say that this amendment is unsuitable in the Bill, I hope that it will bring about a dramatic increase in voter turnout at this and every other election for that reason in particular.
There is one other reason that I meant to mention: that additional voter participation in general elections would at least remove to some degree the exorbitant and enormous expenditure that political parties indulge in now at general elections. Something like £30 million was spent in advertising and promotional material at the recent general election. I will not go into the division of that money between the various parties. That money could be better spent elsewhere, and if we could guarantee a proper turnout under compulsion, that would be a better way of increasing turnout than throwing the sort of money that all the political parties have to throw at the moment in an attempt to bring about voter participation. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, unusually, I disagree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Snape. I believe that forcing people to vote is eminently undemocratic. In a democracy, people should have the opportunity to vote or not to vote. If you want to say to people, “You must indulge in this democracy and you must go to the polling station or put a cross on a ballot paper and post it”, you are taking away their freedom not to participate in an election to elect people who you perhaps do not like or perhaps dislike completely. I am not at all sure that this is a good amendment in any sense at all. Although more people may very well turn out to cast their ballot, you will have to persuade them in some way that they should do so, and the only way you can do that is by imposing a fine on them. Indeed, that is another argument against trying to force people to vote when they might not want to.
It might also be difficult for people to vote. Indeed, polling stations in some constituencies are getting further and further away these days from the voters than they used to be so that it may very well be inconvenient, to say the least, for some people to go to vote in person. However, I come back to the general position that in a democracy people should be allowed to vote for whom they wish and should make the decision themselves as to whether they should vote at all. Anything other than that smacks of autocracy rather than democracy. If this amendment is put to the vote, I should be delighted to vote against it.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I am always struck by the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, but what might happen in such a constituency—not his former constituency, of course: nor, I hope, in mine—if the majority of people who performed their democratic function of going to the polling station wrote on the ballot paper, “None of the above”.?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart: and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his previous interventions. We are greatly reluctant about compulsory voting, which has to be right. People have to have the option of not voting at all. I am afraid that on this issue I am not with the noble Lord, Lord Snape, as I was on his previous amendment, but I was rather attracted by his suggestion of incentives to vote, rather than doing what the Australians always purport to do, which is to fine people who do not vote. I do not quite know how many Australians get fined for not voting, but I suspect that it is not a very efficient system.
However, an incentive to enable people to vote strikes me as rather attractive. An incentive that takes the form of, say, a voucher to knock something off your rates or something of that sort, which you are given in the polling station, would encourage people to vote in person. That would get us away from the problem of the growing number of postal votes and all the fraud involved in that, which was alluded to in an earlier discussion.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I shall not repeat my earlier points about whether it should be included in the Bill, which I will take as given. I will briefly address the substance of the argument. I acknowledge that there are quite substantial arguments for compulsory voting, but my view is very much along the lines advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Voting should be regarded as a civic duty. It should not be a statutory obligation. If people do not wish to vote, we should not force them to vote. I am also a bit wary of the argument that is sometimes used in favour of compulsory voting: that there is an increasing disaffection with politics, which is why people are not voting, so there should be compulsory voting.
I do not find particularly attractive the argument that we should say to people, “Look, you are being put off politics, therefore we are going to force you to vote”. That would increase their disaffection rather than ameliorate it. I do not find the argument persuasive, although I accept that there are arguments on the other side. I rather warm to the thinking advanced about incentives to get people to the polling station. That is well worth exploring, but with the obvious proviso of “not in this Bill”.
Lord Bach
My Lords, this is another interesting debate that was started by my noble friend. The amendment does not necessarily say that compulsory voting is a good or a bad thing. It just asks that this might be added to the referendum that the Government intend. At great risk of taking a slight difference of opinion to that of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, this is probably a better question for a referendum than the previous amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth
It strikes me that there is an interesting argument here. If this is put in a referendum, the sort of people who will turn out to vote will probably favour compulsory voting. Of course, those who are against it will not go to the polling station.
Lord Bach
That, of course, is the danger with the referendum in the first place perhaps. The right to vote is obviously very precious, and we should encourage people to use it as much as possible. As a descendent of Mrs Pankhurst, dare I say that the suffragettes who fought—some, of course, died—in that cause would see this debate as important. Of course they were fighting for the right to vote, not for the compulsion to do so, but at some stage in the future the House might want to give rather more time to this interesting debate than it will this afternoon, for obvious reasons.
Let me make one thing clear. While it may not be a brave view—but it is the truth—I can say from the Front Bench that we have no particular opinion either way as to whether compulsory voting is right or wrong, and I daresay that may also be the view of the Government. It is very much a matter of individual judgment. Compulsory voting has a long and distinguished history. I believe it began in ancient Greece where it was every citizen’s duty to participate in decision-making. Those in favour of compulsory votes point to the argument that a Government elected in such circumstances can claim greater legitimacy because it removes the possibility of a party winning an election on 40 per cent of the vote when the turnout stands at just over 60 per cent.
Lord Norton of Louth
I refer back to the earlier point made by the noble Lord. He said that he does not have a view either way. What would he do if there was compulsory voting in this House?
Lord Bach
My Lords, I was careful to say that it was the Front Bench of the Official Opposition that had no official view either way. As it happens I, too, do not have a particularly strong view either way. However, I would say that the Australian experiment in compulsory voting is one that we need to look at quite carefully. It does not seem to be a complete failure, to put it mildly. What is important is that it appears to be understood and accepted by voters in Australia. Obviously compulsory voting boosts turnout and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has already told us, spoiling one’s ballot paper is a distinct option if one is not minded to vote. The voter’s power to choose remains unrestrained, and there is obviously a bit of learning by experience if you have to vote, although there are problems with compulsory voting.
Voting was described as a civic duty by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, but perhaps it is a civic right and one that no one in a free country should be compelled to exercise. Fines imposed for non-voting could be regarded as some kind of restriction on individual freedom, and in this country in particular there would be administrative difficulties, to put it mildly, in making voting compulsory, as well as many other more historic difficulties in actually putting it into effect.
I want to ask the Leader of the House one question, because different views have been expressed from the government Front Bench over the past few months, although not in this debate. As I understand it, it is compulsory in this country to register to vote. In other words, there is a sanction if you do not register. This is not meant to be a trick question. It is quite important for the House to understand whether it is compulsory to register, and what we mean by “compulsory” in this sense. In theory, at least, fines can be imposed on those who do not register, but of course in practice that does not happen. If that is true about registration, it would certainly be true for compulsory voting.
This is a subject for a much longer and more detailed debate than we can give it this evening. A referendum question might be a way of canvassing public opinion on the matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has asked his question about compulsory registration because it is an important one. I well remember that the back of the registration document stated that if you failed to fill in the form, you could be fined £25. As far as I can see, that statement no longer appears on the form.
Lord Rooker
This raises an interesting issue for Part 2 of the Bill. If, as I have always understood, it is legally compulsory to register to vote, surely the other side of the coin is that there ought to be a legal obligation on the Government to ensure that every citizen is registered to vote, especially given that those numbers will be instrumental in determining the size of constituencies and all the other matters that come under Part 2. That opens up the possibility of some interesting amendments to Part 2 on compulsory registration to ensure that both those sides of the coin are dealt with. There must be a clear obligation on the Government to ensure that citizens obey the law, so that the millions of people who are allegedly missed off are not missed off before the constituency boundaries are redrawn.
Lord Bach
I agree with my noble friend that this is an important point. Various answers have been given over the past months that have suggested that registration is not compulsory in this country. I am not pressing the Leader of the House to answer on that today; a Written Answer would be satisfactory. However, the issue is relevant to Part 2, as my noble friend said. However, Amendment 29 is on compulsory voting, on which I look forward to hearing what the Leader of the House has to say.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always fascinating in these debates to discover new information. We were treated to new information—at least it was the first time for me—that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is a descendant of Mrs Pankhurst. I am not quite sure what to do with that information, but it is none the less interesting.
We have had an interesting discussion as part of the wider debate on electoral reform. The debate has been similar to the one that we had a few minutes ago, although this debate has been on the subject of compulsion. Those who argue in favour of compulsory voting believe that the greater turnout that would likely ensue would enhance the legitimacy of the Government elected because the result of the election would be closer to the will of the population as a whole rather than that of those individuals who have voted. Those who are against compulsion say that the argument that greater legitimacy would flow from a higher turnout may be challenged on the grounds that people may be either ill informed or have no wish to support the existing system. Opponents of compulsion may also refute the suggestion that low turnouts compromise the legitimacy of existing elections because not voting may be a valid expression of a voter’s opinion—indicating, for instance, satisfaction with the political establishment.
I assure the House that the Government are committed to engaging the electorate in elections and wider democratic activity. In weighing up the arguments for and against compulsion, however, the Government believe that voting should be a civic responsibility and that the importance of political participation should be reinforced without the introduction of any sanction for non-compliance.
That leads us to the interesting exchange about the compulsion to register. Although it was kind of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to say that I could write to him, I have the answer and I can clean up the mystery now: there is no compulsion to register under statute and, therefore, there is no penalty for failing to do so. I hope that that clarifies that mystery. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Snape, not to continue to press Amendment 29.
Lord Snape
I am grateful to noble Lords on both sides of your Lordships’ House for their participation in the debate. I thought that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was a little cynical. Of course there is provision under the compulsive system of voting for a person to make any mark that they like on a ballot paper. I noticed that he exempted both our former constituencies on the grounds that we were so enormously popular that that situation would not have arisen in either West Bromwich or in Cornwall in his former seat. According to my researches, as far as they go, there has not been a recorded instance of “None of the above” ever topping the poll. Although that is not quite the answer that the noble Lord wanted, it is the best that I can do at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, deplored the idea that in a democracy we should, as he put it, force people to vote. I do not think that France, Belgium and Australia—to name but three—are any less democracies because they have some degree of compulsion about voting. Without wishing to embarrass the noble Lord, I should tell him that I have his picture, among others, on a wall in my home in Birmingham. The picture is of the Government Whips’ Office in 1976 and was taken in No. 10 Downing Street with Jim Callaghan, who was then Prime Minister. I always thought that we were paid to force people to vote in those days, so he was not quite as scrupulous then as he obviously is now.
I am grateful for the partial support of the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Norton. They were both against compulsion, but both thought that there was some merit in the idea of a voucher towards people’s rates, or whatever. Perhaps, in withdrawing the amendment, I can point to some degree of unity.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
The noble Lord is right about the happy times that we had together in the Whips’ Office in the House of Commons, but he will recall that we did not have compulsory voting. We wished, sometimes, that we did have compulsory voting, but very often, when I went round my little flock of MPs and told them that they must vote, they told me exactly where to go.
Lord Snape
I do not want to argue with the noble Lord’s view of what took place 30-odd years ago, but that was not quite the impression that I had in the Whips’ Office at the time. However, that was quite a long time ago.
Lord Grocott
As one who was a foot-soldier when my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, were exerting authority, I can say only that voting did not seem to be an optional matter from where I was sitting.
Lord Snape
We had better leave it at that then.
I referred to the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Norton. I am grateful for their partial support. Both were against compulsion but favoured the idea of a voucher or some financial incentive to the voters to turn up to vote. Perhaps, in withdrawing the amendment, I can point out that we three are all against compulsion but in favour of bribery. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“( ) In Scotland, a Gaelic version of the question is also to appear on the ballot papers.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I move Amendment 31, standing in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke. I understand that my noble friend Lord McAvoy has put his name to it as well. I am pleased to see so many noble Lords with Scottish titles in the Chamber today. I presume that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will be replying to it. No? Well, another Scot will be replying to it—that is, the Leader of the House.
When I looked through the Bill and saw that the question was to be posed in Welsh for voting in Wales, I thought, what a very good idea. I immediately assumed that it would also be posed in Gaelic in Scotland. Going further through the Bill, I was disappointed to discover that that was not the case. I presume that the reason why it is being put in Welsh in Wales is that people who are native Welsh speakers will understand better the nuances of the question, the implications of voting one way or another will become clearer to them, when they read it in their native language, their first language. That is a very good argument and a very good reason for having the question in Welsh.
There is exactly the same reason for having the question in Gaelic in Scotland. There are a number of native Gaelic speakers in parts of Scotland, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, and most particularly in the Western Isles, whose first language is Gaelic. These people will understand the question better, understand the nuances and implications of it, in the same way that Welsh speakers will in Wales.
Then I thought that maybe the argument for having it in Welsh in Wales and not in Gaelic in Scotland was that in Wales there are people who speak only Welsh, whereas in Scotland there are no people who speak only Gaelic. In fact, the situation in Scotland is that in the last few years it has become the case that all native Gaelic speakers now speak English as their second language. However, the situation in Wales is almost exactly the same. I quote from Wikipedia—I am not sure if that is the best source, but it is correct on this occasion:
“monoglot Welsh speakers are now virtually non-existent … Almost without exception, Welsh speakers in Wales also speak English … Welsh speakers are more comfortable expressing themselves in Welsh than in English”—
but that is true also of Gaelic speakers. So the situation in both countries is effectively the same.
I also thought that there might be an argument that there were more Polish and German speakers and speakers of other European languages in Scotland. This would complicate things and mean that we ought to have the question in those languages as well. At present, though, citizens of the European Union resident in the United Kingdom will not be eligible to vote in the referendum. As it happens, I also tabled Amendment 36A, which, if accepted, would allow them to vote and to have the same franchise for both the referendum and the election, which would be helpful. At the moment, though, Polish, German, French and other European citizens will not have the right to vote. So that argument does not arise.
Like Welsh, Gaelic is increasingly being used alongside English in Scotland. I took a journey by rail recently from Edinburgh to Ayr—it is not always easy to make any journeys in Scotland at the moment—and Scotrail now has all the names of the railway stations in Gaelic as well as in English. That is happening throughout Scotland. That is just one example of many.
The argument might be put—perhaps by the Leader of the House, if he is replying—that Welsh is an official language. Since 2005, however, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will attest to because he was Deputy First Minister of Scotland at the time, under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, Gaelic is now an official language in Scotland.
The argument might be that the question is being put in Welsh in Wales because there are more Welsh speakers—in fact, there are 611,000. In Scotland there are 58,652 Gaelic speakers. However, I would argue that the issue is not the number of speakers; rather, it is an issue of principle. Even if there were only a handful of Gaelic speakers, the argument would be the same. Still, there are 58,652 native Gaelic speakers.
There have been a number of considerations regarding this at the European level. In fact, it was pointed out recently, in relation not to Scottish Gaelic but to Northern Irish Gaelic, that the United Nations committee looking at the European Convention on Human Rights recommended that the Administration in Northern Ireland adopt an Irish language Act with a view to preserving and promoting minority languages and cultural heritage in the same way as the Welsh Language Act and the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act. So there was a recognition there, and there is increasing recognition generally that Gaelic is an official language in Scotland.
Given the setting up of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, if we put the Bill through in its present form there would be a case for Gaelic speakers in Scotland to take a case to it on the basis that they were not being dealt with in the same way as native Welsh speakers. We are all in the same United Kingdom but they are not being dealt with in the same way.
This is a very serious matter. Some people thought that some of the comments I made on previous matters were debating points. This is not a debating point or issue. It has become known among some people who speak Gaelic that I had planned to move this amendment, for which I have had expressions of support. Gaelic speakers think that this amendment would be a great advantage to the Bill.
The Leader of the House—or I think the noble Lord, Lord McNally—has put down some amendments to the Bill. We passed a change to the Bill on Monday, so the Bill has to go back to the other place anyway. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept this amendment and that it will go back to the House with a clear instruction or expression of review from the House of Lords that the speakers of Scottish Gaelic should be treated in exactly the same way as Welsh speakers in Wales.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, not for the first time I rise in Committee to support my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. On this occasion my noble friend has identified a very important issue of support for minority language rights and identities. He has afforded your Lordships’ House an opportunity to make a statement about such support in supporting his amendment. As I have said before, I have made a point of reviewing everything that has been said in these Houses in relation to this Bill. I have to say that I was surprised, given the makeup of the other place, that this issue was not raised in Committee or in any other part of the debate that they had about this legislation. This fact and the issue that my noble friend identified have indicated how important it is that we look at this legislation as carefully as we have been doing in Committee because I am sure that we will find many other opportunities to improve it quite significantly and improve the appreciation that the electorate have of the body politic in this country—a point that I made earlier.
In researching my contribution to this short debate—and I am sure that it will be a short but valuable one—I came across the writings of a man, who I had previously not read, called Robert Dunbar, who was, at least in 2006, at the school of law in the University of Aberdeen. I will share his words with your Lordships’ House because they make the holistic case for my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s argument very well. In the Journal of Law and Society in 2006 in volume 33, number one, in an article entitled, “Is there a duty to legislate for linguistic minorities?”, he wrote:
“All three Celtic languages are … threatened minority languages. Gaelic particularly so, and Welsh and Gaelic are only spoken as community languages—and will therefore only survive—in the United Kingdom. These demographic and sociolinguistic facts are a product, to a very significant degree, of state language policy, which until fairly recently has been directed at promoting the acquisition of English, with little or no regard to the impact of this policy on minority languages”.
He goes on:
“Frequently, minority languages such as the Celtic languages have been viewed by the majority as not merely ‘less widely spoken’, but also as ‘inferior’, ‘backward’, ‘parochial’, and these value judgments have too often coloured attitudes to the speakers of such languages. When such attitudes guide the implementation of an integrationist policy, the effect changes from one of equipping the minority with skills in the majority languages to one of removing the minority language and identity altogether”.
I apologise to your Lordships’ House for reading that at length. However, in those few sentences, Mr Dunbar made the argument for respecting the minority language of Gaelic, the Scottish people and the identity of those who speak that language in a very good way. I could have adopted his argument and changed the words, which, as a consequence of my researches, I have to say I have done in the past. However, I thought that I should attribute those arguments to him.
Lord Strathclyde
Can the noble Lord tell us what role he played in this when he was Secretary of State for Scotland?
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I do not recollect that this legislation was before any House of Parliament when I was the Secretary of State for Scotland. The point the noble Lord wishes to make is that somehow we should not do the right thing now, because perhaps I or others did not do the right thing before. However, if this is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do at the point at which we identify it is the right thing to do. I am sure that the noble Lord is not going to make that argument because it would be disrespectful to the House and disrespectful to himself. We have an opportunity to send a very strong message back to the people of Scotland and to Gaelic speakers, a message that I think all the Members of the House would want to send back. If the Front Bench rejects this amendment, I would ask my noble friend to insist upon it.
Lord Palmer
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, really could not have made a better case for the constitution of this House in its present form. The noble Lord mentioned that the House of Commons did not look at this aspect of the Bill at all. This is exactly what this House has the time and the experience to look at. With the greatest possible respect, I think the noble Lord defused quite a lot of the arguments in favour of his noble friend’s amendment. When I was at school the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was one of my childhood heroes. He was a wonderfully bombastic loose cannon in the House of Commons when I was still wet behind the ears. However, I do feel incredibly strongly that this amendment would be a total and utter waste of parliamentary time, let alone a waste of money, if it was to be carried. The noble Lord and I obviously have exactly the same figures—58,652 Gaelic speakers north of the border, and it is thought not a single one of them is incapable of understanding fully, speaking and reading English. I would therefore appeal to your Lordships to reject this amendment with the strongest possible feeling.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, it is not a question of numbers, although my noble friend Lord Browne was perhaps tempting fate in suggesting that there are no monoglot Welsh speakers. I suspect that now he has said that, the Welsh media will be searching in the valleys of the Lleyn Peninsula and will find some dear old lady—perhaps there is even some Cornish lady still—who speaks only Welsh, but I am not sure frankly that that is really material to the argument. Nor is the question of cost, as the cost must be very minor indeed. I shall argue on the basis of Celtic solidarity—hands across the Irish Sea—that this is a matter more of dignity and symbolism, and is all the more important for that.
The coalition has made much of overconcentration in Westminster and Whitehall. That has been part of the leitmotif—that there will be decentralisation, that there will be more status and more dignity given to local communities to manage their own affairs. Surely, to recognise the differences within the United Kingdom is very much in the spirit of that. I concede this is symbolic, but it will do no harm and may well do some good. I speak as someone with a Welsh background, although I concede that I am a monoglot English speaker—I went to a Welsh grammar school at a time when Wales was not being pushed, and I was taught Greek and Latin rather than Welsh, which I gave up at an early stage. However, like most Welsh people, even the monoglot majority who speak only English, I have a tremendous feeling of pride in the Welsh language. One of the great debates over the past decades has been over the ways in which we can encourage the use of the Welsh language without making it a divisive issue. I give credit to the Conservative Party for the Welsh Language Act, which I believe avoided making Welsh a divisive and explosive issue, as happened with regard to language in Belgium. Overwhelmingly in Wales there is a pride in the language, and not a nasty response to it. That Belgian-style row has been avoided here by a process of being consensual and by recognising the importance of difference. It is indeed a source of pride for most of us.
I concede that there are differences, because we have gone further in Wales with the principle of equal validity, but the identity of the nation is linked with that of the language and, however small the number of Gaelic speakers may be, the identity of the Scottish nation is also linked with that language. This is wholly consonant with the new spirit of seeking to encourage diversity in Europe by all possible means—not just in the European Union but in the Council of Europe. Doing that is not only politically important to avoid language being a source of division, but a matter of pride in that which is different.
My final principle is to accept this as a symbolic gesture. It will not cost much and it will do no harm. In terms of diversity and recognising the differences within our United Kingdom, it can do some good.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I would be serving the cause of pan-Celticism badly were I not to say that I wholeheartedly supported the amendment; indeed, I support it with great enthusiasm. The situation in Wales is a very powerful and pertinent precedent for the Gaelic situation. In Wales, the Welsh language is a living language; it is some 1,500 years old and has been recognised in statute since 1967. The combined effect of the 1967 and 1993 Acts gave the Welsh language equal validity with the English language in all formal legal situations.
In that regard, there would appear to be an unanswerable case for putting the AV referendum question in Welsh as well as in English. In the clause stand part debate, I will have something to say about the quality of translation, but that is a different matter altogether. The Welsh case is based on the fact that there are a substantial number of people, particularly elderly people, for whom the Welsh language is essentially the only language in which they communicate. They might not be monoglot as one would strictly define that term, but certainly many tens of thousands of people speak Welsh; it is certainly the first language of hundreds of thousands of people in Wales. On that basis alone, it is right and proper that this provision should be arranged. That was the situation in the referendums on the Common Market in 1975 and on devolution in 1979 and the 1990s.
In addition, Welsh is often referred to as “our language” by people who do not speak it. That gives me enormous pride and comfort. I have no doubt that much the same attitude prevails in Scotland. Therefore, there is an unanswerable legalistic case for the Welsh language—a case in chivalry and in the fact that it is part of the rich cultural heritage of the United Kingdom. In the main, that applies equally to Scotland, and it is on that basis that I fervently and proudly support the amendment.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I shall make one or two points briefly. My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton mentioned the number of speakers of Welsh and who is monoglot and who is not monoglot. In referring to Wales, he specifically mentioned that he had drawn his figures from the census. My point is not so much about numbers but about proportions. The Scottish Gaelic world is concentrated in the Western Isles and the western part of Scotland, so the proportion of people affected is quite considerable, although the numbers and proportion in the whole of Scotland are certainly less than in Wales. That is why it should be recognised, not only in symbolism but in reality.
Symbolism is important. It should be remembered that, particularly after April 1746, there was a campaign against the culture of that world. The communities were destroyed; they were persecuted by the UK Government, driven into corners and discriminated against, not only for their activities between August 1745 and April 1746, but because of their culture and the communities they represented, so there is a bit of a siege mentality in that world.
That world is not only represented by the Western Isles but by the county of Argyll. Argyllshire comes into it as well. When I was on Strathclyde regional council—Argyll was part of the regional council’s area—we went to great lengths to preserve and encourage the Gaelic language, not only in schools within the region’s remit but because of the Gaelic population in the west of Scotland, particularly in the city of Glasgow. It could have been argued that a disproportionate amount of money was spent on this, but we thought it important and it was much appreciated by the Gaelic community. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock has already mentioned, Liberal Members of this House should support this, but there seemed to be some surprise at that point of view.
Argyll is relevant to what I am going to say next. My very good friend, with whom I shared a lot in common, was the late Lady Michie—Ray Michie—a tremendous person: a Bannerman who represented the Bannerman family. She once said to me that that was because her family carried the banner of Scotland and its many battles, particularly against our now English friends. I remember Ray and I down at Tilbury Docks, along with the noble Lord, Lord Martin. The local council down there was commemorating the centenary of the Jacobite prisoners at Tilbury Docks. That was a war crime if there ever was one. The proportion of the Jacobites who died in those prison holes was quite shocking. That day there was a procession; the noble Lord, Lord Martin, played the bagpipes, followed by the late Ray Michie, me and Andrew Mackinlay, who was then MP for Thurrock. In my opinion, Lady Michie would have been a firm supporter of this amendment. I have no doubt at all about that. There is a lot of principle involved.
An amendment like this would be of relevant use to people in the Western Isles, where, again, the proportion is striking. To its credit, the Scottish Parliament has taken great steps to try and look after the Gaelic language. That is absolutely right. This is a revising Chamber and this amendment could and should be accepted by the Government without any great principle being at stake and without involving any attack on the Bill. It surprises me that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, should behave in such a House of Commons manner by trying to inject a note of controversy by questioning my noble friend Lord Browne. It was really quite shocking and hurtful to see. I hope that he will get away from that House of Commons attitude—a hope that he himself has expressed so many times—and accept the amendment.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Indeed, I suppose it would be surprising if I did not, having my roots in north-west Sutherland, the heart of the Gaeltacht of Scotland. Most of my education was in the Isle of Lewis and the Isle of Skye a long time ago. In those days Gaelic was taught, sadly, as a foreign language. I was given a choice, because at the age of 11 one had to make decisions. My parents thought that they might like me to do medicine, so Latin was prescribed for me. Those who had a hankering for divinity were required to learn Greek. If you wanted to do Latin or Greek, you could not study Gaelic. That was part of the education system as it then existed in Scotland. My Gaelic is extremely rudimentary. My father was a native Gaelic speaker and my mother could not speak it, so, sadly, I never became fluent in it.
Things have improved and changed in Scotland, certainly since devolution. There are many Gaelic-medium schools now in Scotland, and they are extremely successful. We have the BBC ALBA channel, which is very successful and which will shortly, I hope, be available on Freeview so that many more can have access to it. However, there is still pressure in Scotland and the view that, because everyone can speak English fluently and read English, there is no need for Gaelic. That is where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. We hear this all the time about road signs and railway signs in Gaelic; “it’s a waste of money”. No, it is not a waste of money. There is still suspicion in the Highlands, among Gaels, that the establishment and the Civil Service still have anti-Gaelic sentiment running through them. We should dispel that; we can dispel it tonight if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can accept this amendment or indicate that similar wording will be put into the Act, as is the case for Welsh.
We hear a great deal about Ulster Scots and Irish and parity of esteem. Indeed, we hear a lot about this, certainly in Written Questions, in this House. If we have parity of esteem between Ulster Scots and Irish in the Belfast agreement, and Welsh is already embedded in this Bill, we must indeed have Gaelic as well, because there must be parity of esteem for Scottish Gaelic.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, talked about the Welsh speaking of Welsh as “our language” even if they could not speak it themselves, but that points to the fact that Welsh is the adjective from Wales, whereas Gaelic is not the adjective from Scotland in any sense of that expression. There might be an inaccuracy, at least in this amendment, in that it does not refer to Scottish Gaelic, because, as has been said, there is Gaelic in Ulster and of course in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, I think Welsh itself is probably a branch of Gaelic—it is certainly a Celtic language.
The other point is that the amendment suggests that,
“a Gaelic version of the question is also to appear”.
I submit that “a Gaelic version” leaves very open the question of exactly how it would be expressed. That is not particularly satisfactory. It might also be required to specify that a person who wishes to use that question as his information should also have to answer it in Gaelic.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
My Lords, I just want to make one short point. This amendment would sit with the rest of the Bill, because under Clause 11, the rules for distribution of seats take out two constituencies: Orkney and Sheltand. I will not attempt to pronounce the Gaelic name of the Western Isles and the Western Isles Council. They are already there because recognition is being given to the Gaelic language. For that reason, the amendment would be wholly consistent with the rest of the Bill.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. We have heard very powerful arguments for the amendment. We on the Front Bench support the amendment. We do not claim that it is the biggest or most important amendment, but it does have an importance in the Bill. I hope that the Government are big enough to accept a well argued amendment that would improve the Bill. It is about fairness. The Bill already covers Wales in this way; surely it should do the same here. The amendment specifies that the ballot papers would be printed in the two languages only in Scotland. Surely the cost of printing the question in two languages would not be great. Administratively, it would not be difficult to organise; and, practically, such a change could be straightforward.
We have heard from a number of speakers how, in this age of devolution—
Lord Tyler
I know that the noble Lord wants to be brief, but I put a question to him to which I genuinely do not know the answer. Can the noble Lord remind the House whether his Administration included a Gaelic version of the question for the Scottish devolution referendum?
Lord Bach
My Lords, I cannot remind the House because I do not know the answer. However, I think that there is someone who does: the noble Lord who will speak after me. Even if we did not, we were not always right. It is a terrible admission to make, and not one that the present Government are prepared to make at this stage. Perhaps later on they will.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I think my noble friend will also remember that the question for the Welsh referendum was not put in Welsh.
Lord Bach
Again, I am afraid that I cannot remember, but no doubt the Leader of the House will be able to help us.
We have moved on since those times. Devolution is a much more significant factor now in British politics than it was. A number of noble Lords have made that clear. My noble friend Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, who comes from the relevant area of Scotland, expressed the view that the Gaelic language is more widely used and appreciated now than it was in times past. In October 2009, a new agreement was made that allows Scottish Gaelic to be used formally between Scottish Ministers and European Union officials. Of course, this does not give Scottish Gaelic official status in the European Union, but it does make it a means of formal communication with EU institutions, and politicians on different sides welcomed the step. This amendment does not ask for much. We ask the Government to be big and to accept it.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this has been, not unsurprisingly, a most interesting and useful debate. The ideas that underlie the amendment are not without merit. What is more arguable is whether this is the right Bill and the right time to deal with the matter. I am nothing but impressed by those who master a second language. I am even more impressed by those who master Gaelic. It is interesting to note that next year's Scottish elections will not have Gaelic on the ballot paper or on any of the pages of information that will be provided by statute. Recently, the Scottish Parliament decided to disaggregate the Scottish elections from the local elections; and again, in those local elections, there is no requirement for Gaelic to appear on the ballot paper.
I will refer to my intervention in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, had no reason to protect him; he is perfectly capable of doing that himself. My interest was genuine; I felt the passion and interest of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and thought perhaps that when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, there was a reason why he was unable to progress this. I am not sure that there was a reason. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, explained that although 13 years was a long time, the then Government did not find time to deal with this, or did not think that it was sufficiently important or necessary; I have no idea which was the case.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am grateful to the Leader of the House, and do not rise to defend myself. I do not feel that my record in the Scottish Office requires defending. However, reflecting on the point that he made, I say that there was no obvious opportunity when I was Secretary of State, for a comparatively short time, to deal with the issue. I admit honestly that it did not occur to me until my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock brought it to my attention with the amendment. He has done the House a service.
The point that I will make to the noble Lord is that his party, our party and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland—indeed, all parties—publish their manifesto in Gaelic and distribute leaflets in Gaelic. Why do we conduct only part of the electoral process in Gaelic and not give the Gaelic speakers of Scotland the right to cast their vote against a question that is put in Gaelic?
Lord Strathclyde
I am not saying that the idea that underlies this amendment is without merit: simply that it is the wrong amendment to the wrong Bill at the wrong time. In the long term, after due investigation, there may be those who believe that there should be that change in Scotland at all levels of elections.
There is a clear difference between Wales and Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, pointed out. Under the Welsh Language Act 1993, it is common for Ministers to prescribe by order Welsh versions of statements that appear on ballot papers, in postal voting documents and so on. In Scotland, Gaelic versions of electoral material have not previously been included in legislation, on ballot papers or on other official materials for elections, even when the elections have related only to Scotland. Therein lies the next issue; I am not aware that this has caused any administrative problems on the ground. That should be a test for whether in this referendum we depart from the parliamentary elections approach.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was raising a general point that has received some support from around the House. However, my noble and learned friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, pointed out a serious flaw in the amendment that I hope the noble Lord will consider. I also hope that, if he wishes to continue his campaign, he will do so not just in this House but in the Scottish Parliament, of which I believe he is still a distinguished Member.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to the Leader of the House, in particular for his closing remark. However, I intend to vacate my position in the Scottish Parliament in May next year to spend more time in this Chamber, because I find it so interesting. I have been grateful tonight for the overwhelming and powerful support for the amendment from my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, who is a distinguished academic lawyer and a former member of the Cabinet, and for the Welsh support from the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Elystan-Morgan. When the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to the Welsh precedent being powerful and pertinent, that was a strong argument as well as a wonderful alliteration.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for his Jacobite version of the argument, which is all the more powerful for it, and to the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, with his background in Gaeldom, for his powerful support. The support has been overwhelming. I have one or two points of criticism. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who referred to the Scottish referendum not having the question in Gaelic, that the major change since then is that the Scottish Parliament, with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and my noble and learned friend the former Lord Advocate as Members, passed the 2005 Act, which changed the whole position of Gaelic in Scotland. And I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for whom I have great respect—he was a very distinguished Lord Chancellor and he and I have had lots of other dealings outside this Chamber—that I accept that it should say “Scottish Gaelic” and that the question should be specified. There could be an opportunity later to do that. If I could have written it myself in Gaelic, I would have done so, but this was the quickest way of expressing support for this and moving in this direction. With his help and with the help of Gaelic speakers, we can refine it so that we can get it right before this Bill finally goes through.
This is an issue of principle and I feel strongly about it. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, pointed out that the 2001 census showed that there are no monoglot speakers of either Welsh or Gaelic, so the position is exactly the same. I do not understand the Leader’s argument that this is the wrong Bill in which to have the amendment. This amendment relates precisely to this Bill because it deals with the referendum and because there is a Welsh version. I argue that there should also be a Gaelic version. I thank noble Members for their support. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, pointed out, this is Scottish Liberal Democrat policy. I look forward to seeing my noble friends—I can still call some of them that—in the Lobby with us tonight because I intend to test the will of this House by pressing this amendment to a vote.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, this clause, establishing the referendum, sets the question. This is probably my last intervention on this part of the Bill. Although I believe in electoral reform and the need for a referendum, I do not believe in this referendum because it sets the wrong question. The Bill seeks approval for a system that I believe is a nonsense.
Now, I almost want to act as a sweep and to place on record a summary of my objections to this referendum and the question being asked. I believe that the core of my objections will surface during the television campaign against the referendum question. I object on the basis that this may well be our last opportunity for a generation to put electoral reform on the agenda. If the public say no, it will be almost impossible to resurrect the electoral reform debate, so we have to get the system right.
The opponents of electoral reform will sell AV as the product of a panic-driven stitch-up between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in the coalition, the intention being to create a coalition. That will not fool the public. The Conservative acceptance of AV as part of the coalition deal will be seen as a cynical ploy when it comes out during the TV campaign that almost the entire Conservative Party, both inside and outside Parliament, is opposed to the AV system on offer and, to some extent, proportional representation altogether.
The coalition is taking the issue of electoral reform to the electorate at a time when there is great political and economic uncertainty. Divisions within the coalition, which will deepen, will inevitably lead to calls for strong governance. Curiously, I believe that coalitions, which I actually favour, are capable of strong government, but coalitions built on the shifting sands of economic uncertainty and the consequential public expenditure reductions are bound to lead to division and the public will inevitably identify division within the coalition with coalition Governments and, sadly, with electoral reform. This is the wrong time to be asking this question, particularly in a referendum that proposes such a controversial system.
The Liberal Democrats, in particular, will have major difficulties in the campaign in squaring their historic position. How do they answer the question: “Do you really believe in the system on offer?”. The answer has to be no. If they answer that this is the best on offer, the public will simply turn away. The truth is that the only people who have advocated this system are members of the Labour Party and, even in the Labour Party, they are a minority. Furthermore, we are opposed to this Bill because of the stitch-up on seats, which many Members find objectionable.
Then we have the false prospectus. Many people believe that they are being offered the full Australian classic AV system, but that is not so. They are getting what is being called “a miserable little compromise”. We then have those who, either through ignorance or recognition of the inherent weaknesses in multioptional, preferential AV, use arguments to support AV and to justify the system such as, “It works like the London mayoral voting system”. That is just a dishonest argument, but we shall hear it in the campaign. It will be fed on the doorstep by proponents of this AV system. They will say that it is like the system used in the London mayoral election. I regard that as fundamentally dishonest.
I also have a fundamental objection to a system that gives equal weight to voters’ least favoured preferences and the first preference votes of other voters. How can the seventh preference of a voter in a seven-candidate election be as valid as the first preference of another voter? It is a nonsense.
Equally, I deplore the myth being peddled that AV avoids tactical voting. That is simply untrue. Under the heading, “Factors determining the results in an AV election”, the Constitution Society stated in its brief on AV:
“In order to maximise the chances of a preferred candidate, a voter must rank the other candidates in an optimum order, taking account of past results and polling information. (This is a potentially complex exercise which most voters will not attempt themselves: in Australia, the Party organisations publish lists instructing their supporters how to rank the candidates for maximum advantage.)”.
In other words, AV provides for tactical voting. I have had some interesting conversations over this past weekend with people in Scotland. I can tell the Committee that the Labour Party, my own party, used tactical voting techniques—and we say it openly in Scotland—during the local authority elections in Scotland. It accepts it as part of the new arrangements that exist while that system is in operation.
Then we have leapfrogging. Under the AV system proposed, third-placed and fourth-placed candidates on the first count can break through and win seats on subsequent counts. This is particularly likely to happen in places such as Scotland, where you have a number of parties seriously contesting what could turn out to be tightly fought marginal parliamentary constituencies. I object most strongly to a system where the sequence in which candidates are eliminated can disproportionately influence who wins an election. Let us take the example of a seat where the top candidate on the first count wins 45 per cent or 46 per cent of the vote. If the bottom candidate, the BNP, wins, say, 8 per cent or 10 per cent of the vote on the first count and 50 per cent of the BNP second preferences transfer to the top candidate, the top candidate wins. The BNP will have determined the result because, following elimination of the bottom candidate and the transfer of eliminated candidates’ second preferences, the top candidate has more than 50 per cent and wins. What is most significant about that kind of result, in that count, is that all other additional preferences for all other candidates are ignored, which is the point that I was making earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
Lord Greaves
Does the noble Lord not agree that all single-member constituency contests are majoritarian contests because the final result is a contest between the person who wins and either one other candidate or a number of other candidates? Therefore, in a majoritarian contest in a single-member seat, at the final count there are always people who have voted for the successful candidate and people who have voted for an unsuccessful candidate or candidates. That is inherent in a single-member majoritarian system. The important thing is that those votes remain in the system at the end, unlike in the supplementary vote system, which the noble Lord espouses, where votes are simply cast aside and not even included in the final count.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord is asking me to reopen the debate that we had on the Floor in a series of interventions, when I answered that point specifically. Before Report, we might be able to do more work on this; we might be able to show that there is a greater loss under the AV system. Perhaps he could ask his researcher to have a look at some of the results in Scotland that I am going to refer to.
Lord Greaves
Does the noble Lord accept that I do all my own research, as I am a poor, pauper Peer?
Lord Campbell-Savours
Forgive me.
We then have this major problem of the electorate’s understanding of the proposed system. The Constitution Society in its briefing for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Constitution drew attention to a series of YouGov polls on the issues set out in the Bill. The poll commissioned at the end of August this year interviewed 2,548 respondents. One-third claimed that they knew how AV worked, one-third claimed that they had heard of it but did not know how it worked and one-third claimed that they had never heard of it. The response of supporters of the proposed AV system is that a public information campaign should help public understanding of the system. That is the view, I understand, of the Electoral Commission. However, noble Lords then have to consider the impact of such information campaigns. My noble friend Lord Rooker drew attention to this issue the other day to some extent, but perhaps I can add a little more information. Under the YouGov poll question,
“How would you vote in a referendum on AV? (Before and after being given information)”,
this is the response under paragraph 2.5.3 of the report:
“Before being exposed to information, responses were evenly balanced between ‘Yes’ (32 per cent) and ‘no’ (33 per cent). After receiving factual information, the ‘no’ vote increased to 38 per cent suggesting that exposure to information about AV tends to convince undecided voters against it”.
That is a precarious basis on which to hold a public information campaign or, indeed, to hold a referendum.
I now turn to other extremely important issues. The first is the 50 per cent myth, which I hope we may have destroyed during our earlier debate today. Let us note how the Constitution Society sees it. In its alternative voting briefing paper, it said:
“Nor, in the ‘optional preference’ proposed for the UK, does the winning candidate necessarily have an outright majority of the total vote (ie of the total number of people who voted). In Australia, where the AV system is used for House of Representatives elections, voting is compulsory and voters are thus required to allocate a preference to every candidate on the ballot. As a consequence, the winning candidate does always achieve an outright majority of the total”.
Then we have Rallings and Thrasher, professors at the University of Plymouth, who say:
“Proponents of AV often claim that the need for successful candidates to be able to show local majority support is one of the system’s main attractions. Yet our Table above”—
that is a part of a wider briefing from Rallings and Thrasher—
“would also mean, given the limited vote transfers between parties, that more than 4 out of every 10 MPs would still be elected with the endorsement of less than 50 per cent of the voters in their constituency. The claim that AV will guarantee local majority support can only be validated if every voter is compelled or chooses to cast a full range of preferences. There seems little prospect of that happening in a general election conducted under AV in the UK”.
Professor Patrick Dunleavy, whose work on electoral systems is internationally acclaimed, treats as risible the suggestion that you need 50 per cent to win. He is not a great supporter of AV; he sees it as a compromise system that to some extent has to be supported. But he, like me, is a supporter of electoral reform, in that both of us support AMS-based systems.
However, the real evidence on this came to me by a curious route, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and I will quote him because I want to take on this question of Scotland. He said:
“In particular, Scotland operates STV when all its council elections are due but the alternative vote when it has a council by-election”.—[Official Report, 30/11/10; col. 1402.]
Here we have STV operating in Scotland, apart from in by-elections, when the system automatically switches to AV, because we are talking about single-member wards. The noble Lord goes on to suggest that we pray in aid the information gleaned from the Scottish experience. I have done precisely that. With the help of Mr Paul White, a researcher whose expertise on these matters—in particular his statistical analysis—has been of great benefit to me, I tracked down all 32 AV by-elections in Scotland since the system’s introduction. I want to place the 32 by-elections on the record, because this is relevant to the campaign that is to take place. Eight of them were won with less than 50 per cent of the vote. In Aberdeen City, Midstocket/Rosemount, it was 43 per cent; in Elgin City ward in Moray, it was 42 per cent; in Lerwick South, Shetland, it was 44 per cent; in Abbey ward, Dumfries and Galloway, it was 48 per cent; in Aboyne, Upper Deeside and Donside, Aberdeenshire, it was 43 per cent; in Bannockburn, Stirling, it was 45 per cent; in Coatbridge North and Glenboig, North Lanarkshire, it was 42 per cent; and in Forres, in Moray, it was 44 per cent. There is the evidence of an AV system in operation where members are elected with less than 50 per cent of the poll.
Lord Rennard
Can the noble Lord calculate from those figures how many of those by-elections would have been won by a candidate with less than 50 per cent of the vote in the event of the first-past-the-post system being used? He has clearly demonstrated that, in three-quarters of those cases or thereabouts, the candidate elected had to have 50 per cent of the vote. How many cases would have been won by someone with less than 50 per cent had first past the post been retained?
Lord Campbell-Savours
That is not the question. We are dealing here with those who argue that a candidate should need 50 per cent of the poll to win, so do not switch the question to another area. I am only addressing what happens. There are problems with first past the post, which is why I am in favour of electoral reform. I am trying to place on record material to show that those who argue that we need a majority of the electorate to win are simply wrong.
The second important issue is the incidence of the use of additional preferences, which is the principal argument used to justify AV. Last week, I referred to the work of Rallings and Thrasher on results in Queensland, Australia. Colleagues may recall that in the 2009 state elections, 63 per cent of all those who voted “plumped”, or voted for, only one candidate. In some areas, as many as three-quarters of all those voting voted for only one candidate. The question is: what would happen in the United Kingdom?
Again following the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I enlisted the help of Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde. Let me make it clear that I am not reflecting his views—I do not know what he believes in—as I simply asked him for statistical information to be provided. Professor Curtice has given me factual data. I tracked down the six by-election results in Scotland that provide data that indicate the usage of additional preferences under AV. Such data can be secured only where votes are counted electronically, which is why I asked the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whether the counts would be based on an electronic or a manual basis. Remember that we are dealing here with AV. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is shaking his head. Perhaps I have misunderstood something.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
I am not entirely sure why the count had to be electronic to get the information on where the transfers went.
Lord Campbell-Savours
To be frank, I do not understand that either. However, I asked that question and I understand that it is because of the way that votes are counted manually. One returning officer in a seat in Scotland told us that he had different buckets into which he placed different votes and, as the tellers went from count to count, they moved the votes from one bucket to another. Perhaps that has something to do with how they count the additional preferences. As I said, I have not been able to trace that information up to now.
As I said, remember that we are dealing with what are normally STV local authority arrangements where there are by-elections in individual seats. Let me take six seats that were up for single-member election. In Glasgow Ballieston, of those who voted: 100 per cent —obviously—used their first preference vote; 51 per cent did not use their second preference vote; 68 per cent did not use their third preference vote; 84 per cent did not use their fourth preference vote; 91 per cent did not use their fifth preference vote; 92 per cent did not use their sixth preference; and 93 per cent did not use their seventh preference. At another Glasgow Ballieston by-election, of those who voted: 47 per cent did not use their second preference vote; 74 per cent did not use their third preference vote; 83 per cent did not use their fourth preference vote; 92 per cent did not use their fifth preference vote; 93 per cent did not use their sixth preference vote; 94 per cent did not use their seventh preference vote; 94 per cent did not use their eighth preference vote; and 95 per cent did not use their ninth preference. What a system. People are not using their additional preferences.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am slightly perplexed by that argument, which seems to point in the direction of second and further preferences being purposive. One of the noble Lord’s earlier arguments was that they were inconsequential.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The argument that the noble Lord is advancing suggests that the use of second and further preferences is purposive—that is, the voters are exercising a real choice. If voters are indifferent to some candidates, they may not use their other preferences at all. That is surely right and good, but it works against his earlier argument.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord is correct and has hit the point right on the head. Voters often use their second preferences. That is why we go back to the supplementary vote. Under the supplementary vote system, all the second preferences for all the other candidates are transferred to the top two, whereas under the AV system, that is not the case.
Lord Greaves
The noble Lord is now going back to the supplementary vote. The whole purport of what I said earlier about the supplementary vote is that not all the second preferences of those who voted for other candidates are transferred to the top two candidates. I provided a number of statistics showing that usually a clear majority—sometimes an overwhelming majority—of such votes are not transferred to the top two. That is what is wrong with the supplementary vote. If, in exercising their preferences under the alternative vote, people choose at any stage not to choose between remaining candidates, that is entirely their right. However, if people exercise their right to record a second preference, all such votes should remain in the count to the very end.
Lord Campbell-Savours
However, we are measuring the efficacy of the system. We want the system to work. We want it to make a difference in results. If we are to change to a system in which people simply do not use their additional preferences, why change the system? The advantage of the supplementary vote is that people would use their second preferences. That is what has happened in the mayoral elections, as the noble Lord will know from having seen the data.
In the by-election for the Doon Valley ward of East Ayrshire Council, 52 per cent did not use their second preference vote, 68 per cent did not use their third preference vote, 77 per cent did not use their fourth preference vote and 81 per cent did not use their fifth.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I hope that my noble friend is not casting any aspersions on the good people of Doon Valley, whom I represented for 26 years in the other place. They are the salt of the earth—good mining stock—and people whom he would be proud to know as friends. Indeed, many of them I know as friends. I am sure that he does not mean in any way to disparage them.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sure that they are the crème de la crème and the very best, but I am just trying to help them. I want to see a system in operation that works and that does not result in people wasting their votes.
The interesting thing about all these results is shown in my final example. In the by-election for the ward of Drumchapel/Anniesland, 38 per cent did not use their second preferences, 51 per cent did not use their third preferences, 62 per cent did not use their fourth preferences and 68 per cent did not use their fifth preferences. All of that comes from the beginning of the use of AV in the United Kingdom, in Scotland.
On top of that, as we find in Australia, once the parties begin to devise strategies for “plumping”, people stop using their preferences altogether and treat the election as a first-past-the-post election. In effect, that means that there is no major change to the system, apart from when people deliberately set out to remove particular Members of Parliament. Those are the circumstances in which there may well be freak results.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
We who have campaigned in such elections, including in another one in East Ayrshire in my former constituency that produced similar statistics, along with all the parties who are represented in this House—and some that are not—know that that is exactly what happens. Before we impose this system more extensively and more widely as the only choice in the referendum paper, we should think carefully about the electorate’s experience of the system. I have to say to my noble friend that there is no party represented in this House that does not do exactly what he has identified—I include in that those who are the most active proponents of some form of proportionality.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My noble friend referred to an election in his former constituency, for which I have the results here. Was that the election in Ballochmyle in East Ayrshire?
Lord Campbell-Savours
Being a Welshman, I do not know how to pronounce these names. However, 43 per cent of second preferences, 63 per cent of third preferences, 74 per cent of fourth preferences and 77 per cent of fifth preferences were not used. That is before we get into the big “plumping” campaigns that will be imported from Australia. The results indicate massive abstentions on additional preferences. What are the implications of AV for general elections?
Lord Greaves
Will the noble Lord tell us to what extent he is cherry-picking the results? Would the same sort of figures be produced if he took all 35 council by-elections in Scotland into account?
Lord Campbell-Savours
When I asked Professor Curtice for all the results that could be identified, he said that, because of the distinction between manual and electronic counting, we can identify only six results that provide us with the data. If I can secure any more, I will make sure that I make them available to the noble Lord.
The candidates who will be most under threat at the next election under AV will be the Conservatives. Let there be no doubt at all about that. The Conservatives will probably run a fairly straight-forward campaign as they normally do, but the Liberal Democrats will not. In council leaflets being put out by focus groups in parts of the United Kingdom, we are already seeing derogatory references to people in the coalition and to its policies. That is only the start. By the time that we get to the elections next year, we will see some pretty scurrilous literature coming out of the Liberal Democrats about what is going on nationally within the coalition. The Liberal Democrats will put out leaflets claiming credit for the more progressive coalition policies and advising electors to vote tactically, which they will.
The Liberal Democrats election guru—I see the noble Lord, Lord Rennard in his place—cannot stand up now and deny that they will use the AV system tactically in the way that I am suggesting, despite the fact that advocates of the AV component in the Bill say that people will not vote tactically when it is clear that they will be advised to do so. The Liberal Democrats objective will be to unseat Conservatives wherever possible by advising the electorate to use their additional preferences on outsider no-hope candidates. In seats where Labour has been marginalised, they will desperately set out to woo Labour additional preferences by disassociating themselves from their coalition partners. All I can do is warn the Conservatives in advance to watch their backs. I cannot understand why Conservative Peers are tolerating this nonsense. Liberal Democrat campaigns are unlikely to work—
Lord Greaves
I promise that this is the last time that I will intervene—I am just getting the noble Lord back for his previous interventions on me—but I am not at all sure what right and wrongs of a particular electoral system have to do with all this tittle-tattle about political campaigning at local level.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I think that there is a direct connection because the coalition is comprised of two elements, one of which—the Conservative element—is almost completely hostile to the AV system. All that I am pointing out in advance is the danger of allowing this system to slip through on the back of a referendum. I do not think that the referendum will be won, but it may be won and the Conservatives will have it historically around their necks.
I remind the House and colleagues that the three dirtiest campaigns that I have witnessed in my political life were in the Chester-le-Street by-election, the Manchester Exchange by-election and the Bermondsey by-election. It may well be that many Members here today worked in those campaigns. Those three by-elections had one thing in common: the Liberals were in contention, believed that they could win and were absolutely determined to do so. The Lib Dems believe that they can break through on the back of—
Lord Rennard
We seem to be drifting from the referendum. Has the noble Lord forgotten the recent example in Oldham East and Saddleworth in the general election?
Lord Campbell-Savours
That is not something that I condone, but it is insignificant compared to what happened and to what we picked up on the doorstep during the course of the three campaigns to which I referred. I remember the Bermondsey campaign, which was utterly appalling. The Liberal Democrats believe that they can break through on the back of AV, and they will ruthlessly use this system. I warn the Conservative element in this coalition that this will backfire.
Lord Lipsey
It is very tempting for me to think that, having heard the formidable argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, it is necessary to reply to each of the points he made because as a supporter of AV, I could, and would, readily do so. I think I have some sense that the House would prefer to proceed a little more rapidly than that would imply, and therefore I will resist that temptation and keep my remarks as brief as they can be in view of the substance that I need to impart.
I noticed that during my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours’s speech, the Lord Speaker deserted our proceedings. I can only think that she was so convinced by my noble friend’s arguments that she realised that she was not a legitimate Speaker of this House. She was elected by AV, a system which my noble friend was destroying, and perhaps because she had not heard me put the counter-case, she felt it necessary to desert her seat. However, I can assure her that she was legitimately chosen by a proper AV system, as are the leaders of the political party of which I am a member, and it is a very good system too.
When debating between SV and AV, as opposed to between first past the post and AV, I sometimes feel that I am back watching television some years ago and watching the Tooting Popular Liberation Front fighting it out with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Tooting. As I am Lord Lipsey of Tooting Bec, I particularly enjoy that contest. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and I agree on one thing. It is more important than the things on which we disagree—SV against AV. We are both electoral reformers and therefore hope to see electoral reform emerge eventually from this Bill.
There is at least as formidable a case to be made against SV as my noble friend made against AV. Let us take a point on which the House has spent much too long this afternoon; that is, whether AV requires someone to get 50 per cent or more of the vote. Without going into detail, quite apparently, SV leads to people being elected with a much lower share of the eventual vote than does AV. This can be very serious in four-party marginals, particularly in Scotland. SV simply does not allow the same breadth of choice and the same degree of voter choice as AV. That is just one example of the many points that could be levied against SV.
I shall go through some of the arguments put by my noble friend. He said that this was a panic creation by the coalition. Clearly, it was stitched together in order to create the coalition, but there is nothing panicky about AV. My party has stood for it for quite a while. The Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, favours it. If noble Lords care to look, there is a long list of signatures of very distinguished members of my party who favour AV. Whatever the circumstances that have brought it on to the stage now—I would much rather that it had come on to the stage as the result of a Labour victory in the general election and a Bill containing this clause was being put forward by a Labour Government—I do not think that they are sufficient reason to be against it today. It is not a newly forged system, as noble Lords opposite have pointed out. It has been about for about 100 years and quite often nearly came about.
Moreover, it has been closely examined in recent times by the Jenkins commission, of which I was a member. AV formed part of what was recommended by Jenkins. SV did not. AV maximises voter choice whereas SV gives a relatively limited voter choice. I regard the issue of lower preferences being of lesser importance as being completely without foundation. I would greatly prefer, for example, a Green candidate to a candidate from the British National Party. That is quite low on my list of preferences. If I am wholly honest, once upon a time I did not terribly care whether I voted Lib Dem or Labour, but I always voted Labour, of course. That seemed to me to be a much less important choice. However, at the next general election, as a result of this coalition, I daresay I will approach that question in a different frame of mind.
I would not claim that AV eliminates tactical voting altogether. Of course, it does not. But it eliminates the most difficult choice for a voter; namely, what will a person do with his single vote if it is a first-past-the- post-system? Will he put first the party that he really prefers or will he put first the party that he would prefer to the third party for which he might vote? That becomes vastly more important between SV and AV in four-member seats.
We will have a long referendum campaign. Whatever system comes out of this Bill and is the system debated in the referendum, I very much hope that all electoral reformers will choose eventually to rally behind it, although having heard my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, it may be that that is an overoptimistic prediction. It is certainly true that the great majority of electoral reformers, including the electoral reformers in the Electoral Reform Society, which historically is almost keener on STV than the Liberal Democrats, have chosen to back this system.
Let us have the debate. This clause will enable it to be put before the people in the referendum, particularly if, in the course of further amendment of the Bill, we make sure that that referendum does not take place, as the coalition proposes, on 5 May 2011.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I failed to contribute to the Second Reading debate on this Bill and have not had the opportunity to spell out the reasons why I am so deeply unhappy about Part 1. Unlike the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Lipsey, I do not believe in any form of proportional representation. The first-past-the-post system has served us extremely well. I do not think that we should move away from it. The problem is that if you believe in any form of proportional representation, you have to believe, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in coalition government. I know that we have such a Government, but I do not think that that is an overwhelming reason to change the electoral system, which would make it more likely that we would have coalition government in perpetuity.
Surely, the problems of coalition government are being pointed out very well. For example, one could think of the problems that the Liberal Democrats have on the whole question of student fees. The press say to the Liberal Democrats, “Ah, it was a commitment in your manifesto that you would stop student fees rising. Why aren’t you voting against the rises in student fees?”. But the whole point of coalition government is that the coalition partners bin all their manifesto commitments. That is what comes from coalition government. You end up not with any precise party that you voted for with its commitments in its manifesto; you end up with a mish-mash and certain commitments are dropped. I as a Conservative am rather unhappy that the coalition Government seem to have dropped all the commitments that we had in opposition. I think I remember the Prime Minister saying when he was in opposition that he regarded reform of your Lordships’ House as a third-Parliament issue. Now we have reform of the House of Lords trundling down the road as fast as it can be organised.
Lord Garel-Jones
Would my noble friend be prepared to go a little further and say that one of the inevitable consequences of a fully proportional system is that the Government and the programme that emerges thereafter is, by definition, a programme that no one has voted for?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I totally agree with my noble friend. Indeed, you could argue that the coalition agreement drawn up immediately after the election was something that no one voted for. I thought that the Conservative commitment was to repatriating powers from Europe, but nothing much seems to have happened on that front, and I thought that we were going to repeal human rights legislation. A number of things have gone from the Conservative manifesto. I am rather surprised that the Liberal Democrats have been attacked in the way that they have been for binning commitments in their manifesto. That comes with coalition. If the country votes for coalition, which basically is what it has done, it must expect to end up with a Government who produce a number of policies for which no one has voted. That is why I am extremely unhappy about changing our electoral system to make coalition government more likely.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I agree absolutely with the noble Lord that coalitions are likely to arise almost inevitably from a proportional system. But I was interested to hear what he said about the coalition. In the light of his remarks, does he agree that what is happening is that the tail is wagging the dog?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Indeed, that is another argument. I have been agreeably surprised by the achievements of this coalition Government in terms of the fact that they seem to have grasped many issues, such as welfare reform and reforms in education which former Prime Minister Tony Blair used to dream about and which have been long overdue. I am a great supporter of much of what the coalition is doing, but that does not mean that I want to see coalition governments in perpetuity from hereon.
I was very interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the YouGov poll on the alternative vote. In fact, there was a bare majority from a completely ill informed electorate—in fact, there was a no vote by 1 per cent. But when the implications of the alternative vote were spelt out a 33 per cent no vote went up to 38 per cent. I would say to any Conservative that that is very significant indeed. If you have time to explain to people how perfectly ghastly the alternative vote is, the chances of defeating it are greater. Under this Bill, however, we are insisting on cramming the referendum together with the local elections, a point we debated earlier on in this clause.
It worries me tremendously that, if we are not careful, this thing will get muddled through with the local elections. The issues will not be debated properly in the country because people will be much more concerned about whether they are winning or losing in the local elections, and they are not going to come to understand the appalling difficulties that the whole business of an alternative vote brings into the argument. I am deeply apprehensive about it. I keep hearing from people on my side of the House that they support the Bill and think it is a frightfully good idea. They all say, “Don’t worry. We are going to defeat it in the referendum”. But I notice that a lot of them are the same people who told me that we would get a commanding and overall majority at the general election.
None of us knows what the outcome of any referendum will be. It cannot be forecast with any accuracy because many other factors come into play. I do not have that deep feeling of assurance that we are going to defeat the idea of an alternative vote without any difficulty. Things could very easily go wrong, and if they do, I believe that it will put the Conservative Party at a permanent disadvantage.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, the arguments about AV, SV and STV are fascinating arguments that embrace ethics, philosophy and, one might almost say, theology. But the House will be relieved to hear that what I want to raise is a very limited point which I need only mention in limine, as it were. It relates to the Welsh translation of the question that will be put on the AV ballot paper. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and I have already raised this matter with the department, but it seems that it may be too late for anything to be done about it. The reason, as I understand it, is that time is of the essence and that it would involve a long exercise in ping-pong between the Electoral Commission, the Welsh Language Board and possibly other bodies which might take many months. Possibly that is the reason why the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did not go any further than it did.
Be that as it may, perhaps I may point out that the translation that appears in the Bill is one that it would be wholly impossible for the ordinary, intelligent Welsh speaker to understand. I do not doubt that a panel of distinguished academics could justify many parts of it, but in total it is as obscure as ancient Sanskrit to anyone who speaks Welsh from day to day. I speak as one of the half a dozen Members of this House for whom Welsh is their first language, and I must say that it beats me that anyone could have arrived at such an agglomeration of so many different facets.
First, the term, “the UK” is perfectly understandable to anyone living in the United Kingdom, the full term in Welsh, “Deyrnas Unedig”, is also well understood, but the initials “DU” have no meaning whatever. “Duw” means “almighty God” in Welsh. I am sure that many people will wonder why there is a reference to the Almighty in this translation. The next matter is the first past the post system, which is referred to in the English version. Whether there is an aversion to taking a reference from the field of horse racing, I know not. It may be something that Non-Conformists would reject totally as a matter of instinct. But in Welsh it reads as, “y cyntaf i’r felin”. There is a saying in Welsh,
“Y cyntaf i’r felin gaeth falu”.
My noble friend opposite is nodding his head. It means, “The first to the mill shall grind”. If one wanted to translate that back into English, one might say something like, “The early bird catches the worm”, which would be more understandable. But it has nothing at all to do with first past the post. Someone looking at the English version might ask, “What has this to do with mills and grinding?”.
Then we have, “pleidlais amgen”, which translates to “the alternative vote”. I am no grammarian, but I think I am right in saying that the word “amgen” came into the Welsh language 20 or 30 years ago. Strictly it means “an alternative”, but it came into the language in the context of alternative energy, “ynni amgen”. Again, people will ask, “What has this to do with energy?”.
The totality of this is utterly grotesque and impossible. It may be that nothing can be done about it, but it does no great service to the Welsh language, it does no great service to those whose first language is Welsh, and indeed it is less than worthy of whoever was responsible for the drafting of this part of the Bill.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am sorry to forestall the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. We have an unusual situation here in that the debate on whether this clause should stand part has excited so much interest and depth of discussion. However, it might be for the convenience of the whole House, particularly of the speakers who are expecting to take part in the Question for Short Debate, which would normally commence at about this time, if noble Lords would agree to a proposal by the usual channels that the Committee might adjourn in the middle of this debate and reconvene after the Question for Short Debate. I note that my noble friend Lord James of Blackheath, who is to lead the debate, is in his place, and I believe that most of the other Members who are due to take part are here. I think I can see agreement around the House to this proposal, so it would be appropriate for me to move that the House should now resume. I also suggest that the Committee should not resolve itself into a Committee again until 8.27 pm.
Tote
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord James of Blackheath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how their plans for disposing of the Tote take account of the interests of horse and dog racing.
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, I am somewhat embarrassed to have to start this debate of my choice by apologising for the fact that it was wrongly entitled to include a reference to dog racing on the Tote, which is not an issue because dog racing has already been ceded to the ownership of the various dog stadia. Perhaps there is a lesson in that for us all, as we shall see. This is such a big subject that I am going to trim my words down to the bare essentials of the issue that immediately concern us, given the imminence of what may be an extremely critical and very retrograde decision by the Government following the completion of their invitation to indicative offers for the purchase of the Tote which are due to be completed by Friday evening. We have less than 48 hours to go.
Both this Government and the last Government announced separately their intention to dispose of the Tote. The last Government also said that they would offer to racing half of the realisation value of that disposal. The present Government have set out on a path to explore the potential for the disposal of the Tote, but have made no offer of proceeds going to the benefit of racing. That is not necessarily to say that they are being mean-minded because they may have realised more clearly than the previous Government the problems associated with this disposal. The first question that arises is who owns the Tote. Many people may own the Tote, but the one certainty we have is that the Government do not. So we have the odd situation where both this Government and the last Government are setting out to sell something which they do not have.
I recall a case recently of a bricklayer who tried to sell the Savoy Hotel for a couple of million pounds. He went to prison for theft or fraud. It sounds to me as though the Government, in offering to sell something they do not own, are doing no more than the bricklayer did with the Savoy Hotel. Let us consider the consequences of this. The previous Government, perhaps perceiving this problem, decided that they would put the ownership of the Tote beyond all possible doubt by passing the 2004 Act for horserace betting and the Olympic lottery. That Act remains in place today but has not been fully implemented—certainly not as far as the Tote is concerned—and we now have a situation where, if it was implemented, undoubtedly the Government would be entitled to sell the Tote; but, equally, they would then fall foul of the Brussels controls on state support and would not be allowed to pass any of the proceeds down to the benefit of racing—so racing would be a very big loser.
Let us consider how far the racing industry would be a loser. First, whoever bought the Tote—presumably a bookmaker—would immediately look at the huge burden involved in running Tote operations on the 60 racecourses in the United Kingdom every day of the year, with the need to recruit local staff wherever they were and administer a complex business. It would be only a matter of time before the bookmaker decided that he would be very happy to keep the 550 betting shops and put the potential pool betting benefits into his pocket and to close down, or to so impose charges on the racecourses for running the Tote that the whole of the British racecourse structure would become immediately non-viable and be either forced to close down or to so curtail its activities that the finances of racing would be destroyed.
If that happened, the 2 million or so people who go racing nowadays, and who are attracted to do so by the benefit of being able to bet small stakes of £1 or so at a time instead of the bookmakers’ minimum stake of £5 or £10 for a bet, would be put into a position where they would not wish to go any further and racing would be destroyed at the social level as a reasonable sporting activity for the multitude.
The bookmakers would take their 550 betting shops and consider them as a worthwhile dividend to put in their pockets, and would almost certainly aggregate them within the totality of their existing betting operations and transfer them to either Gibraltar or Spain and outside the fiscal reach of the United Kingdom. This would have grave consequences for revenue generation in the UK economy. That would be an absolute certainty. Furthermore, racing would cease to derive its contribution from the levy of about £10 million a year. In fact the Tote has generated £84 million of direct benefit in sponsorship and levy for the continuation of the racing structure of the UK in the past four years alone; it is a continuing and vital income stream.
If those things were to happen and there were no racecourse meetings because no one was turning up for them, there would be an immediate curtailment of the United Kingdom thoroughbred breeding industry and its big export potential and huge dollar earnings would be squeezed out of existence. No one will breed horses or buy them when there are no racecourses or attractive meetings at which they can run them. So that would go. One hundred and twenty thousand jobs in Britain—comprising 20,000 full-time employees and 100,000 important temporary and part-time workers—would be destroyed. For these people racing is an extremely important part of the rural economy, without which they would otherwise live in straitened circumstances. Everyone connected with racing would lose if one of the bookmakers came in with an attractive bid and the Government decided to take it.
If that is the predicament and the consequence that racing is facing, what are the alternatives? There are three. I have just described the first one—which is ruinous to racing—where the Tote is sold to the highest bid from whichever bookmaker has the deepest pockets; and then, because of Brussels’ strictures, the Government would not be able to pay any proceeds into racing and would destroy racing’s livelihood by removing the on-course facilities beyond recovery.
The second alternative is a partial disposal of the tote in stages, whereby they offer the on-course Tote facility to the racing industry—either the British Horseracing Authority or the Jockey Club—and leave in the hands of the Jockey Club enough facilities to continue to run each day. Immediately, I suspect, it would be much worse off because there would be considerable extra costs in doing it on its own because the betting shops chain makes a significant contribution to the overheads required to run the Tote on-course. So that would be a loser straightaway. The pool betting operation, which is renewed once every seven years by government licence, would have to go to the racecourses and they would have to establish a system for licensing it for use by other people. That might help a partial recovery but it would be unsatisfactory. Ultimately, a partial disposal would probably be the start of a process that would end up being very similar to the first steps of a total disposal.
The third alternative is that if the Government decided not to fully implement the 2004 Act, they would be free to do what they want with the Tote without interference from Brussels. So give the whole Tote to racing, lock, stock and barrel, and charge nothing for doing so. The Government would then be a bigger financial winner than they would be by selling the Tote. For example, first, the British Tote turnover would not be aggregated with those of companies that have already decamped to Spain and Gibraltar and the Government would continue to receive the fiscal income deriving from the operation of the Tote in the UK; secondly, they would have all the advantages of the corporation tax arising on the various breeding concerns and the profits that they make on thoroughbred breeding activities—they would be on a winner there; and, thirdly, the Tote, which generates £10 million a year for the continued health and vitality of racing through its contribution to the levy, would continue to operate in such a way as would help sustain 120,000 much needed jobs in rural locations. It sounds like a win-win situation to me.
In those circumstances, I hope the Government will now look very closely at the indicative offers they will receive by Friday evening—which will come from bookmakers who are, with two exceptions, already based in Gibraltar and Spain—and decide that the better option is to go along the path of allowing racing to retain its integrity as an entity, with the ownership of the Tote within it. Racing will then, at long last, come out of the dark night of the soul through which it has been going, where it does not know what it is or what its future is to be, and get on with the job of running itself in good order.
The origins of the racing industry go back 350 years. When Nell Gwynn and her lady friends at Newmarket decided they needed a rest from the King and his courtiers in the afternoon, they told them all to go out and ride races. That led to the creation of the Jockey Club and, in turn, the Jockey Club created one of the great glories of British sporting life—the racing industry as it is today. Do not let the Government throw it away. They can keep it and allow it to foster new wealth and achievement and to maintain its place as a leading glory of British sporting life on the world stage. In the words of the Nike ad—“Just do it, Government, please”.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I declare a remote interest as a member of the Starting Price Regulatory Commission; in a broader sense as a former director of the Tote; as chairman of the Shadow Racing Trust, which was set up to buy the Tote for racing; and as a former chair of the British Greyhound Racing Board.
I shall start with greyhound racing, to which the noble Lord referred only briefly. I hate to rebuke the noble Lord, because we are grateful to him for raising this subject and bringing his knowledge to the House today, but the Motion refers to “dog racing”. Dog racing is a sport where assorted mutts chase a mechanical lure at a local show. The sport with which I am proud to have been associated is greyhound racing. It is Britain’s fourth largest spectator sport, after football, rugby union and horseracing but ahead of cricket. Some 2.2 million spectators go to watch it each year; there are 5,150 meetings and 64,440 races are run. The noble Lord has probably owned the winners of some of them, although I have not had a good winner since my Tooting Becky last ran some years ago. But greyhound racing it is and some of us adore it.
The second thing that I want to clarify—I am sure that I do not need to clarify it for the noble Lord—is the relationship between the Tote and greyhound racing. The Tote, like most other bookmakers, pays a voluntary contribution towards the sustenance of greyhound racing—0.6 per cent of its greyhound racing turnover—and does a small amount of sponsorship. This is not totally insignificant; it is a voluntary levy that goes to greyhound racing and not all bookmakers pay it in full. If the Government proceed to a sale—we will come back to that in a moment—and the Tote is sold to one of those bookmakers that fail to meet their obligations and do not pay the full levy, that would be a tremendous blow for greyhound racing. Those kinds of bookmaker do not deserve to own the Tote, because they do not contribute money that goes mostly to the welfare of retired greyhounds. I am very tempted this evening to name those that do not pay. They have been warned and I am sure that the Government know who they are.
That is what greyhound racing gets out of the Tote. I should say, for the sake of clarity, that the Tote—the outfit in Wigan that we are debating tonight—does not run Tote pools, the pool betting at greyhound tracks. Those are run by individual tracks. A scheme is forthcoming under which tracks will be able to link their totes in order to offer daily placepot and jackpot bets, which I am sure will yield huge returns for greyhound racing. Unfortunately, the last Government decided to legislate so that tracks would not have a monopoly on providing pool betting after 2012. They did not know, when they chose 2012, that we would still be fiddling around with the Tote so many years later.
That brings me to the core of my remarks on the Motion, which concern the Tote and horseracing. There is a very long history to this. One Prime Minister talked about bearing the scars on his back. The noble Baroness, Lady Golding, can probably see the scars on my back, through my suit, of the Government’s attempt to rid the public sector of the Tote. The last Conservative Government tried to do it, but could not manage it. Gordon Brown, who did not like to be out-privatised by anyone, immediately tried to do it, but he did not succeed. The Shadow Racing Trust, which I chaired, was set up to buy it for racing, but it ran into the roadblock of the European Union, which decided that, if we were to buy it for anything under the market price, that would be a form of artificial state aid. I am afraid that the then Government, like, I suspect, most British Governments, did not have the guts and courage that the noble Lord, Lord James, suggests to the House should be adopted to totally ignore the European Union, the rule of law and all the other things that go with it. So the issue went back into limbo. Gordon Brown, about 15 months before the election, did not want anybody to think that he had given up just because nobody had any idea what the policy was, so he again promised to sell it. This Government have half picked up the baton. They want to do something with the Tote, but they do not want to go as far as our Government did and sell it. In fact, they are not at all sure what they want to do and the policy remains in an appalling limbo.
For more than a decade, the poor old business of the Tote has operated with a sword of Damocles hovering above its neck. Is it to be privately owned, racing owned or something cobbled together? Uncertainty, caused by government dither, is no way to run a railroad. What the Tote now needs, above all, is a period of stability. This could involve a permanent retention of the status quo, which, after all, has worked reasonably well for the business and for racing over the years. If there is to be a change, let us have quick, clear decisions from Ministers, as an act of mercy to the Tote’s board, its management and its superb staff. This matter cannot be left in limbo any longer just so that Ministers can exercise political virility by saying that they are determined to do something about it when it may well be that there is nothing sensible to be done.
Viscount Falkland
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord James, for introducing the subject. He embarked on his discourse by questioning the ownership of the Tote. I absolutely agree. What business do the Government have to claim that they own the Tote? I had the temerity to bring up the subject at a meeting of the All-Party Racing and Bloodstock Group during the period of the last Administration, on an evening when the Minister for Sport was in a tired and emotional mood. He turned to me rather sharply and said, “You may not have realised—it may have passed you by—that we won the election with a majority of 179”, or whatever it was, “and the reason why we’re going to take the Tote into our possession is political will”. There was no point in further conversation, but I am not absolutely clear where we are now. The noble Lord brought up ownership: I thought that it was, by fair means or foul, in the hands of the Government.
I apologise to the House if the rest of my remarks are in rather simple terms. I am designing them for those who, more and more, zap the television. The last couple of times I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have had people come up to me saying, “I fell upon the parliamentary channel. Your speech was very nice, but I did not understand a word of what you were talking about”. With the greatest respect to the two noble Lords who spoke before me, I wonder whether somebody listening to the debate who does not go racing would know what we were talking about.
It is a very simple matter. Racing, which is an important part of this country’s sporting and cultural life, is in a parlous state. Very few people know that. The all-seeing and all-knowing noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, answered a Question in this House about whether it was appropriate to offer Her Majesty the Queen a race to commemorate her Jubilee, an idea which I thought was charming and which I hope comes to fruition. I asked the noble Lord, in my supplementary, whether a happy event such as this might take one’s mind off the parlous financial state of racing. His reply to that was, “I am surprised that the noble Lord feels that racing is in a parlous state. I had no idea, but I have to admit that I have not given it very close attention”. That was not very encouraging. I wonder whether the coalition has any further ideas as to how this could be progressed; I fancy that the answer is rather less at this stage, but I always live in hope.
It is important to explain to those who tune in to the parliamentary channel that the Tote is a brand name. I say with the greatest respect to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that when he talks about the Tote, he is talking about two things. He is talking about the betting shops that were acquired over a period of years, thanks to a former head of the Tote who found that he could borrow money to create some bottom-line profit to the totalisator organisation—these shops compete with the other betting shops owned by the major chains—and he is talking about the pool.
It is the pool that interests me, because, when the sale comes about, if it does come about, the shops will have quite a considerable value, though not as considerable as the value was three or four years ago. Some people were talking about £400 million. I doubt whether it would be anything near that today, for all kinds of reasons, notably because people are not betting on horses in betting shops in the way that they were; they are betting on other sports. The turnover and profit of bookmakers have suffered to the extent that the levy, which is the machinery designed to get a contribution from the bookmakers for allowing them to take bets on horses, has sunk to a level at which it is impossible to maintain the funding of racing. Other solutions have been sought and the sale of the Tote is part of those solutions. We have been discussing this for years, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, says. Part and parcel of the whole business of dealing with racing at the moment, I am afraid, is that it has been impossible to find any consistency or common direction of thought among racing’s constituent parts. I shall be interested to see what the next move is.
The pool itself came about in the 1920s to run alongside bookmakers, who were allowed to continue with their profession, but in betting terms it has always been the poor partner in the business of accepting bets from people who are foolish enough—I have been one—to bet on horses on a regular basis. If the pool has a future, we cannot have a Tote monopoly. We cannot even talk about one any longer. Most other countries decided, though, that a Tote monopoly was the way to go; it was the only way in which you could fund racing. Curiously, and I do not know whether the Minister can respond on this, within the past few years, I am not quite clear by what means—I do not know whether the bookmakers had an influence on the Office of Fair Trading, because they are very good at what they do—the OFT came out with what seems to be an utterly ridiculous decision. It said that the totalisator pool operations—I think that that is what they meant, not the betting shops—were non-competitive because of the monopoly. No one said that about the lottery, so far as I am concerned.
For a pool to work properly, you have to have a lot of people paying into it—in this case, a lot of people who bet on horses at race meetings going to the Tote in large numbers. It is no good carving it up, giving it to racecourses and saying, “You run your own Tote”. I wonder who made the decision at the Office of Fair Trading and what the motive behind it was. We still have this hanging over us, and I hope that the Minister will tell us if there is any way in which we can get that decision revoked. You cannot sell the Tote for anything if it has a lifespan of—it was seven years originally—only three years to go.
In the long term, though, the pool is the interesting part of race betting because we have new technologies and wider markets. People around the world are interested in British racing and may well want to bet into totalisator pools here. If enough energy and funding were put into setting the ball rolling, that might be the answer to a lot of our problems. People may think that I am again advocating a Tote monopoly. Maybe subconsciously I am, but I know that it is not a possibility. You cannot tell the bookmakers to go; they would have to be recompensed and that is not something that a Government would tolerate. Still, I would like an answer on that from the Government if possible.
It is amazing how the racing world is split into various compartmentalised interests. We now have a campaign, on which a great deal of money has been spent, called Racing for Change. That is complete nonsense. It is trying to get a whole new public to get interested in racing, when those of us who are already interested in it know that racing is like coin collecting or bridge—you become passionately fond of it and obsessed by it. You get interested in every part of racing. I do not see how Racing for Change, in getting lots of young men to go out and drink in the afternoons at Kempton Park, is going to alter that position substantially. I think that the horseracing authority is mad to pay £6 million, or however much it is.
My conclusion is that the Government must understand this subject, as I hope that anyone who is listening to me on the parliamentary channel will have done, and that they really must try to get a grip of this thing and decide which is the best way to go. I will lay my position on the table: the Tote should remain where it is, in a relationship with the Government. Sell the betting shops and get what you can for the Government—I suppose that the Treasury will take the greater part of that—but put the rest of the money into developing the Tote pool, because there you have some hope. Then I will not have go to the meetings with the All-Party Racing and Bloodstock Group, where everyone looks at each other, repeats themselves endlessly for years on end and we get nowhere.
Lord Patten
My Lords, given the choice, I would choose to address the House rather than the Parliament Channel. I was interested to hear that the noble Viscount get perilously close to suggesting that, because of the allegedly parlous state of the racing industry, there might be some government support. Indeed, I was about to get to my feet and ask him about that, but I did not want to interrupt his performance on the Parliament Channel. Perhaps he will tell me later whether that was indeed his intention.
I have no financial or institutional interests in racing of any kind, although I would have a hide as thick as a rhinoceros if, living where we do in the West Country, a few miles away from the epicentre of National Hunt training in Paul Nicholls’s stable at Ditcheat, a certain amount of racing had not entered my DNA. It is certainly much in the local area, so much so that the excellent shoe and boot mender in Wincanton, a local market town, when not mending shoes and boots, owns a leg of a horse here and a couple of legs of a horse there. Notoriously, three weekends ago a number of us went to collect our orders on Saturday but there was a large sign in the shop saying “Gone racing. Have a horse running today. Sorry”. Everyone understood, and no one demurred at all from his decision.
We are lucky to have him in Wincanton high street, by the way. So many high streets in market towns are struggling against the depredations of large superstores put by unwise councils on the edges of towns, dragging the centre of gravity away from such market towns as still struggle on. I wish that the local district council had not done so in that particular area. I am happy to be in coalition with my noble friend Lady Garden on the Front Bench, but I certainly do not regard myself as being in coalition with South Somerset District Council and her dotty Liberal Democrat friends down there; I have signed no pledge in that respect. However, that is a matter for another day.
I move from the destruction of market towns to selling off the “nanny goat”, as the Tote is sometimes inelegantly referred to on some racecourses. This has been going on for far too long. In the mid-1980s, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to, the Tories had a good look. Merchant bankers were actually employed, at some price, but the process ran into the sands after a number of years. From 2001 onwards there was the Labour manifesto commitment, which has already been referred to. Once again, advisers were employed at huge cost, although the so-called merchant bankers of the 1990s had in the mean time been transmogrified into the renamed “investment bankers” of the early noughties, though their trade in essence remains exactly the same. Heaven knows how much money has been spent on advisers since the 1980s and how much Civil Service time has been taken up by what to do with the Tote. How many special advisers have given their special advice to Ministers, unable in the end to get the business through? Shedloads of time and money have been expended, to no avail.
So I applaud the coalition and its pledges. The most recent announcement was from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 15 September, launching the open market process this autumn. I congratulate the coalition Government on sticking to their seasonality because “the autumn” is an infinitely expandable and extendable term, sometimes going well on into the new year and into the year after that. The process, however, is happening and the bidders are putting their bids in, as my noble friend said in his introductory speech. That announcement followed the pledge by the coalition in July 2010 that over the next 12 months it had the intention to,
“resolve the future of the Tote in a way that secures value for the taxpayer”.
I seek confirmation from my noble friend Lady Garden on one thing when she winds up tonight. Is the timetable of the resolution of this issue—the dusting and selling off of the Tote by July 2012—still in place? Is there any room whatever for delay, yes or no? As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said in his speech, this process has been going on for far too long. It needs to be resolved. The selling off of the Tote will soon turn into flogging a pretty dead nanny goat for its share of horseracing betting is in decline—it has now about 5 or 6 per cent of the market left in the face of competition from much bigger players, not least the online providers. So the answer better be “yes” in reality. Unless we get on with it, there will not be much left to sell; no one will want this beast. Value is being exhausted by the month.
So is it all worth it? Should one go through this whole agonising process for a very low number of hundreds of millions of pounds? The answer is, yes, we should, because this country is in great difficulty. Every little helps. We have the desperate need to re-establish equilibrium between government, corporate and personal debt in this country and to reduce all three. We can do a lot to reduce government debt. We can sell assets. For example the lands that are in the ownership of many government departments will produce very substantial sums. At the same time smaller assets like the Tote will not produce very much. However, they are all assets and in this process there can be no special pleading. If we are serious about reducing government debt over the life of this Parliament—as I know my noble friend Lady Garden is—we have to raise all the money that we possibly can. This is particularly the case in racing. Some people in racing may be in difficulty but an awful lot of 50 per cent taxpayers in racing are in no personal financial difficulty of any sort at all. My friend, the Wincanton cobbler, does not come into that tax bracket.
There should not be any special pleading in reductions of Government expenditure in the matter of the hypothecation of certain sums because it would be nice to help this or that special interest. If we go down this route, we will not get anywhere close enough to reducing debt in the way in which we should in the lifetime of this Parliament. I expect that the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and, in this place, my noble friend Lord Sassoon, should set their faces like iced marble against blandishments to the contrary and should not allow special pleading of the sort that we have heard across the Chamber this evening. They will have my strong support if they do.
I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, who is winding up for the Opposition and is a distinguished private banker, who understands matters about balance sheets in his bank as much as balance sheets in the national account, will take the same robust approach. The proceeds of the Tote sale should go in toto to paying down financial government debt. We should not give in to the blandishments of special pleading.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
My Lords, I rise not as a private banker but as somebody who has listened with enormous interest to this debate. I knew very little about the Tote before I started the research for this evening. I found the speeches fascinating. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, on initiating this debate and in particular on the very interesting ideas that he came up with during his speech. Some of the number of topics that I wish to question the Minister on have been raised obliquely by other speakers. I will try to be as direct as possible.
John Penrose MP, the DCMS Minister, said that the Government would seek bids for the Tote this autumn—as we have heard. We now know that the bids have to be in by Friday. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, said and wants confirmation that the Tote will be sold next June. Fascinatingly, the noble Lord, Lord James, suggests that the Government do not have the right to sell the Tote because they do not own it. I would be particularly interested—as I am sure you all would be—in an answer to that question.
Given that the operating profit of the Tote was £13 million, up considerably on the year before, it is critical—and I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten—that the money from the proceeds should go back into horseracing. Related to that, will the Minister confirm what will happen with any sale proceeds? George Osborne said in a Budget Statement that the Government would,
“resolve the future of the Tote in a way that secures value for the taxpayer while recognising the support that the Tote currently provides the racing industry”.—[Official Report, Commons, 09/10/10; col. 41W.]
It is a rather different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Patten.
What commitment can the Minister give in regard to the staff who work at the Tote’s headquarters in Wigan and the other 4,000 estimated staff who work for the Tote? The Government must say what they plan to do with the Tote to resolve the uncertainty for the staff and management as well as the horseracing industry. One of the themes that has emerged this evening is the lack of certainty about the future.
My final point is one that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord James. How will the Government satisfy the EU that any money from the sale ploughed back into horseracing will not be ruled as an illegitimate state aid to the horseracing industry? Again, thank you all for such an interesting and informative debate. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I join in the thanks to my noble friend Lord James of Blackheath for securing this debate. He will be aware that the Government announced in the Budget on 22 June that they would resolve the future of the Tote over the next 12 months in a way that secures value for the taxpayer and recognises the support that the Tote currently provides to the racing industry—which is a point that has been picked up by a number of noble Lords in their speeches. The noble Lord, Lord James, set out his concerns about this very clearly in his opening speech. I hope that in the course of my remarks some—if not all—of those concerns will be addressed.
As we have heard, the Tote is the key provider of funds to the racing industry, providing approximately £11 million per annum in the form of commissions, sponsorships and grants over and above the statutory levy that all bookmakers pay. As noble Lords will know, the previous Government were also fully committed to removing the Tote from Government ownership and put in a very considerable effort over a 12-year period to achieve that aim. This length of time has been referred to in noble Lords’ comments. However, a combination of factors, notably market conditions and European competition rules, worked against them. We recognise the challenges that selling the Tote presents but we believe that the conditions are right to remove the Government from involvement in the Tote. The Government reaffirmed their resolve to do so in a Statement to the House of Commons on 15 September.
I am happy to confirm that the Government remain firmly on course to achieve the objectives set out in the Budget by resolving the future of the Tote by June 2011—about which my noble friend Lord Patten asked for specific clarification In line with that objective, the Government launched an open market process last month, inviting proposals from interested parties. As we know, the closing date for submitting proposals to Lazard, the Government’s financial advisers in this process, is Friday, 10 December. The process is open to all organisations that have an interest in the Tote. We recognise the uncertainty that this long, drawn-out process has generated among those who work for the Tote.
The statutory framework governing the Government’s right to sell the Tote is found in Part 1 of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004. In broad terms, the Act provides that on a day appointed by the Secretary of State the Tote will cease to exist and all its property, rights and liabilities will transfer to a new company known as the successor company, being a company limited by shares and wholly owned by the Crown. The 2004 Act also provides that the Gambling Commission may, if the Secretary of State so requires, issue to the successor company an exclusive seven-year licence. The exclusive licence will grant the successor company the right to carry on pool betting business in connection with horseraces on approved horserace courses. I hope that gives some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Falkland, given his enthusiasm for the pool betting side of the business. It is expected that, as a condition of the licence, the successor company must ensure that adequate facilities for pool betting are made available in all areas of each approved horserace course on days when horseracing takes place on that racecourse. The exclusive licence can be granted only once. After the seven-year period has expired, the pool betting business will be open to competition.
I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that in advance of the closing date by which proposals have to be submitted, and for reasons of commercial confidentiality, I am not in a position at present to comment further on the process by which we intend to resolve the future of the Tote. Nevertheless, I stress that the Government are very keen to secure a successful outcome to this process in a timely fashion and are working closely with all the main parties involved. Naturally, the Government are continuing to liaise closely with the board of the Tote and with racing interests as the process unfolds. We want to remove government from direct involvement in an industry that it regulates in a way that secures value for the taxpayer and recognises the support which the Tote provides to the racing industry. Its financial importance has been stressed by my noble friend Lord James, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and others. In removing that direct involvement, we want to give certainty to the Tote to enable it to grow as a business. We also want as far as possible to respect the interests of the employees who work for the Tote and those of the local economy in Wigan where the Tote is based. The Government expect to be in a position to update Parliament early in the new year once we are clearer about the outcome of the current market process.
My noble friend Lord James expressed his concerns on a number of fronts. The Government do not anticipate the dire consequences of removing themselves from the Tote that he suggests. I am afraid that the Government cannot simply hand over the Tote to racing; the Tote being a statutory corporation. To do so would undoubtedly constitute a state aid. I can also confirm that any new owner of the Tote will still be obliged to pay levy at the going rate. The pool betting, too, is a profitable business which we expect will continue to flourish and grow in any new ownership. However, I stress that final decisions have yet to be taken. The process that is under way has received a wide range of proposals and the Government will carefully analyse all of these before reaching their decision on the way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, talked about the Greyhound Racing Trust and the greyhounds, which did not feature so prominently in other speeches. We all recognise the popularity of greyhound racing in communities, how important it is to many people and the enthusiasm that it generates. In 2010, the Tote made a donation of more than £400,000 to the Greyhound Racing Trust. We hope that the Tote’s successor company will continue to make these charitable donations. However, I am sure your Lordships will understand that we cannot, of course, make this a condition of the open market process.
I am happy to clarify for the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, what will happen to the Tote’s statutory monopoly on horserace pool betting. As I mentioned, any new owner will be granted an exclusive seven-year licence to run pool betting, and will be required to do so on all racecourses. After seven years, the pool betting will be open to competition, but on terms that will need to satisfy the Gambling Commission. However, the owner of the first and only exclusive licence will be in a good position in that respect at that distant point in the debate.
I think that I have responded to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, about the date. I am delighted that he mentioned that he was glad to be in the coalition, at least in this Parliament. I am sorry that he has differences with his local government coalition partners, but we hope to continue to carry forward the coalition in friendship, at least in these Houses of Parliament.
I think that I have answered most of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. As regards his specific question about the EU, the Government have not yet reached a decision on how to proceed, so it is premature to speculate about what might happen to the proceeds of any sale. However, any sharing of proceeds will need to comply with EU state aid and competition rules. We shall have to await further notice on those.
If there are questions that I have not answered, I shall pick them up in Hansard and undertake to write to noble Lords. I renew my thanks to my noble friend Lord James, for initiating this debate. It has, indeed, been enlightening for me as well as for the noble Lord, Lord Evans. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it. We shall see what happens after the offers for the Tote come in.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I was rudely interrupted by the usual channels, who adjourned the House just as I was on the point of delivering my remarks. I shall try to pick up the morale of the whole debate by opening out this time. We are debating whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. What I really want to say, perhaps more than anything else, is that any observer watching the debate on this clause so far would have noticed one thing above all else—that there was absolutely no real detectable enthusiasm whatever for having a referendum: and if we did have a referendum, there was certainly no enthusiasm for the choice of having the alternative vote.
We are having a debate about a flagship Bill of this Government. It is more than a flagship Bill; it is a major constitutional Bill. Indeed, as Nick Clegg has said, it is part of the most ambitious programme of constitutional reform since 1832. Three members of his party at the moment want to be part of this great constitutional Bill, the greatest since the Great Reform Act. I am absolutely certain that if my Government had brought forward a great constitutional Bill, not only would a fair number of people have wanted to take part in the debates, they would do so enthusiastically. It does not happen very often—we have the statistics and it happens only once every 170 years, or however many years it has been since the last huge reform, according to Nick Clegg. That has been noticeably absent. The overwhelming majority of the speakers have either been very strongly in favour of first past the post, as I am, or else they have been people like my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Rooker who, while not being supporters of first past the post, have given so many good reasons why the option that is being delivered to the electorate is a very bad one. That is something that any neutral observer would have to report on. I do not know whether that will change during the passage of the Bill, but I doubt it.
I have to say that I was slightly fearful of contributing a lot to this debate, because I acknowledge that I am one of life’s anoraks when it comes to looking at electoral systems, and I really do not want to be labelled as an anorak, although I have not got past first base on being an anorak. Another thing was really noticeable in, for example, the exchanges between my noble and very good friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It scrambled my brain, and I do not know what it would have done to the electorate in the course of a referendum. That is one of the many, many reasons why this is a bad Bill and this clause is a bad clause. Although the debate is important and significant, it has been in some parts almost unintelligible, certainly incredibly detailed. Now, if that is the case when we are discussing it among people who acknowledge that we are in a tiny minority of the electorate who are actually very interested in these things, how on earth will that be a substantial debate in the country? You can just imagine the near impossibility of getting some of these arguments over to the electorate. Of course I am not saying that it is because the electorate are dim, of course I am not saying that. I am saying that it is of no great concern to people, and if it is of no great concern to you, you do not apply yourself to the arguments. That is what I confidently expect will happen as and when this referendum takes place.
We all know that we have the authority of the Electoral Commission in its report, which is in a pile of documents in my office. I am sure that Members on the Front Benches will have read it cover to cover. The report states clearly that the public simply do not understand AV. Noble Lords may check it. If any of the proponents of AV are happy, as my noble friend Lord Snape has said, to go down any road that they are familiar with in any part of Britain, in any constituency, they should ask the public what they make of AV, let alone the single transferable vote or whatever else is on the menu.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On that question of understanding, when I asked MPs how AV worked, the great majority did not know or gave a completely wrong explanation. So if MPs do not understand it, how can we expect the great British public to understand it?
Lord Grocott
As we know, my noble friend is a reformer who supports change, and he is honest enough to acknowledge just that. The debate that we are having—the subject that we proposing to spend a large sum of money on and put to the public—is basically of interest to only one or two university departments. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who is sound on a lot these issues, in his place. If I was the parent of a university-age son or daughter who was thinking of taking politics, I would say, “Go to the University of Hull”.
Lord Grocott
That is very wise. I bet that he comes out of his course sensible on Lords reform.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I should say that my daughter also studied at Hull, but she is absolutely staunchly in favour of AV. She had the right influence from the noble Lord, Lord Norton.
Lord Grocott
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked which AV system, but no doubt there is a specialist MA course on that. Does that not give us some of the answers? A few university departments quite properly consider these things, as well as one or two writers for the Guardian newspaper, which seems to think that this is the way that you can solve most of life’s ills, and I assume that these debates take place at branch meetings of the Liberal Democrat party. They must be a lot of fun. I am sorry that I missed them.
Lord Grocott
We are spending millions of pounds on dealing with, as far as the public are concerned, a non-existent problem. That is one of several reasons why I am not sure it is worth proceeding with the Bill, let alone endorsing Clause 1.
On the Government’s defence of the Bill, I should make one or two observations that are fair. Perhaps the most serious is that there has been no attempt, so far as I can see, even to address the issue that Nick Clegg raised: that this is part of a great reforming programme. There has been no attempt to relate what we are doing in this Bill to what is happening on any other constitutional reform measure. This is particularly true when considering electoral systems.
You would not think that somewhere down the track—I hope, or expect, a long way down the track—a Bill will come forward about Lords reform. We are already told that the electoral system to be used is proportional representation. What form of proportional representation? I really do not know. There are far more forms of it than there are of AV. I did not know about all the alternatives to AV until my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours got cracking on it. He will be a joy to listen to when we discuss the various forms of proportional representation in detail. Whenever I have had a debate with proponents of proportional representation—I have had several—and whenever I thought I was close to winning the case for first past the post, their rejoinder was always the same: “Oh, it’s not that kind of proportional representation that we are in favour of. It is some other kind”. So those private debates and discussions go on.
I would really like to know from Members on the Front Bench opposite, before we proceed any further with the Bill, how many different electoral systems they think it is proper for the United Kingdom—a country of 60 million people—to have. We already have five different systems.
Lord Strathclyde
I hope that the noble Lord will remind us that in 1997 there was only one system. By 2010, there were considerably more, and they had been brought in, on his watch, by the noble Lord’s Government, whom he avidly supported.
Lord Grocott
I have to admit in the privacy of this Chamber that I did my very best to stop them. However, you do not get all that you want in life, as the two parties in the coalition know well enough. It is an issue that must be addressed, and I tell the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, if he would like to report this back to senior management—
Lord Grocott
He is senior management, but not top management. Perhaps he should bring back a Bill that said, “Let’s have a single electoral system for the United Kingdom”. He can attack the Labour Government if he wants; I would not agree with him on that, although I will on this issue. We have tried all these other systems. They all have serious failures. Is anyone going to challenge me on that on the systems that we have actually seen and observed? They all have serious failures. They do not end the debate. If any Scottish colleague wants to suggest to me that there are no longer any discussions in Scotland about the merits of the additional member system—
Lord Rooker
Here is where my noble friend and I part. The additional member system in Scotland gave, for the first time in years, Conservative representation to Conservative voters. So there is a discussion: that is, that it works. That was the problem. My noble friend was defending first past the post at very high levels during our time in government. Can he explain how, during the 13 years while the iron curtain was collapsing and democracy was starting to flourish in eastern Europe, we could not export first past the post to a single country? Add to that South Africa, eastern Europe. There was not one. We could not export the system that we had in 1997, so it is quite right that we tried other systems, because they proved to be wholly beneficial.
Baroness Adams of Craigielea
I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the additional member system does not work. We may have Conservatives representing not Conservative voters but Conservative Party policy and cherry picking issues because they do not represent any particular constituents. We have a system in which those directly elected by the local people have up to eight members following them around from the additional list, picking off issues and raising them in policies. I am sorry; it does not work.
Lord Grocott
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Adams. I would just like to gently remind my good friend Lord Roper, and he will remain my good friend whatever different views we take on this issue, that the Berlin Wall did not come down during a Labour Government. The new democracies in eastern Europe predated our beloved Labour Government, but the international comparisons—for me, at any rate—can never be as telling and compelling as the operation of different systems in a single unitary system. That is the most telling evidence: not what happens in any other country in the world, but what has happened here in European elections, Scottish and Welsh elections, local government elections, mayoral elections and the rest of it. Let us have an academic debate no longer. Let us have an honest discussion about how well these systems have performed.
The only comments I would make on the performance of these systems are these. First, the question does not solve the debate about electoral reform, for the very simple reason that as soon as these systems come into operation, their faults become manifest. To me, the one good thing about having all these systems is that I no longer have to debate with people on the basis of an existing system with failings—I acknowledge that first past the post has its failings—against some El Dorado of a system that solves all known ills. I am able to say, “You told us this would happen with this particular electoral system, and I can demonstrate that it did not happen”. If someone has continually told you over a period of many years—most of my political career—that proportional representation for Europe, for example, would greatly increase public interest and involvement in elections because it would offer a real opportunity to get Labour members in the south-east or Conservative members in the north-east, where both parties are badly underrepresented, now you can say, “It simply has not happened”.
There are two real characteristics of the various attempts at different electoral systems, and they are crystal clear for anyone who takes an objective view. First, they are associated with low turnouts. There is no greater involvement by the public, and no greater connection that we heard so much about from one or two people before, than between the public and their elected representatives. The second characteristic, which I fear very much for the AV system and which is very noticeable and should be of concern to everyone in the House, is that they are associated with very high levels of spoilt ballot papers.
I do not want to predict what would happen if the AV vote were carried—God forbid that it were—but if it were, you can be absolutely certain that the numbers of spoilt ballot papers would increase, and increase dramatically. There are more spoilt ballot papers for the European elections, where the turnout is about 35 per cent, than there are for Westminster elections, where the turnout is 64 per cent. If that is not a statistic that should be put on the table and be of concern to anyone who cares about our democracy and its operation, then it really should be.
Finally, the only really solid justification that I have heard from the supporters of AV, as it is in this Bill, is that it ensures that MPs are elected on a majority vote. I loved the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friend Lord Rooker, and I thought—you would expect me to say this—that my two noble friends comprehensively demolished the argument that even under AV there was a guarantee that the winning candidate would be a majoritarian.
Lord Greaves
The noble Lord does me the privilege of talking about me the moment I walk into the Chamber. Can I just say that I have never made that argument about AV. Others no doubt have but I have not and never would, because it is clearly not strictly true. It is, as noble Lords have said previously, clearly more true than for first past the post or for the supplementary vote, but it is not strictly 100 per cent true. That is obvious. I would never claim that.
Lord Grocott
I think that is a very honourable and honest thing to say. I was not so much referring to what he had said so much as to the debate between the two of them. I do wish that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with his characteristic honesty on these matters, would gently, while we are debating things over here, move forward and whisper in the ear of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who constructs his near total defence of the AV system on the idea that it guarantees that MPs would have majority support. I do not know who is right. Is there another division among the Liberal Democrats on this particular issue? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could address that. I do not know whether he is responding to this debate or not. He is not. He looks relieved as he says not.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I was listening to a “News at Ten” bulletin the other day and there was a discussion about AV. Again the newscaster referred to it requiring more than 50 per cent. We have to get the story out to a lot of people that the 50 per cent issue does not arise under AV. The national media still keep peddling this story.
Lord Grocott
I am not surprised. During the time in office of the previous Labour Government, the national media frequently said that Labour had a majority in the House of Lords. They do not know the difference between “majority” and “largest party”: we are used to that. My concern about the constant reference to a majority is more fundamental. I simply report to the House that I was not as clever as some of my friends who ensured that they represented seats in the Commons where there was majority support in election after election. I had that luxury on only one of the four occasions when I managed to convince the electorate that I should be their Member under the first past the post system. I cannot remember the figures. They were about 42, 44 or 46 per cent: then in the end—bingo—it was more than 50 per cent. I did not think that it was of any great significance until I started reading some of the debates in the run-up to this one.
I assure the House—and if any noble Lord wishes to intervene, they are welcome to do so—that I do not know whether I had 50 per cent of the vote. I had to check it because I am now a fully paid-up member of the anorak society and had to know the facts about my own electoral history. It does not make a shred of difference. First, your voters do not know whether you have a majority. If I did not know, I am sure that they did not. It does not make a scrap of difference to your work as a Member of Parliament. The notion that it is vital for Lib Dem, Conservative or Labour voters in constituency A, B or C to have a Member of Parliament of their party is wrong, because 99.9 per cent—and that is a low estimate—of the people who come to you when you are a Member of Parliament do so irrespective of your party or theirs. They come to you with exactly the same range of issues whether you have a majority or not.
Lord Rennard
If the noble Lord is so convinced by the strength of his arguments over the past 21 minutes, why is he so frightened of putting this to the British people in a referendum so that they can decide the issues?
Lord Grocott
I would not have taken so long if I had not had so many interesting interventions. I am afraid that I will have to toss this back at the noble Lord. If the Lib Dems are so convinced, as they have been telling me ad nauseam over the years, that the British public are crying out for electoral reform, why on earth are they desperately putting the referendum on the same day as other elections, in the hope that they might get 30 or 35 per cent of the electorate to turn out? I understood that the public were queueing up to take part in any opportunity to get rid of the old, discredited system, as the Lib Dems call it. I am afraid that that is another theory that has been tested under fire and found wanting.
This clause will stand part of the Bill. It has limped along, drawing no enthusiasm from any of its proponents. I understand that there are always dilemmas about whether you can support your own Government in office. I do not criticise anyone, but I have no doubt what would happen if we had a good old-fashioned secret ballot on the Bill, nor about what would have happened if a secret ballot had been held in the Commons before they sent the Bill here. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, knows this as well as I do. He is well versed in the machinations of the higher echelons of parties—at least he was when I knew him—and he knows perfectly well that this is a friendless Bill and that this clause is certainly a friendless clause. I hope that we will remember that when we continue debating the Bill.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has been rather unfair on his noble friend Lord Lipsey, who gave an excellent and much briefer speech in support of Clause 1. I will follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, by being brief and to the point. I will concentrate for a few minutes on the issue of turnout, which has been a constant concern of all of us across the House this evening—and rightly so, because we are all anxious to look again at the involvement of our fellow citizens in the way in which we vote.
There have been one or two trips down memory lane this evening, and I hope your Lordships will indulge me for a couple of minutes. On the last wintry day of February 1974, in a very scattered rural constituency in Cornwall, 83 per cent of those who were registered to vote turned out. In those days, there were many fewer postal votes, so most voters went to the polls. Why? Because those very wise Cornish men and women knew that the result would be very close. It had been relatively close at the previous election. They were right: I had a majority of nine, which, even in those days, was thought to make mine a rather unsafe seat. In subsequent elections I did better. I confess to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that I cannot remember whether I constantly got more than 50 per cent of the vote, but I certainly did on one or two occasions, and I built a majority of 9,000. What happened?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that the importance of that day—which I, too, remember well—was that it was a verdict on the Government rather than on his good self. Perhaps he could also remind us of the outcome of that election.
Lord Tyler
That is not true, because in other parts of the country the turnout was not 83 per cent. It was 83 per cent in my constituency because the contest was seen to be very close. When I had a majority of 9,000 plus, down it went. Because it was not so interesting and the votes were not going to be so important, it dropped to 63 per cent. There is a direct correlation between safer seats and turnout. Nobody can deny that. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is agreeing with me. Where constituents feel that there is not a real chance of change—whether they fear it or hope for it is immaterial—they do not register on the same level and they do not turn out. For example, in May 2010 the lowest turnout—well under 50 per cent in Birmingham Ladywood, Manchester Central and Leeds Central—was in seats where the electors knew there was very little chance of change, whether they wanted it or not. On the other hand, in Westmorland and Lonsdale and in Richmond Park, where there was clearly going to be a very close result, up went the turnout to 77 per cent. People vote and register to vote when they think that their votes are going to be important in terms of the outcome. That is surely the most important lesson we should all learn.
Short of compulsion, which we discussed earlier, the most effective incentive for people to vote is because they think their vote will make a difference and that is the case for AV. I have never pretended—I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves—that somehow this is the magic solution and everybody is going to turn out and will inevitably go for a first preference. It does not necessarily mean that everybody will have a majority. But look at the alternatives; look at first past the post. It is a staggering fact that there is not a single Member of the other place who can put their hand on their heart after the May 2010 election and say, “I am supported by more than half the people who could vote in my constituency”. Not one can say they have more than 50 per cent of those registered to vote in their constituency. Not one. If we are saying that AV is not perfect, first past the post is much less perfect.
Lord Rooker
I missed the first part of the debate on Clause 1 and I regret that. The noble Lord gave the example of the second defect, which my noble friend Lord Grocott did not address—not so much the argument about everybody getting 50 per cent but the second porky that it does away with tactical voting. We heard that today from the people who launched the pro-AV campaign. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has just said it will be their second preference. That is what will get them out to vote. That is where the tactical voting comes in. What we need on the record, like we had from the Leader earlier on, is a definitive statement from the Government that it is not true that every MP will get elected by 50 per cent. We also need on the record that AV does not do away with tactical voting because the tactical vote is on the second preference, not on the first vote. It would be quite useful if this debate could get that on the record because all our words will be used in leaflets next year, I can assure noble Lords.
Lord Tyler
It is obviously true that if the elector chooses not to vote tactically, they do not have to. But it is also perfectly true—as the noble Lord’s colleague, Mr Ben Bradshaw, has acknowledged on behalf of all those members in the Labour Party who are supporting AV, including the leader of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who has come out very strongly in favour of AV—that it reduces the need for tactical voting. Ben Bradshaw said yesterday that AV gives more power to the people—nobody can deny that—freeing them from the pressure to vote tactically. They do not have to vote tactically. They can do their first preference and their second preference. But the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is quite right. It does not necessarily abolish tactical voting. It makes it much less effective and much less necessary. Mr Bradshaw, his colleague in the other place, is right on that.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I want to take him back to a point which I heard him make a moment or two ago to confirm that I understood him correctly. His criticism of the first past the post system—he seemed to be building up to this criticism because he made it so vehemently—was that there was not one Member of the House of Commons who could claim to be elected by 50 per cent of the registered voters in his or her constituency. Do I understand that the noble Lord is now setting that as the bar for a credible voting system? If he is, can he point me, an ingénue in these matters and not in any sense an anorak or a wonk, to one example of the operation of this alternative vote system that meets that challenge that he has now set?
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I am not saying that AV would automatically mean that every Member of the other House would have 50 per cent but first past the post clearly goes nowhere near to achieving that result. AV can make that more possible. More people can have more influence on the outcome of their constituency election and as a result there will be many more seats in the country—not all of them, there will still be safe seats—where it will be possible for people to have more confidence that their vote will make a difference.
Lord Browne of Belmont
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. He is very patient with me. Other Members of his party have shown exasperation when I have intervened, but if he will bear with me, I need education on this issue. I have listened carefully to what he has to say and resisted the temptation to intervene on him on two or three occasions because I wanted to see the point he was building up to. I am not asking him for an assurance that this will deliver that benchmark all the time. I am asking him, as a self-professed expert on these matters, to give me just one example of the system of AV which he is promoting in this referendum delivering against that benchmark.
Lord Tyler
The noble Lord is simply taking a question that I have not posed and which I do not intend to claim. All I am saying is that the present system discourages people in large tranches of the country from thinking that their vote will make a difference and, therefore, they do not bother to register or to vote. That is a fact. No one can deny it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Let me hit the flaw in the noble Lord’s argument. He is presuming that the remotest preference cast by an elector, which might be the sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth preference, should be given the same value within the electoral system as the first preference. That argument is ludicrous. His whole case is based on that and that is why he is wrong.
Lord Tyler
That is what happens under the present system. The present system is totally inadequate in that respect because you have to plump. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who undoubtedly understands the point I am making, I say that under the present system many people in this country feel that they are forced to vote in a very artificial way because their first preference is not likely to win. I am arguing that in many parts of the country people do not bother to register or to vote at all because they think that their first preference is not likely to win. The safer the seat—
Lord Norton of Louth
My noble friend’s argument is based on the premise that people are aware that under a different system—in this case AV—their votes will make more of a difference than under the present system. I should be interested to know what his empirical evidence is for that.
Lord Tyler
The empirical evidence, of course, is the way in which so many other elections, outwith elections to Parliament, operate. I think I am right in saying that all the parties now select their candidates through a form of AV and it is seen to be very effective. Many other professional organisations and trade unions use it and, as was pointed out earlier, the Lord Speaker was elected under that system. There are plenty of examples where people understand that by making a number of choices or preferences they can make a difference.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
On one of the noble Lord’s examples, trade unions, there was recently an election in the Unite trade union for the general secretary. There was a huge campaign around the country, which was very hotly contested between two very different front-running candidates. Does the noble Lord know what the turnout was? It was less than 20 per cent. Surely, that is one of many examples which fully undermines his case.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Indeed, if the noble Lord looks at the Scottish results to which I referred, he will see that the average turnout was just over 25 per cent under the system he is advocating.
Lord Tyler
As was pointed out only a few minutes ago, the noble Lord was very selective in the ones that he quoted, and 25 per cent is not a bad turnout in a local election. I would argue that AV is not perfect and I have never said it is perfect, but I believe it has real advantages in terms of the relationship between the elected Member and his or her constituency. In that respect, in many ways it has advantages over a pure proportional representation system. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord Hamilton was utterly wrong in describing anything in the Bill now as a proportional system. It is not. Some of us might think that in due course there may be a proportional system, but this is not a proportional system and I would never claim that it is. If his opposition to AV is based on that, I am afraid he is deluded.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does my noble friend accept that if we move to an AV system, we are more likely to have coalition governments and, if we have coalition governments, we have coalition agreements, such as we had at the beginning of this Parliament, and we end up with a government who are governing with a new manifesto that is only vaguely related to the two manifestos of the parties in the coalition?
Lord Tyler
All the evidence from Professor John Curtice, who was mentioned earlier, is that AV is less likely to result in a balanced Parliament, as we have now, than first past the post. The noble Lord may be able to look to the future and have a better idea, but the academic evidence is that AV is less likely to do that because there is a sort of bonus towards the larger party as a result of the election.
I find it incredible that so many Members opposite are ignoring what has been said by their party leader—and in the Guardian today—by saying in absolutely firm terms that they believe that AV is the right way forward. Of course, they are being consistent with what they said previously in Parliament and in the election, but I find it quite extraordinary that so many Members opposite feel that it is necessary to rebel against their own party at this juncture and to weaken the position of their new leader.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I would like to help my noble friend. It is not the position of the Labour Party that there cannot be an open debate—I hope that he will encourage an open debate as well—and there is no party obligation to support AV. We support the idea of a referendum, but not necessarily AV. We want the country to debate it, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for contributing to that debate.
Lord Tyler
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, because he has pre-empted the question that I was about to ask. I am assuming, from what he has just said, that he will support—not just not vote against—the motion that Clause 1 stand part, because what he has said implies that he will do so. If we had known that an hour or so ago, this debate might have been rather shorter.
It is true that the previous Labour Government twice committed itself to this precise form of words for putting the issue to the people. I believe, as Churchill said, that we should trust the people on this issue. I am quite prepared to debate in any television studio with the noble Lord—
Lord Rooker
Churchill did not want AV. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, told us, Churchill is on record as doing the best rubbishing job on AV that anyone has done.
Lord Tyler
I have to tell the noble Lord that Churchill was a supporter of electoral reform when he was a Liberal, and then—I am sorry to say—disappeared off into a different party.
I believe with both the coalition Government and the Labour Party that those same citizens who have been cheated by our current system for so long should be given an early opportunity to vote for a better system. The proposal may not be perfect—I agree with those who made that point—but we have had the moment of truth, in that the Opposition Front Bench are now saying that they will support the motion that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. That is good news. I hope that we can make equally good progress with the rest of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
What a rip-roaringly good debate it has been. Only the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who keeps putting words into my mouth, slightly spoils it.
These are the questions that need to be addressed as a result of the debate. First, there is a strand in the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and my noble friend Lord Grocott, who said there should not be a referendum at all. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said it would lead to a worse system; the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that there is no case made out adequately for AV. One of the purposes of us debating it in Committee is for the case to be looked at. The first question that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, should deal with, is why should there be a referendum with AV as the only alternative in it? He should answer the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Grocott, because for people voting in the referendum, there needs to be a credible case for it made by the Government, which goes beyond saying, “I agreed it with my coalition partners, therefore it must happen”. That carries no weight with the electorate.
The second question that has been raised is: why choose this sort of AV? That was the debate between the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Greaves, which is beyond most of our abilities to comprehend. I say seriously that it is important because the Government are saying, “A detailed proposal for an alternative vote system is set out in Clause 9 and if you vote “yes”, that is the one you will get”. The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Campbell-Savours, are at each other’s throats about whether that is the right system of alternative vote, and in voting yes, the individual members of the electorate in the referendum have to decide whether they think it is the best.
I say in parenthesis how glad I was to see the Deputy Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, going to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—I think, to encourage him to continue to participate in the debate. The moment that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, instead of keeping to his seat, he immediately got up to intervene in the debate. I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on that.
Lord Greaves
I reveal that my noble friend was actually passing on a piece of scurrilous gossip which I would never reveal to the House.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, deteriorates dramatically in the light of that.
The explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, of why they were choosing what I may describe as the Queensland alternative vote system, as opposed to the federal system, had detail and substance to it. His explanation of why they were choosing the alternative vote system as opposed to the supplementary vote system was tragically lacking in any detail. I invite him to take the opportunity of replying to this debate to give that explanation, because it is not possible to say that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has not got the ball well over the net on the question of the supplementary vote system, which is accepted as being a sort of alternative vote. That requires consideration. Why are the Government not adopting that form of alternative vote rather than the form set out in Clause 9? The public are entitled to know.
The third question which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, needs to deal with in this significant debate is: why not give other choices to the electorate—a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Rooker? Why is an alternative vote system favoured by the coalition? Yes, it was the one favoured by the Labour Party in both the CRAG Bill and the manifesto but, unfortunately, in the context where parliamentarians are not that respected by the public, the argument has to be advanced. It is not enough to say, “We have agreed with the Liberal Democrats, therefore we imagine that you members of the electorate will accept that as sufficient reason”. They will not. There must be an argument. I assume that there is an argument why it was accepted in the coalition agreement.
Those are the three points of principle that need to be addressed. There are five other points of detail that are of significance. The first is the point made in the incredibly impressive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, about the Welsh translation. I do not know whether noble Lords know this, but I do not speak Welsh. I accept completely that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, understands Welsh. What he said left me worried about the position of the Welsh translation. If, for example, DU means God willing, not the United Kingdom, to the people of Wales, something has gone badly wrong in the translation. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has had the whole of the dinner hour to deal with that, to tell us why the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is wrong. I regard it as a significant issue. Welsh is a recognised language in Wales, and although I do not think that there is now anyone in Wales who is monolingual and speaks only Welsh, it will be the first language for some of the 200,000 people who speak Welsh, who may well go to that translation first.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
There are 600,000 people who speak Welsh. It is the first language of many hundreds of thousands of them. It is the first language of half a dozen Members of this House, including me. If I may say so without straying beyond propriety, it is the first language of the Reading Clerk of this House, whose English is flawless but whose Welsh is perfect.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am quite sure that the Reading Clerk will therefore go to the Welsh question and wonder what it is about the electoral system for God that we are now seeking to deal with. I did not know about this point. Had we known about it, we would have put down probing amendments in order to get it. I think it is quite an important point.
The next detailed point is that this is being dealt with at unseemly speed. We sought to deal with that through the amendment that this House agreed on Monday giving the Government the opportunity to bring the referendum forward between May and October. I have to tell noble Lords that this has caused the Electoral Commission much upset. It has asked the Government to please get Parliament to make up its mind quickly about the position. I shall read what the chair of the Electoral Commission has written to the right honourable Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, at the Cabinet Office at 70 Whitehall:
“Given the importance of clarity about the rules on how the referendum will be conducted so that the commission and others can successfully deliver their responsibilities and campaigners can plan properly to put their arguments to voters, I urge you to set out how the Government intends to proceed to ensure Parliament can specify the date of the proposed referendum as soon as possible”.
As I understand it, the Electoral Commission is asking the Government to ensure that Parliament can specify the date of the proposed referendum as soon as possible.
Lord Rooker
When I saw the note from the Electoral Commission, which it copied to many of us moving the amendments, I wrote back briefly, saying:
“I am sure high quality lawyers will see a route forward and grab the chance of flexibility. Why don’t you recommend an order making power in the Bill. Make a draft order with May 5th while maintaining the fall back of … 31 October in the Bill”.
It is very simple. We all say that the target date is 5 May. The way to do it is to put an order-making power in the Bill and put a draft order before the House while the Bill is going through so that the public sector, the private sector and everybody knows that that is the target date. The Bill itself—the Act of Parliament—will have “before 31 October” so if something goes wrong, it is possible to change the order. It is simple.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I think it is pretty clear that the Electoral Commission is very dissatisfied with the way that we have behaved in relation to this and have amended the Bill because it wants clarity as quickly as possible. It wants to ensure that Parliament can specify the date of the proposed referendum as soon as possible. Could the Minister indicate what the Government’s position in relation to that is?
My noble friend Lord Rooker puts forward a sensible solution. I would have thought that the solution is even simpler than what he said. There is nothing wrong with the Government saying that they intend to have the referendum on 5 May, but if they cannot, they will have it on a date when they can have it.
There is another significant point. The timing is presumably a pressure only if the referendum is on 5 May. I think it is very hard to understand that you would need clarity about the date if the referendum was to be later in the year. Therefore, I assume that this letter from the Electoral Commission applies only if the referendum is to be on or about 5 May. If it is to be in June, July, September or October, I do not see why you would need the date to be fixed now, but perhaps the Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong on that.
I have a letter from Mr Mark Harper MP, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, 70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS. He writes:
“We will therefore seek to ensure that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill includes provision for that date”.
Perhaps the Minister can indicate what he has in mind to achieve that course of action. So, on the question of date, is it too fast? We are happy with the approach that has been adopted by this House. What is the Government’s position on that?
Secondly, we wanted it to be indicative, not compulsory, so that Parliament could subsequently debate, if there was a yes vote in relation to alternative votes, what the right method of alternative vote systems would be. Thirdly, we did not want it to be combined with other elections. Again, I would ask the Government to set out their position in relation to that. I assume that their position remains as set out in Clause 4. Those are the four significant points.
We have made it clear that we support in principle the idea of a referendum on AV, but I should like to hear the Government’s justification on the three points of principle. Should there be a referendum at all? Why choose this sort of AV? Why not go for other opportunities? I would also like to hear the Government’s position on whether this is too fast, whether it is indicative, not compulsory and whether it should not be combined.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
I have already said it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord should say it again. It is up to the noble Lord whether he wants to answer these points. Something that has been particularly good about today is that the electorate has had the opportunity to hear for the first time some of the Government’s defence for this political change. Prior to that, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has indulged in fantastically attractive and amusing political points, which unfortunately the electorate will not find very attractive.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it has been a useful and interesting debate. We have covered a lot of ground. A lot of different views have come from those opposite, including those who are wholly opposed to a referendum of any kind or to any change. The noble and learned Lord seemed to say slightly half-heartedly that he wishes to have a referendum. I cannot help feeling that secretly he rather wished that there would not be one. I am in favour of having a referendum.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
If the noble Lord is prying into my personal views, will he tell the House his personal view on a referendum?
Lord Strathclyde
I am wholly in favour of us having a referendum because I am in favour of people having a choice and being able to deal with the issue. It is important that they should. I have no difficulty in supporting a referendum. I think that I have already told the House that I will not be supporting the yeses; I will be supporting the noes when we get to it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Perhaps the noble Lord could express his view as to how disappointed he was that the Conservative manifesto did not contain a commitment to such a referendum.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is for the noble and learned Lord to apologise as to why it was in his own manifesto. What did Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party, say—not six months ago when he was writing the manifesto—today? He said:
“I believe that changing our electoral system so that every MP has the support of”—
I am not trying to rile the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—
“more than half their constituents is one way in which we can begin to restore trust in politics”.
The leader of the Labour Party said that. I am responsible for many things, but I am not responsible for the leader of the Labour Party—thank goodness.
The Welsh issue was an important and substantive point, which worried me when it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. It worried the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. One thing I am trying to do during the course of these debates is relieve the noble and learned Lord of worry. I understand that Cabinet Office Ministers will write to the noble Lord shortly with a full explanation of the Government’s position. But I can furthermore advise the Committee—this is really interesting—that the Electoral Commission is statutorily responsible for advising on the intelligibility of the English and Welsh versions of the question. Not only did it consult the Welsh Language Board, but it has conducted focus groups with Welsh speaking voters on the Welsh question now in the Bill. In its public report, it advises that concerns on intelligibility, along the lines raised by the noble Lord, did not arise. The Electoral Commission will send explanatory leaflets in English and Welsh in Wales to all voters to explain the issues. I have no idea whether that is good enough for the noble Lord. He will be receiving further letters from the Cabinet Office on that important point.
This is a clause stand part debate, so what is the clause about? It provides for a referendum to be held on 5 May 2011 on whether to change the voting system for parliamentary elections. Following the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which the Government resisted, the clause also allows for the referendum date to be moved. The Government remain committed, because we believe it to be achievable, to holding this referendum on 5 May next year. That view was set out in Mark Harper’s letter to Jenny Watson today. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in the debate and I thank him for what was a positive and constructive suggestion on the way forward.
The clause also sets out the question that will appear on the ballot papers in English and Welsh. The noble and learned Lord asked why we are bringing forward a referendum on the alternative vote system. We are doing it because it has been agreed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, as the coalition partners in government—I know that noble Lords do not like the idea, but that is what has happened—that it will form part of our coalition programme for government. The two parties in the coalition have differing views on the merits of the two voting systems, and those views will no doubt be played out in the campaign. The Government are clear that there should be a referendum on the issue and that it is for the electorate to make the choice between the systems. This is not a panic driven stitch-up, which is what I think either the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, or the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, called it.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, simply disagrees with any change to first past the post, so he is making a campaigning case—
Lord Strathclyde
I am sorry. The noble Lord is in favour of the system he dreamt up over dinner. It is the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who is opposed to any change from first past the post, thus making his campaigning points now, but he is rehearsing. All power to his elbow, but in a few weeks’ time I hope that he will be tramping the streets of Britain to make his case. He does not need to make them here. We have heard them and I understand them.
The noble and learned Lord also asked whether we are still in favour of combining the date. We are because 84 per cent of the UK electorate will already have a reason to go to the polls on 5 May. That strikes me as being a good thing. It is a benefit for the electorate already to be going to the polls. Ensuring that electors do not have to make another visit is more convenient and will save money.
Baroness Adams of Craigielea
Can the Leader of the House help me on a point? At the moment, my household falls into two different constituencies. For the Scottish Parliament we are in Paisley North, and for the Westminster Parliament the votes of my household fall into Paisley South. If, as I will be entitled to do, I go to the polls for the Scottish Parliament elections, I will vote in the north-east corner of Paisley, but if my household is going to vote in the Westminster election, they must vote in the south-west corner of Paisley. Where will my referendum vote be held?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that is a great question because I find myself in exactly the same position. I am also in two different constituencies, one for Westminster, which I do not vote in, and another for the Scottish Parliamentary elections, where I will vote. So this is of as much interest to me as to the noble Baroness. I shall be demanding an answer very soon and I will make sure she knows what it is. But that does not cut across anything else because this is a unique situation for the noble Baroness and I—perhaps near unique because there may be one or two others as well.
Baroness Adams of Craigielea
It is not a unique situation to the noble Lord and I. It affects all the people in these constituencies. They are in exactly the same situation. Do they have to vote for the Scottish Parliament candidate and then race diagonally across the town to vote in the referendum if it is to be based on the Westminster constituency?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am assuming that they will still vote in the same polling booth, although there may be different registers. However, I have said that I will get a substantive answer for the noble Baroness, and I shall do so.
It is not unusual for different voters to be asked to vote on different issues at different levels on the same day. There has been a great deal of talk about this from noble Lords opposite, but it is not unusual and there is no reason why people should not be able to make up their minds. The question has been fully tested and cleared, not by the Government but by the Electoral Commission, and should enable the electorate to understand the choice they are being asked to make and to express their views. That is why there is no alternative; that is why we are saying, “Make it clear and easy for people to decide between one system and the other”, which will be duly explained.
Why this kind of AV? In no particular order, we chose it for the following good and legitimate reasons: this is the system for which the House of Commons voted; it voted on all the others and this is the one on which it could unite; it is the system on which the two parties of the coalition could unite and agree on; it maintains the constituency link; and it tends to return Members with more than half of the electors voting for them, although not on every occasion. These strike me as good reasons for why the coalition chose AV above all other systems.
However, the fundamental part of this clause is the referendum. We are removing choice from parliamentarians and we are giving it to the people of this country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; it is an extremely good thing to do. We do it very occasionally, but it is right that we should do so.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Leader has given a number of reasons why this AV system was chosen and has argued the case very powerfully. Why then did Nicholas Clegg call it a miserable little compromise?
Lord Strathclyde
My noble friend Lord McNally said, “Ask Nicholas Clegg”. I have no idea why he said that; I suppose it is what he thought at the time.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Earlier in the debate—I have sat through most of it, listening carefully—the Leader of the House said on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that there is collective responsibility, so surely he can explain what the Deputy Prime Minister meant.
Lord Strathclyde
I have not asked him; I have not got a line on it; and it is not a question that will trouble me much at all.
I have laid out the reasons why I believe the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Grocott
I am grateful to the Leader of the House, who has been very patient and good humoured. However, perhaps I might ask him one final serious question while he is dealing with the referendum. He thinks the referendum is absolutely right and is the proper thing to do when you are making a constitutional change of this kind. Given that we were told that all the constitutional change Bills were part of a coherent whole—I repeat, 1832—he must be able to confirm now that should there be a proposal to abolish the House of Lords in its present form he would clearly want to see that referred to a referendum.
Lord Strathclyde
That is a good question. The committee on which the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition sits is discussing these issues. No final view has been taken but, when it is, no doubt it will be transmitted to the noble Lord—if not directly by her then when a Statement is in due course made to Parliament at some stage in the new year.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord shows a consistent admiration for the importance of the referendum and allowing the people to decide, but he is not allowing the people to decide on whether or not they would prefer the supplementary vote system—which is a form of alternative vote—to first past the post. He has not yet answered that question and the public would be grateful to hear why that system of alternative vote has not been adopted.
Lord Strathclyde
We made two decisions. First, we made a decision about AV, and I have given the reasons why we thought that the system should be AV. The second decision, not to give a further choice, was because we wanted to have a very clear indication from the people of this country on whether they want to make a change to AV, which we feel is the best of the alternative systems, or to retain first past the post.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am sorry to press this, but the supplementary vote system is a form of AV that does not compel people—as the federal Australian AV system does—to vote for unsatisfactory candidates. What was the basis of decision to provide for the system described in Clause 9 rather than the supplementary vote system?
Lord Strathclyde
I have explained all the reasons, not the least of which is that the House of Commons united around this particular system, which I am very happy to support.
Lord Campbell-Savours
When these matters were being considered in the coalition talks, there must have been a point at which a decision was taken to proceed with AV. Were all three AV variants on the table? Were they all considered? Was there a discussion about each of the various systems? The proposal in the Bill derives from the coalition agreement, so there must have been, at some stage, some discussion about the detail. Did those discussions take place on the basis that I am referring to?
Lord Strathclyde
The discussions took place before we came into Government. They were part of the agreement on becoming the Government. I was not there and I was not part of the discussions. However, I cannot imagine that we decided on AV without having taken a view about the other systems and taken a decision that AV was the right one.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Let me put it more simply. In the Government’s view, why is the system in Clause 9 better than the supplementary vote system? If the noble Lord could explain that, the public would have some understanding of why we have the Clause 9 system. That is what I am getting at.
Lord Strathclyde
In a series of votes in the House of Commons, Members of the other place united behind this system and decided to put it forward to this House.
Lord Tyler
Can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government took cognisance of the fact that the previous Government, having obviously gone through a very similar thought process, decided on precisely this form of AV for the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act and then repeated the proposal in the general election?
Lord Campbell-Savours
As the noble Lord is aware, it was a Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr Christopher Chope, who moved what was in effect the supplementary vote amendment in the House of Commons. He had support from Members on his own Benches, but it is a pity that he did not drive them into the Division Lobbies.
Lord Strathclyde
My noble friend Lord Tyler makes a great point. Six months ago, that was the view of the Labour Party. That is the view that we have taken as well, for the reasons that I laid out. The system that we propose gives the widest possible choice to voters. That is why it is a good idea.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Should I understand from the warm embrace that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has given to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the Government are proceeding with the system because we did so?
Lord Strathclyde
Not just today, but on the last time that we met—and, I expect, the time before that—I laid out the reasons why we chose AV. The noble and learned Lord may not like it, but that is what we said. There is very little left to say
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The one thing, I am afraid, that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, cannot get away with is that he has never laid out the reasons why the Government have favoured the alternative vote system proposed in Clause 9 over the supplementary vote system. The paucity of his arguments was demonstrated, if I may say so, by his saying, “We are doing it because the Commons voted for it”.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I give an undertaking that, although Amendment 34 is relevant and important, it has nothing to do with the type of voting system that I favour. However, I am very happy to be flexible on that, if that is the wish of my colleagues.
My aim is to achieve something basic for all Members of this House by bringing it about that we have the right to vote in general elections. At first sight, the Bill is not be the right Bill for that, except that, if the Bill provided that we as Members of this House were entitled to vote in a referendum that will determine the system of voting in elections, we should also have the right to vote in any subsequent general election.
We have just had a good debate, in which there were legitimate arguments on all sides. There is no question that there is no legitimate argument against giving us the right to vote—that is crystal clear. The only people who are against that are those who say things such as, “Well, we’ve never done it before, so why should we start now?” or “Oh, it’s not important enough”.
In the debate that we have just had, it was clear that Members of this House are passionately interested in voting systems and the way that people may vote. There is a high level of interest. It is then a small step indeed to say, “Given that level of interest, shouldn’t we be able to cast a vote in general elections?”. It seems such a modest thing to ask for. I am quite sure that, whatever answer I get, everyone in this House would agree that that is the right thing to do.
I have said that the Bill is not the right vehicle to achieve such a change, but a Bill dealing with such a referendum is the first and best occasion that I have had since the election to put forward my suggestion. I give an undertaking to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that, if the Government do not feel able to accept the approach in Amendment 34, there will be other occasions. Although I am reluctant to make a nuisance of myself by going on about a particular issue, I undertake that I will do so—not today, but on a future occasion—when there is a Bill that is absolutely right for such a change. However, why do the Government not pre-empt me by bringing about a change that is self-evidently right?
I understand that, before long, the Government will bring forward their proposals to give prisoners the right to vote—there is a later amendment on that—so we will be the only inmates left who are not allowed to vote. It is even more absurd that prisoners in jail will be given the right to vote in general elections, in which we may not vote. Even the general public would agree that that is an anomaly. If we had a referendum on that subject, we would win hands down.
I do not want to go on at great length—it is fairly late—but I say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I genuinely feel deeply about this. Although people say to me that I did not have to accept the privilege of being a Member of this House, the fact is that I did so. I am delighted that I am here, but every time that there is a general election I feel a sense of pain that I am not able to take part in a process after I have canvassed, knocked on doors and done my best to further the democratic process.
To those individuals who say that we have so much influence here that we do not need the right to vote, I say that there is a world of difference between influencing legislation as it goes through the House and playing a part in deciding who will be the Government of this country. That is why we have a vote in general elections for most people. It is because at the moment we are not able to influence any Government when there is a general election that I feel that there should be a change—it is quite wrong.
I agree that there are not going to be demonstrations in Parliament Square supporting my position. I accept that, because I am honest and realistic about it. That does not mean, however, that there is not an important point of principle here. I challenge the noble Lord the Leader of the House or the noble Lord, Lord McNally—whoever is going to answer this debate—to give me any good reason why my amendment should not be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I will speak only very briefly on this. Being one of the newest Members of this House, I have yet to have a general election where I have not been able to vote. I have to say that I am very grateful to the new coalition Government for having announced some more Peers because, shortly, I will not be one of the newest Members of the House, which I look forward to greatly.
The question that I pose is slightly less about voting in general elections than about giving Peers the vote in the referendum. Two groups cannot vote in general elections: Members of this House and European Union citizens from other member states, who can vote in our local and European elections. I am particularly interested to know why one group of people who are excluded from parliamentary votes have been given the right to vote in the referendum, whereas another group—those European citizens who appear on our electoral register—have not been given the right to vote in the referendum.
Obviously there are some Members of this House who are great experts on AV and other systems. I am not. I am an anorak on other things but, your Lordships will be pleased to know, not on this one. The people who really understand different electoral systems, however, are European citizens living in our country and voting in our European and local government elections, who have enormous experience of systems from their own countries. If ever there was a well informed group to vote on what system would work here, it would be them. The question that I hope may be answered is why one group of excluded voters was singled out to vote in the referendum but not the other group.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I am a bit troubled by the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, because I am a passionate believer in an appointed House. The passion with which I believe in an appointed House will become more apparent as the Lords reform Bill finds its way through this Chamber. One thing that worries me about the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is that Members of the other place have a vote in general elections but also stand for election in those general elections. If Members of this House were to press to have the vote in general elections, we would make it more likely that others would suggest that we should therefore stand for election here as well. There is a correlation between standing for election and having the vote. It is a dangerous business to play with the idea of Peers in this House having the vote, when many of us will be trying to resist the whole idea that this should become an elected Chamber. That is one of the reasons why I totally oppose the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
How much I admire the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, for his courage at every stage of this Bill. This is obviously not an appropriate Bill to make a change in relation to whether Members of this House should vote, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, accepts. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs is right, however, to put the amendment down. Under this Bill, Peers will have the right to vote in the referendum on what the voting system should be and yet, once they have played their part in deciding what the voting system should be, they have no right to vote using that voting system. This is an opportunity for a short debate as to what the right course in relation to Lords voting is.
It is obvious, historically, why the Lords cannot vote in Commons elections. The nature of Parliament was that the Commons were elected because they were representative. We were not representative. The whole lot of us turned up in the upper House. Therefore, there was no need for any elections. The whole lot of us still turn up in the House, except for the hereditary Peers, who vote for hereditary representatives. Does that mean, therefore, that we do not need to have a vote in relation to the Commons? The answer is no, because the Lords no longer select the Government. The Government are selected exclusively by the Commons. We have influence in relation to Bills. We have a say in what happens in relation to policy. However, it is only a say. We do not vote in relation to the body that selects the Government.
Therefore, once the prisoner issue is dealt with, we, and we alone, are the only group in the country that has no say in selecting the Government of the day. The fact that we do not have the vote is an historical anomaly. There are 700 or 800 of us; no doubt the figure would go up to about 2,000 if the coalition had its way. Therefore, the number suffering the effects of this anomaly will increase, but it is an anomaly that no longer has constitutional justification. In those circumstances, one is obviously looking not for agreement from the Government that this matter should be dealt with in this Bill, but simply for the Government’s view on the matter. I do not expect any time to be allocated to this matter in any legislative programme, but if the Government were to express the view that it needed to be dealt with at an appropriate time, that would have a very significant effect on the processing of the issue.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that if we have the vote people will want us to be elected. The public will not think that because we can vote we should be elected. The question of whether we should be elected depends very much on the quality of what we do and the extent to which we persuade the public either that we should go on as we are or that there is a need for change. It is an important issue and one that will not get an airing in this House except on Bills such as this.
I return to the point that I started with. We are rightly accepted as participants in the decision-making process of whether there should be a change in the system. We are accepted as participants in that process because there is no basis on which it could be said that we should be excluded from that. That is the view that the Government have taken. We are included in Clause 2 as people entitled to vote in the referendum. The Government think that it is wrong that we should be excluded from that. There must be a basis on which the Government have come to that conclusion. I support that conclusion, because the obvious reason for saying that we should be included in the process by which a voting system change should be effected—if it is to be effected—is that there is no democratic reason why we should not be allowed to be included. It is wrong to say that this is a matter for other people; everybody accepts that it is a matter for us. It is an important issue. It is like a whole range of anomalies that you can say do not really cause any problems. However, how you put the constitution together and the extent to which there are consistencies in the constitution are very important. A justification for Peers not being entitled to vote is now required in a constitutional sense. If there is not one, the right course for a Government who are prepared to follow the logic of their constitutional position is to say—
Lord Grocott
Does my noble and learned friend acknowledge that it is an enormous privilege—obviously, it is not a unique privilege, but it is given only to the 800 or so Peers—to take part for life in the determination of the Bills that go through one of the two Houses? If you have that near unique influence on the legislative process, I do not think that it is too much to ask that you should not then have a clear determining role in deciding who the Members of the other House should be. It is rough justice but it seems to me a kind of justice. You forfeit that voting right because of the advantage that you have over all your fellow citizens of being able to take part in debates and influence the progress of legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I disagree with what my noble friend Lord Grocott says for two reasons. First, there are other people who have very important roles in relation to what happens to policy legislation. Even in the period of my noble friend’s pomp, I suspect that the Cabinet Secretary was more important than he was, but nobody ever suggested that he should be deprived of his vote. The Chief Justice is more important than almost everybody in the country in determining what legislation means, but nobody suggests—
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that the Cabinet Secretary would not have had any vote on legislation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Cabinet Secretary would not have had any vote on legislation, but he might have had an even more important influence, I respectfully suggest, on legislation than people voting here would. What is more, as we can see from the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, he could reasonably have expected to come here to legislate at the end of it. There are lots of important people in the state and a lot of people with privileges, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, says. However, I respectfully suggest that the key point is that this is a democracy and the Government are chosen not from the Lords but from the Commons. The key question is: why are we excluded from being democratic participants in choosing the Government? The essence of democracy is that it is not just a process; it also represents values. The critical value that democracy represents is that we are all equal in the choice of the Government. Why are we not equal in that respect? I do not think, with respect, that either the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, gives—“They will elect us next”—or the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, gives, which is, “Well, we are jolly privileged”, is an answer to that essential democratic argument. I would be interested to hear what the Leader of the House has to say.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I would be equally interested in what the Deputy Leader of the House has to say.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I have been stripped and ready for action for three days. As the Leader of the House has pointed out, he and I are joined at the hip on this Bill. However, in that spirit of co-operation, he said, “Tom, you take Clause 2 and I’ll take Clause 1”. That seemed fine at about 7 pm on the first day of this debate, when I thought that I would be coming on straight after the dinner hour. Three days later, I come on with three minutes to go.
This has been an excellent mini-debate and I suggest that those who are interested in it should read the speech given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. No wonder he was facing the other way to deliver it; he was giving us both sides of the argument. It is very good that he should do so.
I fully respect the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I know that he has campaigned on this and that he feels strongly about it. I hope, given what he has said, that perhaps we will get one of the opposition days to debate the issue, or perhaps a Question for Short Debate. The issue is worth debating and I look forward to him carrying on his campaign. The problem is, as he himself acknowledged and, indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, acknowledged, that this is not the place for it. It is a good political ploy to use a Bill to hang a campaign on and to get the issue raised and I fully respect the noble Lord for doing so. However, we are concerned specifically with who should vote in the referendum on the parliamentary voting system. Basing the franchise for the referendum on that for the Westminster general election seemed the most sensible thing to do. Yes, we have made a concession in that we have put alongside that noble Lords, who are entitled to vote in other elections. The Government thought that that was a fair and logical approach. I suspect that, if we had not included noble Lords, there would have been an amendment to include them.
Lord Rooker
Does the noble Lord genuinely mean that? I regret losing my vote, but I agree more with the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Hamilton, than with the Front Bench. Why make the concession? If you are going to keep the Bill narrow, clean and tidy, whereby it relates purely to the electoral system for the other place, we are entitled to scrutinise the Bill; so there is no argument about that. There is no justification for giving Members of this place a role in choosing the voting system for the other place. If you are logical about it and you want to keep the Bill clean and simple, why make that concession in the first place?
Lord McNally
It is because we judge that to be a fair and logical approach. As I said, whichever way we had done it, amendments would have been tabled. Perhaps the noble Lord wants to table an amendment for Report to take out Peers’ votes? See how that goes.
Lord Rooker
My name is not on the other amendment. This amendment is to remove part of Clause 2. I shall leave it now; it is time enough.
Lord McNally
There will be other times. Now is not the right place for this debate. I understand why the issue has been raised, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will not press his amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I was wondering whether the noble Lord was going to respond to my question on why, having put one excluded group into the referendum, the Government did not include citizens of other European Union countries.
Lord McNally
It is because I was intending to reply to Amendment 36A, which is in a later group, and deals particularly with that point. When we all return—I hope including the noble Baroness—we can have that debate.
Lord Dubs
I shall respond only briefly. First, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that I have heard many arguments against what I have proposed, but I have never heard that one before. It characterises a feature of this House—the “thin end of the wedge” argument that whatever change one brings about, it will lead to other undesirable changes. Surely to goodness, it is possible for us individually to troop off to a polling station and cast a vote, without opening all sorts of other floodgates. I would simply be doing what in every election I encourage a lot of people to do, which is to go and vote. In my case, I of course urge them to vote Labour. I watch them go into the polling station knowing that I cannot do so, if it happens to be a general election. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, he made a good effort at the thin end of the wedge, but I do not think that that is a good argument.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, did not give any hint that he agreed with me. In his heart of hearts, of course he does. He is too sensible a person not to agree with me. In his heart of hearts—
Lord McNally
I encouraged the noble Lord keep on with his campaign. As they say where I come from, a nod is as good as a wink.
Lord Dubs
I am really grateful, because I was about to say, when the noble Lord said that an issue is worth debating, that that left it in the realms of Questions for Short Debate, or whatever. I take a lot of comfort from what he has just said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 34 withdrawn.