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
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
1. What assessment he has made of the capacity of the Afghan national security forces to assume responsibility for the security of Afghanistan by 2015; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
Assessments of the Afghan national security forces are regularly carried out by the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, of which UK forces form an important part. There are currently around 144,000 Afghan national army personnel and around 116,000 Afghan national police. The October 2010 targets were exceeded two months ahead of schedule and we assess that the growth in both capacity and capability of the Afghan forces is on track to meet the target of transferring lead responsibility for security to the Afghans by the end of 2014.
Ian Murray
When in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister said he was confident that troops could begin to return home in 2011, but the Chief of the Defence Staff has said that we will not “cut and run”, and the Defence Secretary has said that we will be there for as long as it takes. That causes confusion and could make the situation in Afghanistan worse, and it causes a great deal of uncertainty for both our troops and their families. Will the Secretary of State categorically state whether UK troops will begin to depart from Afghanistan in 2011?
Dr Fox
The Prime Minister made it clear on his visit to Afghanistan, as the Chief of the Defence Staff and I have done, that if conditions allow, we may be able to see a reduction in 2011 of some UK forces. We may also decide to use UK forces in a different way, particular in more of a training mission, but that will depend on what happens on the ground next year.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I ask my right hon. Friend, the sixth successive Defence Minister to whom I have pointed out the utter folly of our current intervention in Afghanistan—four of the quintet before him have wisely fled the House, and the first has just been banned from the Tea Room for five years—to whom he thinks the Afghan security force, which has been recruited from various tribes who have been bitterly hostile to each other for centuries, will owe their allegiance? Alternatively, does he expect a military dictator to emerge from their ranks to impose order?
Dr Fox
I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in Afghanistan and his long-standing difference of opinion with the mainstream. It is not just the UK that believes that the mission is essential. A coalition of some 48 countries in Afghanistan believes, and understands correctly, that we need both to degrade the threat in Afghanistan and to increase the capability of the Afghan Government to provide security if we are to see regional, and indeed global, stability.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The progress being made by the Afghan security forces is good news, but when I asked the Prime Minister why he decided to announce a deadline so far out from 2015, he replied that one reason was to get away from the pressure for constant, short-term deadlines. He then went to Afghanistan and announced that our troops may well start coming home by 2011. Why is he doing that? What is the purpose of those constant public announcements on the end of the combat mission and the beginning of troops returning home? No one in the House denies that they want to see the troops come home quickly, but everybody is somewhat worried about those public pronouncements.
Dr Fox
There was indeed no announcement of any short-term milestone on the way to 2015. In answer to the question of whether British troops might be able to come home in 2011 and reduce their number, the Prime Minister said that that was dependent on conditions on the ground, which is entirely consistent with the Government’s position in the run-up to 2015.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The numbers of Afghan forces—some 250,000 all told—are encouraging. That is a major step in the right direction, but does the Secretary of State agree that their capabilities and abilities matter more than just the numbers? What assessment has he made of the development—rapid or otherwise—of those capabilities?
Dr Fox
The capabilities speak for themselves. There have been enormous leaps in what the Afghan forces can do. The Afghan national army has conducted itself honourably and with great credit in terms of its technical ability, not least in Kandahar, and the Afghan national police are now moving ahead, for two reasons. First, the police were given equal pay status with the ANA, and secondly, along with that, literacy training led to a big increase in the quality of those joining. That is a major step forward from where we were in recent years.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
No one doubts the bravery of many of those joining the Afghan security forces—it is beyond doubt—but the Secretary of State will be aware that there are still worries about the quality of current training, the levels of desertion from the Afghan forces, and the very few cases in which some in the Afghan forces have turned their weapons on those in the international security assistance force. This is a crucial issue, because success in Afghanistan depends on it, so will he support increased international effort to improve the training and resilience of Afghan forces on the ground?
Dr Fox
Indeed, I will. The right hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. The international community, if it wants to be truly successful, must recognise that this is about not just the numbers but the capability. Those who intend to transition away from a combat role would do well therefore to put the resources into increased training in Afghanistan to ensure that what the international community sets out to do is achieved.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to ensure adequate care provision for former service personnel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Government are committed to ensuring that all our former service personnel receive the support they require from across the whole of government. We also remain committed to rebuilding the military covenant.
My officials are in regular discussion with the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions and others to ensure that former servicemen and women get the services they deserve.
David T. C. Davies
Has the Minister considered lobbying the Government to change the law so that ex-service personnel can be discriminated in favour of in job interviews? Does he agree that were we to add ex-service personnel to the list of people in our society who can be discriminated in favour of, it would be a true example of positive discrimination?
Mr Robathan
I would say to all potential employers that most ex-service personnel bring with them a resilience and hard-work ethos that they may not find in every civilian. I would also say that we have very good resettlement packages for people going out into the civilian world, and we will certainly lobby employers to take disabled and other ex-service personnel on to their books. However, positive discrimination is illegal, and I do not think we are aiming to change the statutes. It is also unlawful to discriminate against disabled people.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has said in recent letters to Members that the Government have no plans to introduce a veterans card scheme, which many believe would assist in identifying veterans to ensure that they get the care they deserve. However, the report on the military covenant commissioned by the Government and published last week recommends implementing such a scheme. Will he now reconsider his view on this matter?
Mr Robathan
There is no point in commissioning a report without looking at it, and we are doing so closely—as the hon. Lady will know, we are already implementing one or two of its recommendations. The veterans card is a difficult one, because, as Labour Members in the last Administration will know, it is difficult to identify who has been in the armed forces over a period of perhaps 60 years, and to ensure that it is feasible. It is also difficult to identify what exactly would be the point of it. We should remember, for instance, that there is already a discount service for those people.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
3. What timetable he has set for the decommissioning of Harrier jets.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
The strategic defence and security review published on 19 October 2010 stated that the Harrier fleet would be withdrawn from service in 2011. We have brought this date forward to coincide with the cessation of flying. The Harrier fleet will now be retired from service with the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force on 15 December 2010.
Angie Bray
I was lucky enough to sit in the cockpit of a Harrier jet when I was working for the British Forces Broadcasting Service in Gibraltar some years ago. The jets are fantastic pieces of kit. Does the Minister agree that the Harrier jets and their pilots have performed a great service for this country? Will he also update us on the training programme for the joint strike fighter, which is the replacement?
Nick Harvey
It is a pleasure to echo the hon. Lady’s words in paying tribute to all who have served with the Harrier, in both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and in complimenting the Harrier itself, which, in its day, was a much-admired and, indeed, groundbreaking piece of engineering. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I had forgotten the hon. Lady’s question. Training for the joint strike fighter is already under way. Indeed, it will continue throughout the next few years, increasing its momentum considerably as we get into the second half of the coming decade, because of the necessity to bring the JSF into service in 2019. The intense training period will run for several years ahead of that, but the training itself has already begun.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces said in an interview on 9 November that the Government would save more money by scrapping the Harrier than by scrapping the Tornado, yet the Minister responsible for defence equipment, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), said in a subsequent written answer that the cost of supporting the Harrier to 2018 would have been £0.7 billion, whereas the cost of the Tornado over the next 10 years would be £3.1 billion. However, Lord Astor put the figure at £4.8 billion. Does that not show that there is not only a capability gap, in the words of the Secretary of State, but a credibility gap, too?
Nick Harvey
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is comparing like with like in those figures, but in any case, the military grounds for the choice were straightforward. It would not have been possible for the Harrier to go back into service in Afghanistan because of the run-down of the Harrier fleet under the previous Administration. Furthermore, the Tornado has a considerably greater range of capabilities, in terms of its range and performance, weapons payload and reconnaissance capabilities. The decision was taken on the basis of military advice.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
4. What plans he has for the disposal of RAF Bicester.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
RAF Bicester has been in disposal for some time, and it would not make practical or economic sense to withdraw it from that process now. Because the wider estate rationalisation work that is under way is a complex piece of work that will take some time to complete, where it is sensible to do so, we will allow normal disposal business to continue.
Tony Baldry
Can my hon. Friend explain to the chief executive of Defence Estates that RAF Bicester has absolutely no commercial value? It is a combination of a number of historic listed buildings, a runway surrounded by ammunition dumps that have the same statutory listing as Stonehenge and a grass airfield riven by Crichel Down disputes. Defence Estates has been trying to market RAF Bicester for several years now, yet absolutely no one has shown any interest in it because it has no commercial value. In the meantime, all that happens is that those wonderful listed buildings rot. That is a dereliction of duty, so can my hon. Friend get a grip with the chief executive of Defence Estates, so that RAF Bicester can be transferred to those in Bomber Command Heritage and others who would like to put it to good, heritage use?
Nick Harvey
I detect that my hon. Friend has a greater familiarity with the history than I do; suffice to say that whatever the history, it is now understood by Defence Estates. It has now been concluded that the site can be disposed of, and the accounts and views of former owners, among others, are being considered. When disposing of such defence assets, it is essential that competence and experience in dealing with historic buildings be taken into account. Any idea that the site had any significant commercial value has, I think, passed.
Mr Speaker
It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), but may I gently say that we must now make a bit of progress?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
5. What proportion of the NATO international security assistance force is provided by the UK.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
There are currently 48 troop-contributing nations and more than 130,000 troops in the international security assistance force. The UK is the second largest troop contributor after the United States, contributing around 7.5% of the total force. This figure is also double the size of the third largest contribution, made by Germany.
Mr Bone
At this time I would like to pay tribute to our brave men and women who are serving in Afghanistan, especially as Christmas approaches. Is the Secretary of State surprised that UK troops in Afghanistan account for 43% of the troops contributed by European Union countries? Is he satisfied that our colleagues are doing enough?
Dr Fox
No, I am not satisfied, and therefore the Government will constantly be urging our NATO partners to do more. However, it is worth saying that some of the smaller nations contribute disproportionately. In particular, given the difficulties that we face in Helmand, I am sure that the House would like to pay tribute to our Danish and Estonian colleagues, who have done such a wonderful job. In general terms, the message for the rest of NATO is that we all need to act together—and in together and out together.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State made any assessment of what he thinks the UK force representation in Afghanistan will be post-2015?
Dr Fox
That is necessarily dependent on the security position in Afghanistan, especially as regards the quality—discussed in an earlier question—of the Afghan security forces, but I think it would be reasonable to expect the UK to be in Afghanistan in a training and support role for some time after 2015 to ensure that the legacy we hand over to the Afghan Government is maintained because, in the longer term, that regional stability is important for our safety here in the UK.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
6. What estimate he has made of the likely effect on the economy of his decision to build two aircraft carriers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
The construction of the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is expected to create or sustain around 7,000 to 8,000 jobs in the tier 1 shipyards of Appledore, Govan, Portsmouth and Rosyth, with a further 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in the wider supply chain. Equipment subcontracts to the value of some £1.3 billion have been placed to date, boosting local economies across the UK. The strategic defence and security review confirmed that both carriers will be built, and we expect that construction work on the programme will continue until late in this decade.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. He may be aware that I have introduced the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill to encourage better use of the public procurement system to increase the number of apprenticeships available. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that defence procurement increases the number of apprenticeships available, helping to build on skills bases in areas like the north-east, which has a proud history of manufacturing in this sector?
Peter Luff
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her initiative, and I can say that defence contractors up and down the country are committed to apprenticeships—and I pay tribute to them for that. It is very important that we maintain the skills base of our defence manufacturing industries, and they will be invited to contribute to the consultation that we are launching shortly on our new defence equipment policy.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
7. If he will take steps to implement the recommendations of parliamentary Committees in the last Parliament and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to end the recruitment of under-18s into the armed forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The United Kingdom ratified the optional protocol on children in armed conflict in June 2003. The minimum age at which individuals may join the armed forces remains at 16 years, which broadly reflects the minimum statutory school leaving age. There are no plans to change this.
Mr Robathan
I recently took a passing-out parade at Bassingbourn, and I was struck by how happy all the young recruits under training appeared to be. We take our duty of care very seriously. It is a tough environment, but the recruits are well looked after, and most of the young people I met were desperate to join their units. We do not allow people under 18 to go to operational theatre as a matter of policy.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
8. What assessment he has made of the value-for-money of the contract to build two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
The strategic defence and security review concluded that a carrier strike capability was needed for the future. The most cost-effective way of delivering that capability from around 2020 is to continue building both the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, fitting the operational carrier with catapults and arrestor gear to enable the use of the more capable carrier variant of the joint strike fighter.
David Mowat
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it cannot have been right on the eve of a general election, weeks before we reached the certainty of the strategic defence review, for a large UK supplier to enter into a contract with the Government? It was very difficult to break, so it effectively prejudged the result of the defence review. Is the Minister happy that BAE Systems acted in good faith in this matter?
Peter Luff
Cancellation costs are a very complex area. The contract for the aircraft carriers was related to the programme of work, agreed by the previous Government under the so-called terms of business agreement, to sustain the ability to design and integrate complex warships in the UK. Over the next few years, the QE class is providing that work load, with a Type 26 global combat ship taking over later in the decade. If we were to cancel the contracts for the QE class under TOBA we would need to provide replacement work, which would come at a cost, compounding the inevitable costs of cancelling the QE class ships, one of which is already well under construction. This brings us to the position so clearly outlined by the Prime Minister in the SDSR announcement. I would not point the finger of blame so much at BAE Systems as at my predecessor, who acquiesced in the delay of the carrier contract, which led to £767 million of increased costs in the last financial year alone, and a total of £1.56 billion over the life of the programme, making his peerage just about the most expensive in British political history.
Mr Speaker
May we have shorter answers from now on, please, and not long statements?
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, the best way of obtaining value for money for the “cats and traps” is to fit them during the construction of both Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. Can he update us on the progress made by his civil servants in discussing the issue with Babcock, and will he also tell us when he will report to the House on the final decision?
Peter Luff
The hon. Gentleman has a habit of asking me questions that I cannot answer. No decisions have been made yet, although they are currently being made. However, I can reassure him that we are considering carefully which system of “cats and traps” should be fitted to the carriers. Once again, he has made a point very well on behalf of his constituents.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Two new aircraft carriers fitted with joint strike fighters will put Britain’s naval strike force in the premier league, but how can the Minister justify the absolute necessity in the longer term if he is prepared to accept no aircraft cover in the shorter term?
Peter Luff
I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has even asked that question. It is clear that we can accept the capability gap now to ensure that we have a truly capable carrier in the future—and it will be a truly capable carrier thanks to the decision to change the carrier variant, which will significantly enhance the power and projection of the vessel.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
9. What recent steps he has taken to increase the level of defence exports.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
15. What recent steps he has taken to increase the level of defence exports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
The strategic defence and security review set out our clear intention to increase defence exports as part of our enhanced defence diplomacy initiative. The principal purpose of such exports is to enhance our partnerships with allies, share UK ethos and doctrine, and generally promote the UK’s influence. They provide the additional benefit of helping to drive down the cost of equipment for Britain’s armed forces.
Ministers across Departments are already actively promoting the policy, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Officials in the Ministry of Defence and the Defence and Security Organisation, which is part of UK Trade & Investment, are giving invaluable support to Ministers and industry.
Andrea Leadsom
Is my hon. Friend aware of the enormous difficulties experienced by businesses such as Enterprise Control Systems in my constituency in securing export licences for the servicing and maintaining of equipment that they have sold abroad? Enterprise Control Systems makes world-class radio frequency inhibitors, but it is losing business because of the difficulty of obtaining credit licences.
Mr Howarth
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the difficulties faced by the company in her constituency. I can tell her that she is not alone: other companies throughout the country are experiencing the same difficulties. It is very important for us to ensure that licences are dealt with promptly by the Ministry of Defence and its agencies.
Along with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, I will look into the specific points that my hon. Friend has raised. It would be helpful if she wrote to me.
Andrew Stephenson
Rolls-Royce, which is the largest employer in my constituency, plans to build a £100 million extension to its Barnoldswick site and to take on 100 extra workers if it wins the contract for manufacturing engine fan blades for the new F35 joint strike fighter. Is my hon. Friend able to update us on what the Government are doing to help Rolls-Royce to secure the contract?
Mr Howarth
I am acutely aware of the contribution that Barnoldswick in my hon. Friend’s constituency makes to Rolls-Royce, which is surely one of the extraordinary jewels in the United Kingdom’s engineering crown. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to Congressmen in both Houses on the Hill to emphasise our support for the F136 engine, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has had meetings with the head of Air Force Acquisition, Lockheed Martin and others. I assure my hon. Friend that this Administration are doing everything that he would expect of them to promote a great British product to the United States.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Of course we all want to see a successful defence industry exporting as much as possible abroad, but must there not be a bottom line, namely that we do not sell to corrupt countries or to countries that will use what they buy from us to oppress their own people? In that context, is it not important for us to ensure that exports of small arms—which often keep inflamed the battles and civil wars in Africa—are brought to an end?
Mr Howarth
I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to accept that we have one of the toughest export licensing controls for military equipment in the world. I yield to no one in praising the efforts of both the present Government and the last Conservative Government to ensure that, as far as possible, equipment has gone to the right people and not to those who would misuse it. We are, of course, governed by the law as well.
I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point about small arms, but unfortunately the world is awash with small arms, many of which do not come from the United Kingdom.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Even during these current difficult economic times, the UK’s defence export sector requires ongoing research and technology investment, but if we are to increase levels of exports in the defence sector, how does that square with the Secretary of State’s view, admittedly when in opposition, that US-UK interoperability is the key and he would intend to follow a much more pro-American profile in procurement?
Mr Howarth
Of course having a viable and successful defence industrial base in this country is very important; there is nothing to be interoperable with otherwise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we place a high premium on interoperability, partly because we think it will help to drive down costs if our equipment is interoperable with that of other countries. The United States is, of course, our principal ally in these matters, and is likely to continue to be—provided, of course, that they are helpful to us when we need their help in supporting our industry.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
10. What recent progress has been made on reform of the structure of his Department; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
So far, the defence reform unit under Lord Levene has considered the key activities defence needs to undertake: an analysis of our current structure; how a number of other countries manage aspects of defence; and the benefits, disadvantages and robustness of a range of different operating models. It is currently considering proposals on how better to manage defence infrastructure and to deliver corporate services across defence. It is also examining the relationship between the head office, the rest of the Department and the armed forces.
Michael Ellis
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his response and congratulate him on the progress made. Can he assure us that the much-needed restructuring of the Ministry of Defence will not impact on the operation in Afghanistan or the provision of services to any of Her Majesty’s armed forces?
Dr Fox
As I have said, defence reform is, effectively, a root-and-branch reform of the entire Department including, essentially, everything other than the front-line capabilities that were covered in the SDSR. It will have no impact on what is happening in Afghanistan, which will remain the prime effort of the MOD.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
In the context of reform, when does the Department intend to implement the recommendation in the report of the Secretary of State’s party colleague, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), envisaging the establishment of a veterans information service?
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Will the reform of defence acquisition be included in the work of the DRU, and when will the DRU be likely to report?
Dr Fox
Yes, acquisition will be part of what the DRU does; my right hon. Friend makes an important point. There will also be an announcement—I hope in the very near future—about a new chief of defence matériel, who will be important in that process. I hope the report on the acquisition reform will be available before the end of July 2011.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The SDSR projected savings from the redundancies of 25,000 civilian civil servants in the MOD. In answers to parliamentary questions, the Secretary of State has previously stated that the cost of redundancy packages are yet unknown. Will he today share with the House the cost of making 25,000 civil servants redundant, or is this just another area of the SDSR where announcements are being made before the work has been done?
Dr Fox
Given the financial position the Government inherited, it was necessary to make major reductions in costs, not least in personnel. How those costs ultimately are manifested is dependent upon whether we require compulsory redundancies, how many are voluntary redundancies and how many are early retirements. These matters are subject to discussions with the civil service at the current time.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
11. What arrangements are in place to monitor the progress of his Department’s major equipment procurement programmes.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
14. What arrangements are in place to monitor the progress of his Department’s major equipment procurement programmes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
I receive monthly reports and quarterly detailed project health checks on the Ministry of Defence’s largest projects. Last year, discounting deliberate policy decisions made by the previous Government, the MOD met all its targets to deliver its major projects to cost, time and performance. This year looks equally encouraging. The top 30 major projects are also reviewed annually by the National Audit Office and in this year’s report the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
“In-year performance on the majority of large defence projects which we examined has been encouraging".
But we should not wait for the NAO to tell us how we are doing at the end of the year. That is why I can announce to the House today that the Secretary of State and I are forming a major projects performance board that will review our most significant projects regularly.
Claire Perry
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that in a long line of procurement failures from the previous Government, the £38 billion overspend in the defence budget takes the biscuit? Will he reassure the House on what steps will be taken so that that level of commercial failure will be, like the idea of a Labour Government, a thing of the past? [Interruption.]
Peter Luff
I hear howls of protest from those on the Opposition Front Bench, but over the weekend I heard the shadow Secretary of State fessing up to major failures in procurement. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
I am happy to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I cannot comply with your request for short answers and do justice to my hon. Friend’s question because we have a range of measures in place to achieve precisely that outcome, including stronger controls over the entry for new projects in the equipment programme; a formal project start-up process that considers requirement risk, technical viability risk, affordability and deliverability; improving key skills; working closely with the NAO; and reaffirming our commitment to regular defence reviews. All that will achieve exactly the outcome that she so rightly desires.
Mark Lancaster
Historically, one of the fundamental problems with procurement has been a disconnect between Ministers, civil servants, uniformed personnel and the defence industry. How do we intend to address that problem in the future?
Peter Luff
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk of a conspiracy of optimism in these major projects that has so often characterised procurement decisions in the past. The list I rattled through in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) partly addresses the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). I am sorry that I said it so fast, but it was important to get it on the record. If I do not deliver on that, I think my job will be on the line.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
12. What recent steps his Department has taken to reduce the risk of cyber-attacks on the defence estate; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
As we set out in the strategic defence and security review, we attach a high priority to the cyber-defence of our systems. The Government have placed a renewed focus on that threat. We have recognised attacks through cyber-space as a tier 1 risk to national security and put an extra £650 million in place to enhance our protection. There are technical and procedural measures in place to protect MOD systems from cyber-attack and to ensure we can mitigate the impact of those attacks. The House will understand if I do not comment further on the detail of those measures.
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Following the welcome Stuxnet viral attack on the Iranian nuclear facility, what steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to avoid a similar assault on our internet infrastructure?
Nick Harvey
Our cyber-defences are regularly tested by intruders, and we are confident in our defences. The threat, of course, is changing in extent and complexity, which requires continual improvements in our security measures and novel approaches to deal with the more sophisticated threats.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Recent news reports have indicated that cyber-attacks by WikiLeaks on critical national infrastructure are only likely to grow. Does the Minister agree that we must involve the private sector in ensuring that we can be ahead of the game when it comes to our cyber-security?
Nick Harvey
Yes. We are committed to working closely with the private sector in defence not only of our own systems but of those across Government. Many are, of course, provided by the private sector, so it is essential that we have the strongest possible partnership with it.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
13. What recent progress has been made on the transition towards Afghan-led security and the withdrawal of UK forces from Afghanistan.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
As I said in answer to an earlier question, the strength of the Afghan national army currently stands at around 144,000 and of the Afghan national police at around 116,000. Through continued investment in Afghan forces, we are confident that, by the end of 2014, they will be able to take the lead for security across their country.
Caroline Dinenage
Given that answer—that our aspiration is to withdraw from Afghanistan and that the SDSR is focused on supporting our troops over there—are we still wise to have effective cuts in our expeditionary fighting capabilities, particularly in the light of recent events in North Korea?
Dr Fox
In terms of what is happening in Afghanistan, we have made it very clear not only that that is the primary aim of our activity in the Ministry of Defence, but that it would be unaffected by the SDSR, including that particular expeditionary capability. It is not just what the armed forces are doing that contributes to that security: the UK’s biggest direct police training effort is in Helmand, where we have 77 UK military personnel and nine MOD police improving the quality of the Afghan police, who are just as important as the Afghan national army for long-term security.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Why is the Secretary of State still in denial about the number of desertions and dismissals from the Afghan army and police being similar to the number of new recruits? Will he face up to the fact that when NATO leaves and the Afghan Government are fleeing to their boltholes in Dubai, the number of people deserting the Afghan army will increase massively?
Dr Fox
It is the hon. Gentleman’s opinion that flies in the face of the facts. The net size of both the Afghan national army and police are increasing, as is their capability, and the governance that will ultimately determine how they are deployed is improving. There is cause for cautious optimism and it does nothing for the morale of our forces when people constantly pretend that there cannot possibly be a positive outcome in Afghanistan.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
16. What studies his Department has undertaken on the feasibility of operating the existing fleet of Sea King search and rescue helicopters beyond 2016; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
As part of the review of the search and rescue helicopter project a number of options have been considered, including extending the current search and rescue Sea King helicopters beyond 2016. An announcement will be made shortly.
Tony Cunningham
I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he explain why he plans to spend about £7 billion on American search and rescue helicopters rather than upgrade the Sea Kings at a fraction of the cost? Sea Kings did an incredible job during the flooding in my constituency.
Peter Luff
Apart from anything else, that is the plan we inherited. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all options are being considered extremely carefully. I repeat that an announcement will be made shortly.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
17. What steps his Department is taking to raise the standard of service accommodation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Government place a high priority on the welfare of service personnel and their families and will therefore seek to improve accommodation where necessary. More than 95% of service family accommodation properties in the UK are currently at the top two standards, out of four, for condition.
Ian Lavery
The Minister will be aware that as a result of the sale of the Chelsea barracks in 2007, £959 million was raised. Can he confirm that that money will be ring-fenced for service accommodation and that any future investment during the comprehensive spending review period will be new, rather than previously allocated, investment?
Mr Robathan
There was a story in the News of the World which was not entirely correct. [Interruption.] It was not entirely correct. A great deal of money was raised from the sale of Chelsea barracks but that was some four years ago when I do not recall our being in power. Having checked on this we have discovered that although the money is not ring-fenced, because we do not believe it should be, we have spent the vast majority of it and we will spend well in excess of that amount. As a matter of interest, on Thursday I was fortuitously at Bulford, where I started the work on a new married quarters estate that will provide 260 state-of-the-art houses for our deserving personnel.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
19. What effects the redundancies in the armed forces announced in the strategic defence and security review will have on standing commitments.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
The strategic defence and security review sets out the requirements for the armed forces’ contribution to standing commitments and identifies the restructured forces we will need over the next 10 years to meet them. Changes to the armed forces will not affect our non-discretionary standing commitments.
Huw Irranca-Davies
In respect of the cancellation of the Nimrod mark IV maritime patrol aircraft, does the Minister agree with the First Sea Lord, who said earlier this month that he was “very uncomfortable” about it and that
“I don’t welcome the loss of the Nimrod”?
Are there any plans to replace the Nimrod and is it acceptable to make such cuts to our capability when military personnel are so concerned?
Nick Harvey
I entirely agree, as do all Ministers, with the discomfort that the First Sea Lord feels about this; the decision not to bring the Nimrod MRA4 into service was very difficult. We will have to bear some risk—it would be wrong to claim otherwise—but we will mitigate that risk by using other assets in the meantime, just as the previous Government had embarked on doing.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
22. What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the defence industry on the effects of the reductions in expenditure proposed in the strategic defence and security review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
Ministers and officials have had many discussions with industry representatives both during and since the outcome of the strategic defence and security review was announced in October, including a full meeting of the National Defence Industries Council, which I chaired last month.
Graham Jones
In October 1,000 people were put out of work by BAE Systems in Lancashire, and last week a further 1,300 job losses were announced, owing to SDSR cuts. Does the Minister think that these job losses are a price worth paying, and does he agree that they will have an adverse impact on the economy of east Lancashire?
Peter Luff
I emphatically do not think that is a price worth paying, but sadly it is a price that we have to pay, thanks to the economic incompetence of the previous Government.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended now and in the future, that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in their military tasks, and that we honour the military covenant.
Duncan Hames
What measures will the Minister be taking to improve the timeliness and reliability of the service voting scheme ahead of next year’s elections and referendum?
Dr Fox
It would have been highly desirable to make the changes that we envisage ahead of the elections next May. It is unlikely that we will be able to do so in that time frame, but it is clear that change is needed. It is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but we have had a number of ministerial discussions between the two Departments to try to clarify those plans and to ensure that we have a legislative slot to enable us to implement them as quickly as possible.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
We have heard again today that our armed forces are helping to create new freedoms in Afghanistan. Here at home, the right to protest peacefully is crucial, but in recent days we have seen the appalling violation of the Cenotaph. Will the Secretary of State support an all-party cross-Government approach to see whether our war memorials, which are engraved with the names of many of our country’s heroes, are properly protected from the actions of the few of our country’s mindless hooligans?
Dr Fox
I fully associate myself with the comments of the shadow Defence Secretary. There must be outrage across this country at some of the scenes that we witnessed last week. In particular, it might be worth emphasising in the House to those students who took part in some of those demonstrations and who seem to take the freedoms that they have so much for granted that those freedoms were won by the sacrifices of previous generations, the names of whom are commemorated on some of those monuments. They deserve to be treated with far greater respect than they were last week.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
T2. 23 Engineer Regiment is based in my constituency and is one of a number of regiments currently serving in Helmand. The Minister has already taken the opportunity to pay tribute to all those involved in Operation Herrick 13, including our Danish and Estonian friends, but will he also pay tribute to the families of our brave servicemen and women who provide such strong emotional support, especially in this Christmas season?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
I have great pleasure in doing exactly that and paying tribute to all those who are serving in Afghanistan, who will be away from their families over Christmas. Our thoughts are with the families as well. On the contribution being made in Helmand by our friends and allies from Denmark and Estonia, they have both been terrific and resolute allies to us and it will be my pleasure to visit both countries later this week to thank them for what they are doing and to discuss future co-operation.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
On “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday, the former Prime Minister, John Major, said
“what I am wary of is giving advance notice of leaving. If you were Taliban what would you do on hearing that troops were leaving in 12 to 24 months? I think you would just wait until they had gone. We have to be clear what we are doing and”
why we are doing it.
Can the Secretary of State tell us why he thinks the former Prime Minister, who is supportive of the current Prime Minister, feels the need to say that now?
Dr Fox
As I said, there are no short-term milestones in terms of numbers, so there is no possibility of us setting out in advance the numbers that withdraw in 12 or 24 months. The Prime Minister made it clear that we may be able to reduce troop numbers if conditions on the ground are suitable.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
T3. What is the MOD’s role in the European Defence Agency?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
We have decided to extend our membership of the European Defence Agency provisionally for two years, during which time we want to see the agency focus on capability-building, not institution-creation. The EDA, with the support of most other member states, wanted a 4% budget increase, but I am very pleased to be able to report to the House that at last week’s meeting of EU Defence Ministers I was able to secure their agreement, nem. con., on a budget freeze, saving the British taxpayer about £200,000.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Moray has the most defence-dependent economy in the UK, and recently the Ministry of Defence announced the closure of RAF Kinloss in the region. Given that neighbouring RAF Lossiemouth has already been rated as the best base for the next generation of fast jets, will the Secretary of State confirm that the ongoing RAF basing review is considering the unparalleled economic and social dislocation that would be caused by a double-base closure in Moray?
Dr Fox
The primary purpose of the basing review is to get the best defence outcomes for the United Kingdom. Obviously, those who represent seats in the area, the Scottish Government, the Scotland Office and others will wish to make representations about other aspects, including the social and economic impact, but the Ministry of Defence’s recommendations will be based on the military solutions and what is best for the country as a whole.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
T4. Will the Minister update me on the progress of the reserved forces review, mentioned in the SDSR, and confirm that there will be no cuts to 56 Signal Squadron? It is partly based in my constituency, and I personally had the good fortune to witness the skill and dedication of its members during the cold snap, when, if it had not been for them, I think my local hospital would have struggled to stay open.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I certainly pay tribute to the Signal Squadron and its work during the cold snap. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot pre-empt the review, which only started less than two months ago, by saying whether there will be any changes to the squadron’s configuration. What I can say is that we very much value the commitment and contribution of the reserves both at home and, now, on operational deployments.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
We are constantly being told that the next Parliament after 2015 will have to take the final decision on replacing the Trident nuclear missile system. Exactly how much money, which would otherwise not need to be spent, will be spent between now and then in preparing for that decision?
Dr Fox
That will depend on the initial gate decision and what flows from it, but it will be necessary to spend money to make it very clear that we are undertaking the research and development work that will be essential in allowing us to make that final decision. On the Government’s policy, there is no change: we are committed to a submarine-based, continuous at-sea deterrent, because we believe that it is not only most effective, but cost-effective for the United Kingdom in an uncertain world.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
T5. I find myself, surprisingly, echoing the comments of the shadow Defence Secretary. Many of my constituents were outraged by the desecration of our nation’s most revered war memorial, the Cenotaph, last week by student yobs. No one has the right—no matter what the reason—to disrespect our fallen soldiers, and we should remember that their sacrifices allowed those people to demonstrate in the first place. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those acts and in calling for the full force of the law to be used against those who carried out that wicked deed?
Dr Fox
In the spirit of Christmas, my hon. Friend should not be surprised that he now and again agrees with the shadow Defence Secretary. I do, again, echo those comments. Last week we saw a number of students who were peaceful protesters in support of their aim and we saw a number whose behaviour got out of hand, but to my eye we also saw a number of hard-line, anarchist and subversive groups parading on our streets, and that is utterly unacceptable in a free, liberal and democratic society.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
May I take the Minister back to RAF search and rescue? Does he not understand the concerns of my constituents and the many thousands of people who walk and climb in the Lake district that we might be about to pay substantially more for an inferior service? If it remains the cheapest and best-value option to re-fit the existing helicopters, will he consider doing so?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
I can reassure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to best-value options, unlike the Labour party. I repeat that the announcement will be made very shortly and the hon. Gentleman will be able to judge the decision on its merits. I am afraid I can say nothing further until then.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
T6. Will the Secretary of State give the House an as full as possible update on the ability of the Afghan Government to prevent terrorist organisations from organising within their own borders?
Dr Fox
As I said, along with the international community, we are making a major investment in the capability of the Afghan national security forces—both the army and the police—to establish a permanent rule of law and security in Afghanistan. The command structure of the Taliban and al-Qaeda has recently been disrupted, but it is worth the House noting that it is not simply the Government of Afghanistan who are involved in this. We require the constant co-operation of the Pakistan Government if we are to make that very vulnerable border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as safe as possible and give terrorists as little chance as we can of having a safe haven.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the 1,400 job losses announced by BAE Systems as a result of Government cuts. That is a tremendous blow to the people of Preston, particularly those working at Samlesbury and Warton. Will he undertake to support tranche 3B of the Eurofighter Typhoon project, which they have not yet approved, and the joint strike fighter aircraft for the new two aircraft carriers?
Dr Fox
It is always regrettable when there are job losses. We remember that, behind every number, a family will undergo financial hardship as a consequence of such decisions. I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we will be promoting Typhoon at every possible opportunity. I had a number of discussions in the Gulf last week on that issue and I recently visited India to try to boost the Typhoon bid. We are fully committed to the joint strike fighter, which will give us a fifth generation capability far greater than anything we currently have and offer intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—ISTAR—capabilities, which will see us well into the first half of the century.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
T7. My hon. Friend will be aware of the sacrifice of the thousands of men and women of Bomber Command during the second world war. That sacrifice has never been properly recognised by the award of a campaign medal. When will it be?
Mr Robathan
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those of Bomber Command and, indeed, to the whole of the Royal Air Force during the second world war? They fought to defend our freedom so successfully and we owe them an enormous amount.
A review into medals is taking place—indeed, there are meetings this week—and I am also having meetings about a Bomber Command memorial, which will go up opposite the Royal Air Force Club in St James’s park. It is a very fine memorial, and I look forward to it being erected and to paying proper tribute to Bomber Command, which I know some people feel has been slightly forgotten.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Further to the Secretary of State’s earlier statement that there will still be British troops in Afghanistan post-2015, will he confirm whether Afghan national security forces or someone else will be responsible for their security?
Dr Fox
It is very clear that the aim is to have the threat degraded and the capability of the Afghan national security forces increased, so that they can take control of their own security. Some assistance with training and support may be required, but it is very clear—President Karzai has repeatedly made it clear—that it is the wish of the sovereign Government of Afghanistan that they take control of their own security by the end of 2014.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
What possible strategic advantage would there be in the closure of RAF Leuchars in my constituency, when the base is uniquely geographically positioned to provide comprehensive air defence for the northern half of the United Kingdom?
Dr Fox
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an eloquent bid for the retention of the base in his constituency, as he has also done in private. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the basing review will be based purely on what gives Britain the best defence network. We will be taking those decisions over the coming months. We understand that there will be other considerations but, in determining our bases, it is the Ministry of Defence’s job to consider what makes Britain safest.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When will the Secretary of State face the truth that his irrational optimism about a victory in Afghanistan is based on three collapsing foundations—the Afghan Government and the endemically corrupt police and army? Will he ask himself the question that haunted Senator Kerry in the last days of the Vietnam war: “Who will be the last soldier I will send to his death for a mistake?”?
Dr Fox
I do not believe for a moment that it is irrational optimism that drives a coalition of 48 countries to want to see not only better security, but better governance in that part of the world, which has a global impact. I would far rather be a victim of hope than despair.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
T9. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to our armed services, including reservists, who are prepared at a moment’s notice to mobilise to help in a national emergency such as that in Edinburgh last week?
Dr Fox
Our armed forces responded in a number of parts of the country to the snow emergency that we saw last week. In response to the request from Edinburgh city council, we immediately made armed forces assets available. I am sure that it is to the delight of the whole House, and especially to the Scottish Government and the Scottish nationalists, that it was Her Majesty’s United Kingdom forces whom we were able to deploy for that purpose.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I think we can all agree on the overriding importance that this House places on the defence training needs of the whole of the UK armed forces tri-services. In a debate last week, we tried to get an answer to the question of what is the future of the defence training academy at St Athan after the news of its cancellation, but answer came there none. Can the Minister now give us an update with some clarity on what is the future for St Athan?
Nick Harvey
The defence training requirement across the three services is being reviewed in the light of the collapse of the project at St Athan. We are identifying possible sites either for tri-service training or taking the three services separately, and we will make an announcement when we have concluded that work in the spring.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
T10. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on Britain’s role and strategic involvement in the middle east following the talks held in Manama?
Dr Fox
There has been a substantial amount of diplomatic activity by all parts of the Government, including the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. There have been a number of visits to Gulf countries as part of our Gulf initiative to strengthen the relationships in what is a very important strategic part of the world. At the Manama dialogue, I had a number of bilaterals in-which I had discussions with the United States and some of our most important allies in the region.
Mr Speaker
Order. As usual, demand has exceeded the time available, and we must now move on.
Public Order Policing
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the appalling violence that took place during last week’s protests outside Parliament.
I want first to express my gratitude to those police officers and commanders who put themselves in harm’s way. They showed great bravery and professionalism in the face of violence and provocation. It was this bravery that enabled this House to engage unhindered in democratic debate, and I know that the whole House will want to send them our thanks. I also want to thank Sir Paul Stephenson, who led the Metropolitan Police Service through a difficult operation and who serves London as commissioner with distinction.
Hon. Members may find it useful if I recap last week’s events. On Thursday, 3,000 people assembled at the university of London union to march through central London. By the time the crowd reached Parliament square, police estimate that the number of demonstrators had grown to 15,000. The police maintained a barrier system outside the Palace of Westminster that allowed pedestrian access and the business of the House to continue at all times. Concerted attempts were made to breach the barrier lines. Protestors threw bottles, stones, paint, golf balls and flares, and attacked police with metal fencing.
A cordon was placed around Parliament square, but, throughout, those who remained peaceful and wished to leave via Whitehall were able to do so. A large number of protesters remained, many of whom committed acts of violent disorder, damaging historic statues in Parliament square, breaking windows and starting fires. Sporadic disorder also took place in the west end. It is quite clear that those acts were perpetrated not by a small minority, but by a significant number of trouble makers.
Some students behaved disgracefully. However, the police assess that the protests were infiltrated by organised groups of hardcore activists and street gangs bent on violence. Evidence from the other recent protests shows that many of those who caused violence were organised thugs, as well as students. It is highly likely that that was also the case last week.
I want to be absolutely clear that the blame for the violence lies squarely and solely with those who carried it out. The idea advanced by some that police tactics were to blame, when people came armed with sticks, flares, fireworks, stones and snooker balls, is as ridiculous as it is unfair.
We have a culture of policing in this country that is based on popular consent and trust between the police and the public. That must continue.
Thursday’s police operation involved 2,800 officers. More than 30 officers were injured, of whom six required hospital treatment. All six have been discharged from hospital. Forty-three protesters were injured.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has begun an independent investigation into the incident that left one protestor seriously injured. Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment further on that incident while the IPCC investigation is ongoing.
The Metropolitan police have confirmed that 35 people have been arrested so far. I expect that number to rise significantly as the criminal investigation continues. I confirm that there has been a good public response to the police’s request for information on the 14 key perpetrators of violence, photographs of whom were published on Sunday. The Met will continue to publish pictures of key individuals in the week ahead.
I also want to inform the House about the attack on the royal car. The House will be aware that on their way to an engagement in central London, the car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall was attacked by several protesters. There has been much speculation about the Duchess being struck through the window of the car. I understand that some contact was made.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has ordered an urgent review of the royalty protection arrangements that were in place on the night, which is due to report by Friday 17 December. Hon. Members will understand that, for security reasons, the public details of the report may be limited. I will await the findings of that review before deciding what, if any, further action is needed.
The Prince and the Duchess have already expressed their gratitude to the police. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning all the acts of violence that took place last week. I call on the organisers of the protests unequivocally to condemn violence as well.
The Government are determined to protect the right to peaceful protest, but violence is absolutely unacceptable and the perpetrators of that violence must be brought to justice.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
All Labour Members understand and share the dismay, anger and injustice that are felt by hundreds of thousands of students and young people at the deeply unfair hike in tuition fees and the abolition of education maintenance allowance. All Labour Members also share the Home Secretary’s anger and outrage at the way in which last Thursday’s legitimate day of action was hijacked by a small but significant minority bent on provocation, violence and criminal damage.
The whole country was shocked and appalled at the cowardly and despicable attack on the car carrying His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and the Duchess of Cornwall. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary have our full support in taking all the steps that are necessary to bring the perpetrators of that violence to justice.
Scenes of mass violence and protest on our streets are sights that all in this generation hoped we would not see again. We all have a responsibility—from student leaders and police chiefs, through to politicians and Prime Ministers—to do everything we can to avoid such confrontations in the future: we have to keep the peace. Here, there are lessons to be learned, and I have some detailed questions for the Home Secretary that I hope she can answer.
I start by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the Home Secretary that the right first step is to await the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and to resist jumping to any hasty conclusions. There is clearly a difficult balance for our police leaders to strike between containment to control violence and ensuring that the innocent are not caught up, harmed or held for lengthy periods. If there are individual cases in which police officers overstep the mark, the right first step is for the IPCC to investigate, as is happening in the case of Mr Meadows. The commissioner is right to demand that all police officers must display their identification at all times.
It is important, too, that we recognise the bravery and commitment that our police officers showed last Thursday in the face of extreme provocation and physical danger. Without their professionalism and restraint, there would have been many more casualties.
I wish to ask the Home Secretary about royal protection, prosecutions, resourcing and police tactics. On royal security, given that this was the fourth time in a few weeks that a protest descended into violence, did she personally ask for and see a thorough assessment of the security of the royal family and other key individuals and buildings in advance of last Thursday’s protests? At a time of rising security threats, and with the royal wedding coming next year, will she agree to shelve the cost-cutting review of royal security that is currently on her desk? When she sees the report from the commissioner on the particular lapse in royal security last Thursday, will she commission a new and wider review of the current level of threat to, and the security needs of, the royal family, including cars used for travelling around London?
On the protests more widely, people were appalled to see on their TV screens pictures of protestors urinating on the statue of Winston Churchill, swinging on flags on the Cenotaph or causing widespread criminal damage. It is important that those who commit violent acts are brought, and are seen to be brought, to justice, so will the Home Secretary tell the House not just how many protestors have been arrested but how many have actually been charged following these and earlier disturbances? It is important that we know that fact.
On resources, the Met deployed 3,000 officers last Thursday. On the day when the Home Secretary is announcing the biggest peacetime cuts to police funding in more than a century, can she confirm that next year and the year after, our police will still have the resources to police major events and keep our communities safe? Given that the biggest cuts in police budgets and numbers in London and across the country are scheduled to fall in the year of the Olympics, can she explain why, despite previously telling the House that the £600 million budget for Olympics policing and security would be protected, she is now seeking to cut it to £475 million—a 21% reduction that will put further pressure on police budgets—as she has announced this afternoon?
I turn to police tactics and the future use of water cannon and rubber bullets. Will the Home Secretary agree to set aside her own views and respect the operational judgment of the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, that the use of water cannon and rubber bullets in protests would be a blunt instrument and very difficult, and would risk escalating matters and doing more harm than good?
Finally, given that we have Second Reading of the police Bill this afternoon, and that for the first time we will have a single elected individual with the power to direct policing, can the Home Secretary tell the House what would happen if, in future, an elected police commissioner were to make a manifesto commitment to introduce water cannon and rubber bullets? Who would decide how best to keep our streets safe—the chief constable or the politician?
Mrs May
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the police who so bravely stood up to the demonstrators and ensured that Parliament was protected last week during the demonstrations, and indeed the police who took action and policed London during the demonstrations that occurred on two previous days.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, including about royal protection and whether there should be a wider review in future. We regularly examine the provision of the protection scheme for members of the royal family, and indeed the protection that, as he will be aware, the Metropolitan police provides to other individuals in the UK, including a number of politicians such as members of the Government. It is important that that is done. It is also important that we clearly identify what happened in this incident and whether any issues need to be addressed as a result, and factor that into any considerations in the review of royal protection.
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the number of people who have been arrested is varying, and is a moving feast. If I may, I will update him on the number of people who have been charged, but he will recognise that it will be changing over time—
Mrs May
Information will be provided to the office of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) separately. We will do that to ensure that he knows the figure. He mentioned resources, but I have to say to him that, as someone who worked closely with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister under the previous Labour Government, and who has made something of a name for himself on the issue of figures, he really needs to pay a little more attention to the figures—[Interruption.] He says he is not asking about that, but he specifically asked me about Olympic security, and said that we would no longer be providing the £600 million we had set aside for that purpose.
Mrs May
I see that he is nodding. I refer him to the written ministerial statement on police funding that was tabled in Parliament this morning:
“Safety and security for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics is a priority for this Government”,
and a £600 million funding envelope will remain available for this purpose.
Mrs May
I am very happy to read the next bit. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand this, and it tells us quite a lot about his and his colleagues’ attitude to funding. That £600 million has been protected; he said that it had not been, but it has. It has been possible, through efficiencies, to look at the amount we currently consider it might be necessary to spend, and we go on to say that we are confident that we can deliver this for around £475 million, but we are protecting—[Interruption.] Oh, so the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in trying to save money! That tells us a lot about him.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the general issue of resources, and, yes, the funding allocations for individual police forces have been announced in the written ministerial statement today. I simply remind him that the Metropolitan police, in dealing with the incidents and demonstrations that took place last month and this month, are largely operating on the budget that was set by the Labour Government.
The right hon. Gentleman commented on tactics, and he mentioned rubber bullets. I do not think that, so far, either I or anybody on this side of the House has suggested the use of rubber bullets. I will clarify the position on water cannon. It is of course the responsibility of the Home Office to set the legal parameters for measures that can be used by the police, and, as I speak, water cannon have yet to be approved as a piece of equipment that can be used by the police. Then, senior police officers have the operational responsibility to decide what equipment they use, currently in agreement with police authorities and, in future, in agreement with police and crime commissioners. In relation to London, that decision would be agreed with the Mayor of London, who is the equivalent of a police and crime commissioner. I think that that mixture of legal oversight, professional discretion and democratic consent has to be right. However, I do not think that anyone wants to see water cannon used on the streets of Britain. As I said in my statement, if the right hon. Gentleman heard me, we have a different attitude to the culture of policing here in the UK. We police by consent, and that depends on trust between the police and the public. A range of measures is available to the police, and I do not think that water cannon are needed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about police and crime commissioners, and said that, in future, they would have the power to direct policing. In advance of our debate later this afternoon, may I tell him that that is precisely what the police and crime commissioners will not have? Operational independence of the police chiefs will be maintained with police and crime commissioners, and if he does not understand that he obviously does not understand the Bill we shall debate later.
The police did a good job last Thursday, as they have done at previous demonstrations. They did make some errors, as the commissioner admitted, in relation to the first day of student demonstrations. We should thank them for all that they do to ensure that Parliament can carry on its debates unhindered by protesters.
Mr Speaker
Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. There are two further statements to follow, before we even reach the main business of the day, so if I am to accommodate the maximum number of colleagues on this statement, brevity in question and answer alike is essential.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Having faced rioters in Northern Ireland, I think that the fundamental problem was the route, which put thousands of potentially infiltrated marchers down Whitehall, with symbols of authority on both sides. It would have been much better to route the march to a public park—Southwark park or Hyde park—which I understand the National Union of Students wanted for the first march. Why are we not using snatch squads to take out the ringleaders before they can incite violence?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. Difficult judgments are made about the routes of these marches. He refers to the decisions, or the desires, of the NUS. One of the disappointments of what has happened so far is that, although the police have engaged with the NUS and discussed possible routes, a significant number of people have, sadly, come along purely to cause trouble, and the police have been dealing with them as best they can.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I endorse what the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) said about violence helping only the exact opposite cause to that which the students seek to espouse. Will the report that will be produced on Friday deal in detail with the breakdown of and lapse in intelligence and communication, which is highly unusual with the protection service? Above all, will she say whether, under the police Bill, she would report to the House at all if such a demonstration took place in London, or more likely in Leeds, Liverpool or Sheffield, and there was a breakdown of law and order?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. In relation to what the report on royal protection will go into, he referred to a couple of matters on which there has been press speculation, such as the communications equipment. That is exactly the sort of issue that the report will consider. It will look in detail at exactly what happened, and will come out on Friday, although the amount of information that can be made public will be limited.
On the second point, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am here making a statement, and that we already have the equivalent of a police and crime commissioner in London—the Mayor.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary agree that there should be no knee-jerk reaction to this cowardly attack? We do not want to change the relationship between British citizens and the royal family, nor should we change policing tactics radically by introducing water cannon or rubber bullets.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to appear before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow, when I am sure she will be probed on these and other issues. She is right that the police did an excellent job in protecting the Houses of Parliament, but there were concerns about other areas of the city. Although there will be an internal investigation, does she not consider it appropriate that Sir Denis O’Connor, chief inspector of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, provide guidance, not just for the Metropolitan police but for police in other areas, as that would be of great value to those who have to police such demonstrations in different cities in the future?
Mrs May
I look forward to appearing before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have a number of very pertinent questions. There has already been a review of public order policing, but Sir Denis O’Connor is looking again at that review, in the light of what has taken place.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that one problem is that the police know that any attempt to deal with violent protest will be met by a barrage of complaints to the IPCC, which some in high places will support? Does she accept that it is time that we started to think a little more about the human rights of police officers to do their jobs free of assault and injury?
Mrs May
In any such instances, the police have a balance to attain when policing protests. It is right that they should be accountable for their actions, and that the IPPC looks into questions and complaints about police actions, as with the individual who was seriously injured. However, it is also right for us to make it absolutely clear that the violence was the fault of those who came along determined to perpetrate it.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I was particularly impressed with the intelligent, engaged and reasonable way in which many students came from my constituency to the House to lobby me as an MP, but is it not sad that the Home Secretary said nothing about them in her statement? What is she doing to encourage the police and the protest organisers to work together so that the voice of reasonable, legal protest is not silenced?
Mrs May
The police have the job not only of protecting Parliament and keeping our streets safe at such times, but of ensuring that peaceful protest can take place. That is what they were doing. Significantly, they ensured that pedestrian access to the House was open at all times so that a number of students who wished to come and lobby their Members of Parliament could do so. They had their voice heard and Parliament was able to debate unhindered the topic under consideration, and the police did a very good job.
Mr Speaker
Order. I must just remind the House that in keeping with very long-standing convention, Members who were not here at the start of the Home Secretary’s statement should not expect to be called.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary accept that it is just as unacceptable for violent extremists to be present at student demonstrations as it would be for provocative foreign preachers to be present in the country when they have threatened to burn the Koran?
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
May I join the Home Secretary in what she said about the violence and the conduct of the police last week? Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I would not completely rule out consideration of the use of water cannon, although nobody should think of that as a panacea. It is worth recalling that the last time water cannon was used—in Belfast—it was in the face of sustained attack from blast bombs and live rounds. Does she agree that the commissioner’s priorities on days such as last Thursday must be good intelligence, effective communication and the earliest possible arrest of those who come looking for violence?
Mrs May
Indeed. The importance of intelligence and understanding what could happen is a significant element in the policing of such events. The use of water cannon has not traditionally been a part of the British model of policing. It has been used in Northern Ireland on occasions, but when there has been live fire, as the right hon. Gentleman said, which is a different sort of circumstance. It is important that we take operational advice from the police. Ultimately, such matters are operational police decisions, but, as I said, in England and Wales, it is a matter for the Home Office to determine whether using such measures is legal.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary share the dismay of my constituents from the garrison town of Warminster at the truly gross acts perpetrated against the Cenotaph in Whitehall? Does she hope, like they do, that the criminal justice system is particularly severe on privileged and expensively educated people who should know better?
Mrs May
It is absolutely essential that all those who perpetrated acts of criminal damage and violence feel the full force of the law on them. The vast majority of the public of this country were dismayed to see a privileged young man desecrate the Cenotaph in that way, and attempt to desecrate the memory of our troops. They will contrast the bravery of our troops in Afghanistan with the actions of that individual.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and associate myself with her condemnation of the thugs who invaded parts of this city last week. I also observe, however, that parts of the police operation, especially the royal detail, gave the appearance of being a shambles. That will require a serious report. Can she comment on whether a request has already been made for two water cannon to be drawn from the stock of six available in Northern Ireland? Is she aware of any conversations in that regard between the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Mrs May
On the tactics used by the police when policing demonstrations, the police will always consider all the available options. I have set out clearly the current position on the use of water cannon in England and Wales, but that has not yet been approved by the Home Office—
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I absolutely deplore the violence and recognise the challenge that the police face in trying to ensure a proportionate response. However, does the Home Secretary recognise that there is still concern about the use of kettling and the handful of police officers who allegedly covered up their identification numbers? Will she look into these matters and make a statement to the House?
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary confident that every peaceful protestor contained within a cordon was aware that they could leave peacefully via Whitehall?
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Will the thugs responsible be made to pay financially for the criminal damage caused?
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary recall that in last year’s policing White Paper it was suggested that a protocol be compiled by police officers, police authorities and the Government on the policing of protests? Will she update us on the progress of that protocol?
Mrs May
It is clear that there should be regular reviews of how public order policing is undertaken. I have already said, in response to a question from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, that HMIC, having looked at public order policing, is now further considering the matter in response to the recent incidents.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
There are occasions when the national community spirit of what is right and wrong can be as powerful as the law itself. I was encouraged to see a sense of national disgust and outrage at the events on Thursday, particularly the deliberate damage to the Cenotaph and the statue of Churchill—an insult to the people who championed the very freedoms that allowed the protesters to stage their protest in the first place.
Mrs May
Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that the damage done to the Cenotaph and the sort of behaviour we saw there brought those demonstrators into disrepute. Also, many members of the public felt sick at the sight of a privileged individual behaving in that way, especially given that our brave troops in Afghanistan are putting their lives on the line for us every minute of the day.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
No one here—I include myself in that—wants to condone any act of hooliganism, but does the Home Secretary accept that the large majority of people protesting on Thursday did so peacefully and lawfully? In my view, they had every justification for protesting. Will she let us know as quickly as possible why apparently—I repeat, apparently—attempts were made to prevent Alfie Meadows from being admitted to the hospital where he was later operated on for some three hours?
Mrs May
In response to the latter question, I can say, as I did in my statement, that the IPCC is investigating what happened to Alfie Meadows, who had serious head injuries. It is not appropriate for me to comment on that matter; it is for the IPCC to investigate it fully and properly. Of course a large number of people came to protest peacefully on Thursday. However, unlike in the previous demonstrations, the violent protesters were not a small minority—there was a significant number of violent demonstrators.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Given that we saw a feral mob intent on riot and desecrating important national symbols such as the Cenotaph, the statue of Churchill and the Supreme Court, will the Home Secretary praise in particular the restraint shown by the police in the face of such provocation and attacks from protesters?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The police very bravely faced significant provocation last Thursday, and they did indeed exercise restraint. A number of incidents are being investigated, but overall the police showed restraint, ensuring that Parliament was able to conduct its business and that people could access this place for the right and proper democratic debate that we wanted to take place.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
I support the Home Secretary’s condemnation of violence, and I recognise the no-win situation the police find themselves in in such demonstrations, but what is her view of kettling, including of children? It is becoming more common, and when it goes on for hour after hour, does it not become a form of open air imprisonment that has nothing to do with the right of peaceful protest in our country?
Mrs May
The whole issue of kettling has been looked at previously. It has been supported as an appropriate technique that is available to the police to use. The operational decision on when it is right to use kettling—or not—must be left to the police. It is not for us as politicians to say, on any one occasion, whether it is appropriate to use kettling, but overall as a tactic it is appropriate.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
My constituents will be incredibly concerned about reports that suggest that some agitators came from overseas countries, such as Latvia and Germany. If that is the case, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that such agitators do not come from overseas in future?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me down a road that it is not necessarily appropriate for me to go down on this occasion. All I will say is that it is important that we look at the make-up of the crowd. As I said in my statement, sadly what we saw was a significant number of people who came not to protest peacefully but to perpetrate and encourage violence and criminal damage.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Is not the point of a kettle that it brings things to the boil? Is the Home Secretary comfortable that largely because of her Government’s decisions on the education maintenance allowance, minors and other young people were caught up in the kettle? She says that those who remained peaceful and wished to leave Whitehall were able to do so, but can she confirm that the IPCC is investigating a number of complaints about young people not being able to leave?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
What support can the police give to the organisers of public protests to help them to ensure that their protests are not infiltrated by malevolent forces who wish only to exploit and not enhance their cause?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an important point about those who organise such demonstrations and who want to be able to carry out peaceful protest, so that their cause is not damaged by any violence that takes place. The police do engage with protesters: they were speaking with the National Union of Students and the university of London union before last Thursday’s demonstration, making every effort to work with them on what would be appropriate to enable the peaceful protest to take place. However, I was very concerned when I saw one of the stewards of last Thursday’s event interviewed on the BBC. When asked whether he would condemn the violence of the protesters, he said no, he would not. It does not help if organisations only appear to want to encourage peaceful protest.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary aware that these protests had echoes of the poll tax demonstrations from years ago? As then, we now have a nasty, right-wing Government bringing in violent policies that people have only one way to react to—on the streets. And they will do it again, so long as this right-wing Government, with the Liberals as their allies, bring those policies in.
Mrs May
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I had thought that perhaps in his many years in this House, he had mellowed slightly in his approach. I am very sorry that he spoke about violence but did not seek to condemn those who undertook violent protest, criminal damage and damage to individuals, including police officers.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend commend the officers, particularly those of the royalty protection branch, for their admirable and extraordinary restraint when dealing with the disgraceful attack on the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, and recognise that the vast majority of protection officers in other countries around the world might well have resorted to deadly force in similar circumstances?
Mrs May
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the restraint shown by the royal protection officers, as did the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on Friday morning in his radio interview. It was important that the officers concentrated on getting His Royal Highness and the Duchess of Cornwall to their venue, which they did admirably and in a short space of time. They did indeed respond with restraint.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I met a number of students last Thursday evening who were shocked and distressed. They were entirely peaceable people, but they had been held for seven hours against their will on the streets of this capital city and they were terrified when horses charged into them while they were taking part in a demonstration to raise their legitimate concerns. Will the Home Secretary have a serious discussion with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the use of kettling tactics and corralling people against their will when they wish only to demonstrate peacefully against what they see as—and I agree with them—the monstrous imposition of a fees increase.
Mrs May
I am afraid that the picture of what happened last Thursday as set out by the hon. Gentleman is somewhat different from what happened. Yes, there were peaceful protesters, and the police were making sure that those protesters were able to leave the Parliament square area if they wished to do so. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would join me in condemning the violence shown by the significant number of people who came to the demonstration intent on creating criminal damage, trouble and mayhem. I hope he will also condemn the appalling behaviour of the individual who sought to desecrate the Cenotaph.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the only people responsible for the violence were the thugs who committed it. I too commend the actions of the police, which I saw from my office window. Will she give us some idea of when the substantive report into the violence will be brought forward and acted upon, because after three marches and three occasions of increasing violence, surely something needs to be done?
Mrs May
Of course the Metropolitan police look at what happens in any demonstration, decide whether they need to use different tactics and look to see what lessons can be learned from the previous one. That is entirely right and proper, but decisions about the tactics that will be used for any demonstration are operational matters for the Metropolitan police.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Home Secretary was reported yesterday as appearing to contemplate the use of water cannon; today, she appears to be ruling out the use of water cannon. Will she clarify this beyond any doubt: will she rule out the use of water cannon on British streets?
Mrs May
I made it clear in my earlier comments that I do not think anybody wants water cannon used on British streets. What I said in the interview yesterday is that the Metropolitan police will of course look at the range of tactics available to them to consider whether there is any tactic not yet used that they might wish to use. Currently, as I speak here today, the legal position is that water cannon are not approved for use on the streets of England and Wales. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my interview yesterday, he would have heard me make the point that we have a different approach to policing in this country from what is seen in many continental countries. I have reiterated that view in my statement today and in further responses to the questions put to me. In Britain, we police by consent, which depends on the link of trust between the police and the public—and long may that continue.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Given what some student leaders have said since the scenes that we saw on Thursday—many are still refusing to condemn the violence—does the Home Secretary expect similar violent protests in the coming weeks? Will she assure us that everything possible is being done to ensure that the scenes that we saw on Thursday are not repeated?
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers has excellent guidelines on kettling or containment. Does she agree that in the future—never mind what has happened in the past—it would be good to focus specifically on communication between the organisers of demonstrations and the police?
Mrs May
Yes, there are guidelines on the use of kettling, when it is appropriate and how it should be undertaken. As for communications between the police and organisers, one of the features of the demonstrations that have taken place so far is that although the police have taken great pains to communicate with the organisers, sadly the organisers have then not appeared to be able to maintain the demonstration as originally suggested. We have seen a number of violent people doing what they want to do, which is to create criminal damage and violence at the heart of those demonstrations, and that is something that we must all condemn. Peaceful protest is appropriate, and we want to enable it to happen, but violent protest is not.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I accept that the police had a very difficult job to do last Thursday, but last night when I met students at the university of the West of England who had been in London to carry out a lawful and peaceful protest, I was disturbed to hear their accounts of how they felt the police had overstepped the mark, to see video footage of horses charging into protesters, and told of injuries from truncheons and so on. Can the Home Secretary assure me that if I write to her giving personal accounts from people who were there on Thursday, she will treat their complaints seriously?
Mrs May
Of course the hon. Lady is free to write to me about those matters. There is a formal process which is appropriate if individuals wish to make complaints about the way the police have treated them, and a number of complaints are currently being investigated. However, let me point out to the hon. Lady and to any other Members who may agree with her that we should not focus on how the police responded. They should be accountable and complaints should be investigated, but we must ensure that we focus on those whose responsibility it was for violence to occur in the first place. That was not the police; it was the protesters.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, wholeheartedly condemn the deliberate violence-mongering that ruined what would otherwise have been a perfectly admirable peaceful protest last Thursday, but the Home Secretary seems to be equivocating a bit on the question of water cannon. She said that they were not legal yet, as if she was implying that she might be persuaded to change her mind. As one who experienced water cannon in Chile in the 1980s, I can assure her that they are entirely indiscriminate, can lead to panic among those who are protesting, and can cause serious injury. The last time they were used in Stuttgart was a couple of months ago, when two people were blinded by them. Will the Home Secretary therefore rule out giving permission for the use of water cannon in this country?
Mrs May
I have made the position absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman and others. I do not think that any of us want to see water cannon being used on the streets of England and Wales. I have said that several times in response to questions on my statement, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should have listened to my earlier answers.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Home Secretary and all colleagues for their co-operation. I now call the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make his statement.
Local Government Finance
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on finance for English local authorities for 2011 to 2013.
The spending review set out how the Government would tackle the catastrophic levels of public debt by delivering necessary reductions in public spending to accelerate deficit reduction and put the public finances back on a sustainable footing. This has involved difficult, but essential and responsible, decisions. Every part of the public sector needs to do its bit to help to reduce the highest deficit in the UK’s peacetime history and the rapidly rising national debt that this Government have inherited.
Last year, the Government borrowed one pound in every four they spent. That threatened our economic credibility. In contrast, our plans to eliminate the current structural deficit over five years have won the backing of the International Monetary Fund, kept our credit rating steady and held interest rates down. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast confirms we are taking the right steps. Its message is that Britain’s recovery is on track.
I have sought to achieve a fair and sustainable settlement for local government by listening to what the local government community has asked for. It will be a progressive settlement that is fair between different parts of the country. First, we have focused on the most vulnerable communities with significant social challenges. These are often the areas that are most reliant on Government grant, so equal grant reductions would leave the poorest places worst off. We have insulated them by giving more weight to the levels of need within different areas and less weight to per capita distributions. We have also grouped councils into four bands, reflecting their dependence on central Government. More dependent places will therefore see proportionally lower falls than more self-sufficient places.
Secondly, we have listened to concerns about the front-loading of the reductions. The Local Government Association asked me to focus on local government total spending, including not just grants but income from council tax and NHS funding to support social care and benefit health. It said that reductions in spending should be limited to 8%. As far as possible, I have given the LGA what it asked for. I have made sure that no authority will face more than an 8.9% reduction in spending power in either 2011-12 or 2012-13. In fact, the average reduction in spending power for 2011-12 is 4.4%. To fund this, I have transferred an extra £30 million of my Department’s budget to local government for 2011-12. I have also provided a grant of £85 million for 2011-12 and £14 million for 2012-13 to fund councils who would otherwise have seen sharper falls.
The spending review also announced that the Government would protect the public from excessive council tax rises. We have set aside £650 million so every council can freeze council tax next year without hitting local services. We will provide councils that freeze council tax with the equivalent of a 2.5% increase in funding instead. That will provide real help to hard-working families and people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners. The Government also want to ensure that council tax payers are protected against authorities that reject the offer and impose excessive council tax rises. We will introduce powers for residents to veto excessive council tax increases through a local referendum. In the meantime, the Government will take capping action against councils that propose excessive rises.
When the House debates the final local government finance report next year, I will set out the capping principles. I will also publish shortly details of the figures that will be used to compare authorities’ budgets between years, should capping be necessary. The previous Government had planned to cap the police authorities of Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire after they set excessive increases in 2010-11. Subject to challenge, we will ensure that, should they decide not to freeze the council tax, neither can impose an increase of over 2.5% in 2011-12.
This settlement also supports the Government’s commitment to adult social care, providing councils with sufficient resources to protect people’s access to care and to deliver improved quality of outcome. That includes £150 million of NHS funding in 2011-12 to support social care services, promoting integrated working between primary care trusts and local authorities and benefiting the health system. The settlement directs more formula grant to authorities that deliver social care.
Despite all the actions we have taken, I recognise that local government still faces significant challenges. The vast majority of councils have been making sensible plans to address them. I support that and I am restoring real power to councils, ensuring that Whitehall interference, red tape and the burdens of inspection and regulations are gone. The Localism Bill, published today, will deliver a new democratic settlement to local councils, overturning decades of central Government control.
For too long, councils have been barred from using their initiative and creativity to improve services. The limited “power of well-being” acted as an obstacle to cost savings, such as mutual insurance companies. Today’s Bill will fundamentally change councils’ freedom to act in the interest of their local communities through a new general power of competence. That will give councils the legal reassurance and confidence they need to innovate, drive down costs and deliver more effective services. I am also giving councils greater control over their budgets.
With very few exceptions, we have ended grant ring-fencing so that councils can decide for themselves how their money is spent. We will also allow them to borrow against future business rates receipts. Councils now have the freedom and responsibility to concentrate on what residents want: protecting front-line services. To support them, I have set aside £2 million to help councils to modernise and reduce back-office costs.
Councils can protect front-line services by sharing services and back-office functions, improving procurement to get more for less, bringing increasing senior pay under control and using transparency to cut waste. Proactive councils are already taking the opportunity radically to rethink and transform their services. There are also substantial incentives available for councils to invest in long-term projects, which include the new homes bonus and £1.4 billion of regional growth funds over three years—a fund that goes well beyond the working neighbourhoods fund. There will now be a statutory consultation on the settlement for 2011-12 and I look forward to hearing representations from councils.
Finally, this is a transitional settlement, using an inherited system. That is why I have set out details only for the next two years to strike a balance between the need to help councils plan and the need to reform the system. This system, based on redistributing business rates, makes councils heavily reliant on handouts from central Government—some depend on us for up to 75% of their spending power. It is part of the trend that has led to some areas of the country becoming completely dependent on the public sector. It makes planning difficult, weakens local accountability and stifles local innovation. There is no incentive for councils to invest in their local economy as they will see most of the proceeds disappear.
That is why I have set up a review of business rates with the intention that, in future, local government will be able to keep more of what it collects. Ultimately, the councils that invest and support the local economy will be able better to use the finances themselves. The local government resource review will begin in the new year. I commend the statement to the House.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving us 40 minutes’ advance notice of his statement and its 11 attachments. Obviously, we will have to look very carefully at the detail of today’s settlement because, as we all know, the devil is in the detail. I welcome his acknowledgement of the concerns about front loading caused by the comprehensive spending review profile. Many have made that case, although even today the Minister for Housing and Local Government seemed to deny, on a programme that we both appeared on, that front loading would be a problem. The fact is that it still exists, even after the Secretary of State’s statement, but it is a shame that it was not uppermost in his mind when he raced to the front of the queue to settle his Department’s cuts with the Chancellor.
At first sight, there is little else to be thankful for, because today’s announcement includes heavily front-loaded cuts to local government that are not only damaging but deeply cynical. The Secretary of State comes to the House with his statement in one hand and a localism shovel in the other, because he thinks that today is a good day to bury bad news. We have been inundated with empty rhetoric about localism, three written ministerial statements on localism, the publication and First Reading of the long-awaited and much-delayed Localism Bill and a stream of articles and briefings over the weekend, including appearances in which he has waxed lyrical about devolving power to local government. All those promises ring hollow when at the same time he imposes unprecedented cuts on town halls the length and breadth of the country. He is offering councils devolution while holding a gun to their head.
Today we find out what the Government really plan to devolve to local councils: the most devastating cuts in funding for a generation and the blame for difficult decisions. What is worse, the Secretary of State does this with barely disguised relish and to the cheers of his Back Benchers. Time and again, he has spoken of the virtues of local government. He promises to free local councils from the shackles of Whitehall and pledges to give them extra freedoms and powers, but if he really believes in local government, why has he imposed cuts on town halls up and down the country bigger than those for almost every Whitehall Department? Does he really believe that the regional growth fund, which has been sliced enormously, can make up for the losses that local government is facing? Why has he still front loaded the cuts so that the heaviest reductions will fall in the first two years and why has he refused to give councils the help and flexibility they need to meet the cost of redundancy payments? I think that he meant to refer to £200 million to help with costs rather than £2 million, which is what he said. Even so, the Local Government Association is asking for £2 billion-worth of flexibility to handle the redundancy payments that will have to be faced across England.
What further assurances can the Secretary of State give that the poorest councils will not bear the heaviest burden? Like others, I was intrigued when he talked about the spending power of local authorities. Will he explain in more detail how he has worked out each council’s total spending power to enable him to claim that no authority will face more than an 8.9% reduction in spending power from 2011 to 2013? Why does he not talk about the revenue support grant and the cuts to that rather than mixing in council tax revenues and spending provided by the NHS? For someone with so much to say about town hall communications, bin collections and Christmas celebrations, and given that barely a speech passes without being spiced up by a reference to curries, the Secretary of State has so little say about the impact of these cuts. Local councils, the people whom they employ and the communities they serve deserve better than that, as do their partners in the big society. Today’s settlement means that far from community groups and the voluntary sector being liberated to do more, as the Government promise, they might be so hampered that they end up doing much less.
Be in no doubt: these cuts will hit front-line services and cause massive job losses in the public and private sectors. For all Ministers’ traipsing around the TV studios pretending that savings of this magnitude can be made by efficiency drives and sharing back-room functions alone, the reality is very different—and everybody knows it. Even Baroness Eaton, a Conservative peer and the chair of the Local Government Association has admitted:
“These cuts will hurt. We know this means there will be fewer libraries, more potholes going unrepaired, parks shutting earlier and youth clubs closing.”
This is not about whether or not local government funding should be reduced. Across the House, we all accept that the deficit needs reducing—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Yes, and that would have meant cuts to local government funding whoever won the election—I made that clear in last week’s debate and I say it again today—but the Government have made their choice. They have chosen to impose cuts on local government harder and faster than in almost any Whitehall Department. There is nothing localist about that. We on the Labour Benches are in favour of empowering local councils and giving people a greater say in the way they run their local communities and in how services are provided, but if the Secretary of State thinks that he can get away with using localism as a smokescreen for unprecedented cuts to local government which still, even after today’s statement, fall heaviest in the first two years, he had better think again.
The Secretary of State announced today the dawn of a new constitutional settlement. I therefore look forward to his confirmation that, in line with convention, the Localism Bill will be considered in Committee on the Floor of the House.
In last week’s Opposition day debate I set the Secretary of State three challenges: to spread the cuts more evenly over four years; to protects jobs and front-line services by ensuring that councils have sufficient capitalisation funds to meet the cost of redundancy payments; and to ensure that the burden of cuts is spread fairly around the country and between our communities. Despite today’s assurances, he has not convinced us that his localism is any more than a cover for cuts. People up and down the country will pay the price for his failure.
Mr Pickles
Well, so much for gratitude. I do not want to start up the hunting debate again, but we have shot the right hon. Lady’s fox and she has been less than gracious. The first thing we did was to change relative needs level from 73% to 83%. Then we introduced banded floors, and then we introduced a special damping for authorities more dependent on grant than others. This settlement—this formula—is more progressive, protecting vulnerable communities, than anything that the Labour party has produced.
As for the right hon. Lady saying, “What are these figures?”, it is not so long ago that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was demanding this way of measurement—that we should not just take basic grant and that we should include the question of council tax and money coming from other grants and from the national health service which primary care trusts are spending. It is good to see along the Front Bench my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, who has done so much to ensure that local government is getting additional powers in this area.
We have delivered everything that the Opposition identified. We have protected the most vulnerable. The right hon. Lady seemed to start saying that we had not done too bad a job, but found that she had notes prepared earlier condemning us.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome this truly progressive statement. I congratulate my local authorities in Crawley and West Sussex on the significant efficiency savings that they have already made. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as we develop the funding formula, it will become more transparent?
Mr Pickles
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that will be the case. The present formula is very difficult to operate. In developing it I had worries with regard to balancing need against sparsity. It is always difficult to do that. We had to move extra money across from my Department in order to protect certain vulnerable districts that are not benefiting from the increase in spending in respect of adult social care and the extra help being offered in conjunction with PCTs.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
Although the Secretary of State clearly has the stomach for these terrible cuts, that is not the case in local government. In Rochdale, the Liberal-Conservative coalition council has collapsed under the weight of the Government’s unfair front-loaded cuts. Today the eighth Lib Dem councillor resigned from their party. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Rochdale’s Labour councillors, who have put lead in their pencils and taken minority control to create a compassionate council that cares about local people?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman had clearly prepared his speech before I delivered my statement. How can 8.9% extra help to Rochdale—to his council—and the following year a 4.3% drop in spending power be regarded as front loading? We have gone out of our way to help Rochdale. We have offered more help than the Labour party would have done. The hon. Gentleman’s council would be a lot worse off if we had applied Labour’s formula. This is a progressive settlement which protects the vulnerable, and the hon. Gentleman does himself no good by not recognising that fact.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I welcome the statement and, in particular, the announcement of a general power of competence for local councils. Will that or a similar power extend to parish councils? There is a great opportunity for parish councils to help local councils, as we did in my village this weekend with snow removal. There is a great opportunity also for parish councils, working with their district councils, to help save money, so will that power extend to the parishes?
Mr Pickles
Increasingly, we will encourage more parish councils to be formed. We believe that the neighbourhood is the natural point to which funding should go for local authorities, and I am very happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that, indeed, parish councils will get a general power of competence. Basically, the chain will turn on its head: the normal presumption is that councils have to find a law to take a particular action; now, they will have to find a law that prevents them from doing so. I think that that will allow for greater flexibility.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, whom I must describe as Eric through the looking glass, on being able to persuade his minority coalition partners that a scorched earth policy is actually fair and progressive. This year, the national business rate will raise just over £22 billion. Is it not the case that, by 2014-15, the amount that central Government distribute will equal the business rate and run very close to breaking the current law, whereby they are required to distribute the whole grant to English local government?
Mr Pickles
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the allusion. He seems to be vying for the title of the Red Queen: judgment first, judgment first, before he hears the facts.
Mr Pickles
Before the right hon. Gentleman disappears down his own rabbit hole, I will continue.
There is a theoretical surplus in 2013-14, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that we have an obligation to distribute the national non-domestic rate to authorities. The figure of £3 billion is overstated, because the Office for Budget Responsibility has not taken into account the number of grants that we have rolled into the block grant. We have done that because of its distributive effect, and by 2013-14 we hope that a new system of local government finance will be in place.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
This announcement is the other side of the coin for flood defence spending. Will my right hon. Friend explain what proportions of the budget, with the removal of ring fencing, will be spent on capital expenditure and on maintenance? Will he consult on the possibility, if councils find themselves short of money, of water companies adopting and maintaining new sustainable drainage systems?
Mr Pickles
The latter point will of course be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On the capital programme, the various Departments will make their usual announcements in the reasonably near future, so that local authorities have an indication of their capital programmes.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State speaks of fair, sustainable and progressive proposals, but he must be using a different dictionary from the one on my bookcase, because his proposals will devastate my deprived constituency and borough of Lewisham. Given that 40% of the budget is spent on elderly and children’s care, can he not see that the proposals will mean draconian cuts in everything else? Will he not admit that his real agenda is shrinking the state and shifting the blame?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that Lewisham faces a drop in spending of 6.5% this year and 4.3% the following year. That does not strike me as draconian by any stretch of the imagination. She has made her reputation on shroud waving in this Chamber, but she should be addressing the needs of the people of Lewisham, who will continue to receive a high level of support from the central state to ensure reasonable provision in Lewisham.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the ending of ring fencing announced today and the introduction of the Localism Bill mark an historic turning point for local government in our country? After 13 years of the previous Government micro-managing every part of local government, today marks the day when the coalition takes Whitehall out of the town hall.
Mr Pickles
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted that the reductions in Cornwall will be 3.9% next year and 2.2% the following year. He is entirely correct. No matter what the Opposition say, we are passing real, substantial powers to local authorities. We have reduced the number ring-fenced from 90 to about 10. The only substantial ones to note are the school grant and the national health service grant that starts in 2013. We have given local authorities a great deal of leeway and discretion. Given that the Local Government Association said that it would be perfectly capable of dealing with a 9% reduction in spending and that the overwhelming majority of councils are well below 8%, I am very surprised—as, no doubt, he is—that there is not more celebration across the Chamber.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Liverpool is the most deprived city in the country and 40% of 16 to 18-year-olds there are about to lose all their education maintenance allowances. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much Liverpool will lose in cash terms, including the cuts already made this year?
Mr Pickles
I made a very pleasant visit to Liverpool earlier this year and had the opportunity to meet and spend time with Councillor Joe Anderson. He told me that he felt that his chief executive and senior staff were overpaid. I commend to the hon. Lady the very brave decision that he has taken today to reduce his top management of 74 by 48. By just removing 48 staff and those among the top officers taking pay cuts, £4.25 million has been saved. That is an indication of the determination of Liverpool. I am delighted to tell her that giving a new damping grant to Liverpool has meant that we have saved an extra £15 million on top of that.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Given the unique problems faced by rural areas and the incredible creativity and energy with which the Eden valley and other communities are overcoming their problems, will the Secretary of State please reassure us about the impact that these decisions will have on rural communities?
Mr Pickles
One of the great difficulties that I have alluded to is trying to balance relative need with sparsity, which is extremely difficult. I was very keen to pass the additional money available for adult social care into those communities. That has meant that some district councils—by their nature, because they are not social services departments—have faced a quite considerable reduction. That is why we have moved additional money across from my Department to ensure that those communities are not put at a disadvantage. I admit to my hon. Friend that this is a stop-gap, but I hope that within two years we will be producing a much fairer, much more transparent and much more honest policy. We are operating on the basis of an inherited policy, but frankly it was not worth the candle to dismantle it just for two years.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
As Coventry council declares hundreds of redundancies, how does the Secretary of State justify his denials that he is relishing wielding the axe, given that he was one of the first Secretaries of State to settle with the Treasury at one of the highest levels of cuts? How does he claim to be concerned about the most deprived communities given the cuts that he made to the area-based grants, which fall almost entirely on those councils with the most deprived areas within their jurisdictions?
Mr Pickles
The right hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished Member of the House, and he should know not to believe everything he sees in the newspapers. I settled with the Chancellor three days—I think—before the final settlement. I have no idea why the stories that I was an early settler came out. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be delighted that Coventry faces a cut in its spending of 5.9%, and 3.9% the following year. The substantive point is this. I listened to the chief executive of Coventry council this morning on the radio, and given what the council has been doing in terms of greater efficiency and amalgamating services, what we have been able to offer through this process has meant that Coventry has received considerable protection. The levels of cuts are in single figures. This time last week, Opposition Members told us that we were going to see reductions in spending of 20% or 30%. We were told it was going to be Armageddon, so they would have settled for 5.9%.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
While I congratulate the Secretary of State on looking after the most vulnerable people in society, may I press him to give some comfort to middle England and the district councils, particularly given the situation that we face over disabled the facility grant and other issues that are coming along, especially in South Derbyshire?
Mr Pickles
We are all paying a great deal of attention to the squeezed middle, not least those on the Opposition Benches. One of the consequences of our decision to put substantial moneys into adult social care, as well as the move-across on the bus grant, is that the district councils, by proportion, received a much smaller amount. That is why we put in some additional sums of money in order to protect them. I think that middle England is safe with the coalition.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right that local government was fearful of the up-front nature of the cuts, which is still there, and the disparities in the cuts, particularly in that they most adversely affect those authorities with the highest level of grant. Will he therefore produce figures comparing not only grant settlements year on year but total spending levels, including council tax, authority by authority? Although he says that the highest cuts in total spending power reduction will be 9%, if the average is 4.4%, does that not mean that some authorities will get no cuts at all, or even perhaps a small increase?
Mr Pickles
I believe that Dorset gets a 0.1% increase in its financing; I hope that it will not go mad and squander that additional sum of money. I do not think that any place in England is seeing an increase, when the fact that district councils are receiving a considerably greater reduction in their spending power is taken into consideration. The hon. Gentleman may have seen the bundle of documents that I have here, which include lots of things explaining exactly how we have done this. I commend to him the straightforward calculation on pages 55 to 56, which explains precisely and exactly how the figures have been worked out.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I remind hon. Members that questions are supposed to be short. If the answers could be short as well, that would be helpful, because many hon. Members still wish to participate.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend commend Lichfield district council and Tamworth borough council on leading the way by sharing front-of-house and back-office services to save council tax payers’ money? Will he also congratulate Tamworth borough council on its announcement that it is freezing council tax? It is the first time that that has happened in Tamworth in a generation. Does that not demonstrate that Conservative councils offer value-for-money services—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have only just said to the House that there should be short questions. That does not mean three short questions or four short questions. The Secretary of State will answer one of those questions.
Mr Pickles
In the interests of brevity, I congratulate Tamworth. That is the kind of Tamworth declaration that I would expect.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that he is being generous in putting £30 million of his departmental budget into local government. For a big man, that is pretty small beer. Does he accept the truth that the abolition of area-based grant means that the poorest places, especially in the north, will be worse off? In Salford, £3 million of area-based grant goes into tackling crime and disorder.
Mr Pickles
For Salford, the reduction in spending power will be 8.5% next year and 3.9% the following year. There is a misunderstanding from the right hon. Lady, although I do not mean that disrespectfully. The way to protect the poorest is to put money into the block grant, because that is the most distributive grant. That point is like the argument about the level of capitalisation. The more money that goes into the block grant, the more that vulnerable communities are protected.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I support powers to veto excessive council tax rates, especially for those on fixed incomes. That will be welcomed in my constituency, where under the former Labour-controlled council, council tax rates rocketed by 42% in just three years. To protect residents, what levels can we expect for future capping rates?
Mr Pickles
Of course, I hope that it will not be necessary to cap any authority this year. I rather hope that they will all accept the council tax freeze. The beauty of the measure is that once we get through this year, there will be no more capping. A reasonable level will be suggested, and after that, local people can decide. If local authorities make a reasonable case for an increase, so be it. The measure will act as a break against excessive council tax rises.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State expresses surprise that we are not rejoicing at the settlement that he has announced. After 13 years of Labour Government announcements that always contained year-on-year real terms increases in grants to local authorities, this year the Secretary of State is announcing a settlement in which every local authority in England—with the possible exception of Dorset, although that point was not entirely clear—will suffer a loss. Is that not an indication of what the Tory in government means?
Mr Pickles
The right hon. Gentleman would not have dreamed of the relative needs level of 83%. Frankly, somebody as distinguished as he should not be asking, “Why are there cuts? What’s happening?” We are in debt. The country is in a parlous state. Our level of sovereign debt is the highest in Europe. Had his party won the election, there would be real cuts in real terms in local government right now.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Under the previous Government, St Albans city and district council, like other councils, laboured under an enormously bureaucratic and interfering assessment regime, with its regulations and inspections. Will the localism policy and the cuts in red tape save local authorities money through not having to comply with expensive regulations?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have got rid of comprehensive area assessments and all the daft targets, which achieved absolutely nothing. The problem with them was that they cost serious money to put together. That money can now be applied to front-line services.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that grant floors are important to boroughs such as Knowsley. Can he explain how his banded floors will operate, and will he indicate what percentage will apply in each of the four bands?
Mr Pickles
I am happy to do that. Let us deal first with social services authorities. In 2011-12, the floor will be 11.3% for the most dependent authorities, then 12.3%, 13.3% and 14.3% for the least dependent. In the case of shire districts, the floor will be 13.8% for the most dependent, then 14.8%, 15.8% and 16.8%, so there is a good 3% difference between the various bands. Of course, for an authority such as Knowsley there will be a transitional grant on top of that to get the levels down to 8.9%.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the new formula more adequately addresses the needs of authorities such as Sefton that have a disproportionate number of elderly residents?
Mr Pickles
Authorities with elderly residents, of course, will be some of the relatively big gainers because of the provision of adult social care. We want to put extra money into authorities with social services departments, and thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, we are looking at putting in serious money to deal with adult social care. I can recall standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box and asking for precisely the action that we have delivered today.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Given what the Secretary of State has said about fairness, why is it that from looking through the list of London borough grant changes, we see that the biggest losses in absolute and percentage terms are in the local authority areas where the level of disadvantage is the greatest?
Mr Pickles
I wish to make it absolutely clear that obviously, authorities that are more dependent on the grant will feel the effects of any reduction. We have moved the relative needs figure to 83%, and introduced the banded floors and the transitional grant, to protect those authorities. Had we not taken those decisions, and had we applied the system that the Labour party did, the effects on those communities would indeed have been great.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today. Is it not the case that across the country, there are lots of examples of local authorities working in partnership to reduce costs, sometimes across political divides? Will he outline how he can encourage local authorities along the line of more collaborative behaviour?
Mr Pickles
I am pleased to report that a number of authorities have gone some considerable way to find savings that can be made. We have already talked about Coventry, and Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster have started to join together to improve things. Birmingham has managed to save £130 million by outsourcing and Suffolk £40 million by divesting services. In the west midlands, asset rationalisation has achieved a £640 million saving. There is a very long list, which I shall not read out, but it is immensely important that authorities recognise that they can protect front-line services by shifting resources from the centre to the most vulnerable.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
No matter what the Secretary of State says, the fact is that Tameside council is preparing for massive spending reductions over the next four years. Given that he has said that the changes are fair and sustainable, how does he square that situation for a borough ranked the 56th most deprived local authority area in England?
Mr Pickles
Tameside is enjoying considerable protection because of the three steps that I have announced, which I will not repeat. There are additional ways in which Tameside could improve its financial position, including through the regional development fund and such like. In fact, I have just been told that Tameside has a reduction in spending of 6.2%, which hardly figures with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, so I shall look forward to finding a nice thank you note from him on the board tonight.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on protecting adult social care and on listening to local councils about front-end loading? May I also commend to him the work of East Staffordshire borough council, which, by cutting expensive senior management, is protecting front-line jobs and services? Does he agree that average reductions of just 4.4% will mean that no council should be cutting front-line services?
Mr Pickles
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This move goes hand in hand with increased transparency, because, by the end of January, every local authority will have to produce online all expenditure of more than £500 for close scrutiny by the electorate. If authorities are not cutting senior management but are instead taking out front-line services, it will not be me to whom they will be accountable but their electorate. I believe that this settlement will ensure that the trend towards a reduction in the centre and the protection of front-line services will be accelerated.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much money councils will be getting from the NHS to spend not on social care but on public health?
Mr Pickles
There are two funds, which add up to just a smidgen over £2 billion. The co-operation of the Department of Health, and the move in which local authorities with social services departments will now have an opportunity to influence the local health scene, represent a considerable change of which Joseph Chamberlain would have been proud. This will put local authorities in their rightful place of being able to co-ordinate a vital part of public health provision.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State how he has dealt with the mess that he inherited from the previous Government around concessionary bus travel, which is so important for communities in North Yorkshire?
Mr Pickles
It has been a most dreadful experience, with the moves from the districts to the counties. One of the principal problems has been that a number of district authorities put in more money than the Government were actually giving them. At some point, some of that money was passported across to the counties, so that the districts registered a loss. I have tried to help by adopting a broad-brush approach of putting additional money into districts that are faced with a big loss in their spending power, but this is only a provisional assessment, and I will be listening carefully to what local authorities have to say on this issue.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State think that Mr David Shakespeare should remain as leader of the Conservative group on the Local Government Association after his offensive remark last week, which has been reported in today’s newspapers, that constituents from poorer parts of the north—including areas such as my own—should
“replace the Romanians in the cherry orchards”?
Mr Pickles
I was not aware of Councillor Shakespeare’s remarks until the hon. Gentleman mentioned them. I will be seeing him first thing on Wednesday morning, and I shall ask him precisely what he meant by that.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to review business rates revenue. May I encourage him by saying that giving much of the business rates revenue back to local councils would reward proactive councils such as Gloucester city council, which sets out to attract inward investment, which is a great source of new jobs?
Mr Pickles
I am very aware of my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have visited it and know how proactive the council is in trying to bring in business. That is the secret: we need a system that rewards enterprise and initiative. Sadly, the current system tends to stifle both.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that, in the early part of the year, before the general election, Birmingham city council was already facing a major overspend. It claimed that it was not getting enough money from the then Labour Government, whereas one or two others said that the overspend was due to the council’s mismanagement. Now that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to cut even more money from Birmingham city council, which does he think it was? Will he give the cash figure for the reductions in Birmingham? How does his statement relate to the forthcoming 20% cut in police numbers that his hon. Friends in the Home Office also propose for the west midlands?
Mr Pickles
I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that Birmingham faces a cut in its spending of 8.3%, and 4.3% for next year. I am also pleased to tell him that Birmingham has managed, through outsourcing, to reduce the gross level by £135 million, which is attractive. The hon. Gentleman represents a party that got us into the mess in the first place.
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman says, “Oh it’s the banks”. Big Government, with unsustained borrowing, got us into the mess. Labour Members must take their fair share of guilt and blame for that.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
In Macclesfield, we are fortunate to have the wonderful Bollington leisure centre, which is run by the community for the community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that success story clearly shows what local communities will be able to do under the powers of the Localism Bill?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend clearly shows what localism can do, and the Localism Bill will ensure that more communities can do that. He will have noticed the scoffing on the Labour Benches about ordinary people banding together to protect a community facility. We have to emphasise that it does not have to be owned by the state to be used by the community. My hon. Friend clearly demonstrates the future; Labour Members demonstrate the past.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this year, Liverpool, the most deprived local authority, sustained the largest cut to its area-based grant of any core city. Will the Secretary of State now please answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and tell us how much he is cutting in cash terms from Liverpool’s budget?
Mr Pickles
One of the reasons why the hon. Lady’s constituents and the fine city of Liverpool face a problem is the working neighbourhoods fund, which the Labour party cut. It took that money away. We had to find a way to pay for that, which is why Liverpool will be restricted to a loss of 8.7% and 7.1%. In addition, on the tour to which I referred earlier, we ensured that the money for decent homes, which the previous Government abandoned, was provided for Liverpool. Liverpool is in a much stronger position now than it was when the Labour Government were in power.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
While I welcome today’s statement, particularly the measures that go towards tax incremental finance, will my right hon. Friend consider making them developer led, rather than local authority led? When the measures were trailblazed in the United States a couple of decades ago, most American cities and states found that regeneration was much more effective when they were developer rather than local authority led.
Mr Pickles
Obviously, as part of my job, I have met a number of developers. Those who have reasonably full books as far as housing is concerned are the ones who have got alongside a local community. Those developers are seen not as an occupying army bulldozing over the green belt, as was the case under the previous Labour Government. They work alongside local communities, clearly demonstrating the benefits that development can bring to a neighbourhood. I think that that is the future—developers, local government and local communities working in co-operation—and that is what the Localism Bill will deliver.
Mr Ronnie Campbell
I met the chief executive of my local authority, Northumberland county council, last week. He tells me that he must save £100 million in the next two or three years. I hazard to say that that puts Northumberland county council in a right pickle. Is it not true that all that is happening is that services are being slashed and cut, people are being put on the dole, and the volunteers, if the Secretary of State can get them, must come in to replace them?
Mr Pickles
I have good news for the hon. Gentleman in terms of the loss of spending power, which is just 5.6% this year and 3.2% next year. As he is so cosy with his chief executive, he should ask him to take a pay cut to reduce central funding and the central office, to start sharing with other authorities, and instead of cutting the front line, to start cutting the feather-bedding.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I am delighted that rurality and the age of the population will be taken into account, but may I have some reassurance that Devon will not find itself, as now, right at the bottom of the spending league tables for schools, with children having roughly £400 per head less spent on them because of the cost of transport, among other things?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend should be pleased to know that Devon faces a cut of 1.8% in its spending. One reason for that, as in other local authorities, is that social services are offered a degree of protection depending on the number of elderly people who have chosen to live there. However, some of the districts have to rely on the full amount in terms of the guarantee of no more than 8.9%.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State lost his train of thought this morning on the “Today” programme, which we can well understand given his disgraceful statement to the House this afternoon, but may I ask him a specific question? In the banding annex of the local government finance report, Dorset is in band 4, but he said that it will receive a slight increase in funding, or at least no cut. Will Halton, which is in band 1—the most deprived band—receive an increase in funding? It cannot be fair for somewhere in band 4 to get a better settlement than somewhere in band 1.
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman would be better to can the abuse and read the plain English guide to the settlement, which I commend to him because it demonstrates that what he just said is nonsense.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State share my sadness that such a tough local government settlement was necessitated because the previous Government shattered the public finances? Despite that, can he confirm that he has found £650 million to ensure that council tax is frozen next year in Dover and Deal and across England?
Mr Pickles
I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend and to say that the council tax freeze will offer substantial protection to his constituents, who have worked hard and paid through the nose for council services over the years, seeing enormous increases under Labour. I am delighted that we can offer that additional money to freeze council tax.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that Bolsover lost every single pit when the Tories were last in, and that every single textile factory was closed? It is in the bottom 50 of all constituencies in Britain in terms of deprivation, and there is something sinister in him deciding to cut Bolsover’s grant by 20.3%. Why?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Bolsover will receive the full protection of the 8.9% cap in terms of its total spending power. That is a substantial difference—[Interruption.] He chunters, but we have opted for a measure regarded as desirable by the Local Government Association and his Front-Bench team a week ago. He should not blame the method just because it has not delivered the kind of bloody stumps that Labour Members wanted.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Local authorities all over the country will welcome the £200 million set aside to transform back-office functions and cut bureaucracy, but they will be concerned about how they can access the money. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the £200-million figure and state how local authorities can access it, so that we can see those reductions in bureaucracy and the transformation of the system?
Mr Pickles
They will gain access in precisely the same way they have gained access this year and in previous years: they will bid for an amount. No authority has ever received 100% so the £200 million will be apportioned on a percentage basis. I look forward to receiving applications from authorities throughout the country.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The verdict on this policy will be delivered next May and in May 2012, and I fear that the Secretary of State has just written the Götterdämmerung of Conservative councillors over the next four or five years. In Rotherham, there are literally hundreds of voluntary organisations relying on just a small helping hand from local government of a few hundred or few thousand pounds—not big money. May I ask him to pay particular attention to that to ensure that the voluntary sector does not go under as a result of the settlement?
Mr Pickles
Given that the reduction in spending for Rotherham is just 5%, it should be in a strong position to continue funding those groups. At a time when funding by Government grant is being reduced by 26%—14% in terms of total resource—it is beholden on local authorities not to salami-slice, but to restructure in order to achieve the advantages of back-office mergers. If Rotherham, which is a fine authority, does that, I am sure that those small grants will be protected.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Towns such as Dartmouth and Kingsbridge in my constituency are resisting the imposition of high and unwanted on-street parking charges by the county council that they see as a back-door form of revenue raising. Would my right hon. Friend encourage them to organise a local referendum?
Mr Pickles
It is always a bit of an inconvenience when the public make their position known—democracy is always a bit messy, but it is the best system we have. I cannot see any problem with local authorities facilitating such a referendum. The county council could also think about delegating that function to the local towns, so that they can organise these things. That is what happens in an awful lot of districts. My hon. Friend represents an attractive part of the world that many of us visit in slightly more clement times. However, car parking can be vital to a local economy so if she wants to start the referendum process, she has my full support.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Further to the question from the shadow Secretary of State, given that the Secretary of State has repeatedly referred to the Localism Bill, in the House and on the radio this morning, as a new constitutional settlement, will he confirm that all stages will be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr Pickles
Madam Deputy Speaker, you have asked for brevity, so I am happy to say no. A longer answer is: not a chance.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to reforming the fundamentally flawed system that he has inherited? However, does he agree that in the interim, councils such as mine—which, unlike most local authorities, saw real-terms cuts under the previous Labour Government—will have a particularly hard time?
Mr Pickles
I do recognise that, and I apologise to my hon. Friend. I would not have wanted to start from this position; I would have wanted a fairer, more reasonable system. However, I recognise that when we start to move money around the country and change things round, we have to put in floors and ceilings. That would have been more disruptive to local government than what we are doing, which we are at least doing on the basis that we are all in this together and that we have managed to protect the most vulnerable authorities.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
I have in my hand a rather thin document entitled “The thinking that underpins the Localism Bill”. It is full of big words such as “liberalism”, “community politics” and “big society”, some of which the Deputy Prime Minister thinks he understands, but is all this not just hot air unless we see a real end to rate capping, an offer of local tax-raising powers in communities and the return of the business rate, which the Tories removed?
Mr Pickles
Except for the abuse, it sounds as if the hon. Gentleman might be ready to defect across the Chamber—and we will, of course, be ready. I would hardly describe the bundle of documents that we have issued as insubstantial, and frankly, I would commend to him the plain English guide to the settlement. However, if he wants to make a representation to the Government about the reform of local government finance, he is most welcome to do so, because I will be absolutely frank: although he is no longer in his usual place, we are indebted to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), on whose hard work we will be building, but who received scant thanks from the previous Government.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
My Colne Valley constituents, and in particular the Lingards community association, are excited about the Localism Bill, because it comes at a time when Labour-run Kirklees council is running a consultation costing tens of thousands of pounds—perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds—in order to impose 28,000 new homes on our beautiful part of west Yorkshire. Will the Secretary of State join me in confirming that the Localism Bill will give powers to local people to decide where local houses will be built?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We are not talking about the Localism Bill; we are talking about the settlement. As the hon. Gentleman did not ask about the settlement, we will move on.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that there are “substantial incentives available for councils,” and he mentioned the new homes bonus. May I ask him to ensure that demolitions will be netted off? I have 2,500 empty properties in my constituency, and if demolitions are included, there will be no new homes bonus for what is one of the most deprived constituencies. Another point that I want to touch on briefly—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. No, the hon. Gentleman will not raise another point. This has already gone on for a long time. I have been very patient, despite the fact that I have asked people for short questions and short answers.
Mr Pickles
We are talking about a regeneration fund, and we will indeed be offering part of the new homes bonus to get property that is empty after a period back into service.
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but we are responsible for the new homes bonus, so I tend to think that we probably know a little more about it than him, and he should be reasonably happy about that answer.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Those responsible for providing adult social care who have heard the right hon. Gentleman predicting that the settlement will result in improved quality may think that he is telling a cruel joke. Is he confident that when ADASS—the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services—and the Local Government Association have studied the detail of the settlement, they will stop saying that there will be a shortfall in social care funding of billions of pounds?
Mr Pickles
I have to say that, not so long ago, I was at the Opposition Dispatch Box asking for this kind of money. We are talking about the only substantial increase in social care that this House has seen for a very long time. Frankly, mocking it is ridiculous. What the settlement will also do is increase co-operation and co-ordination between the health service and social services. That is something that we can all unite behind. There are many reasons—I suppose—to attack the settlement, but that is certainly not one of them.
Cancun Climate Change Conference
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the United Nations climate conference in Cancun. The House will remember the disappointment of last year’s conference in Copenhagen, particularly its failure to agree a comprehensive and legally binding global treaty to supplement or replace the Kyoto protocol. Expectations for the Cancun conference were not high. After Copenhagen, it seemed as if the very principle of multilateralism was on trial. Our objectives, therefore, were modest. We aimed to demonstrate that the UN process was back on track. We also hoped to put in place some of the building blocks for an eventual global agreement and to rebuild momentum.
I am delighted to say that our expectations were not just met, but exceeded. The conference agreed a series of linked decisions under both its tracks: the Kyoto protocol and the framework for reaching a new and more comprehensive agreement. Emissions reduction pledges made under the Copenhagen accord by developed and developing countries provided a valuable starting point and have been brought into the UN climate convention framework. We can now assess the overall policy pledges against the requirements of the science.
These decisions provide a solid foundation for further work. For the first time, there is an international commitment to
“deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions”
to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2° C. This includes processes for adopting targets for peaking emissions as soon as possible and substantially reducing them by 2050.
The conference also adopted decisions to develop systems for measuring, reporting and verifying emission reductions and actions in line with countries’ commitments. This is essential to confidence in each other’s actions. Developing countries will get access to low-carbon technology and help with adaptation to climate change. Market-based mechanisms will be considered to deliver effective reductions in emissions at least cost.
Forestry was a key area. The conference agreed the framework for REDD plus—reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation—through which developing countries will be paid for keeping trees standing rather than logging them. The conference also made progress on rules for accounting for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto protocol—an issue that was too difficult to be settled last year or at Kyoto and it has remained problematic ever since Kyoto.
The conference also agreed the establishment of a green climate fund to support policies and activities in developing countries. The fund will be governed by a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, and its finances will be managed in the first instance by the World Bank. A transitional committee will be established to design the institutions and operations of the fund, and we aim to see that make rapid progress. The conference also endorsed the commitment made by developed countries at Copenhagen to mobilise at least $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.
The conference did not settle the future of the Kyoto protocol, nor did it adopt a new and more comprehensive treaty incorporating all countries. Neither outcome was realistically possible this year. Nevertheless, the agreements reached at Cancun represent a very significant step forward, particularly given that it seemed possible, even as late as last Thursday, that the conference would break up over precisely that issue. In the end, every country represented there, with the exception of Bolivia, felt able to support the outcomes.
There remains much to do in the run-up to the 2011 climate conference in Durban. Given the outcome of Cancun, however, we can be far more confident than seemed possible just a few weeks ago. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the Government of Mexico, who were responsible for hosting and chairing the conference. The diplomatic skill, political courage and dogged determination of Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa and her team was responsible in very large part for its success. I was happy to be able to support her in co-chairing some of the negotiating groups that addressed the key issues.
I also wish to pay tribute to the British team of negotiators. Even though our delegation was one of the smallest of those of the G8 countries, its members played a key role in many of the detailed negotiating groups, often leading for the EU. The climate diplomacy carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the year leading up to the conference clearly helped to lay the groundwork for a successful conclusion.
Tackling climate change should transcend party politics. Britain has built a strong reputation internationally as a forward-looking country, and I thank my predecessor for his work in helping to achieve that. I was also pleased to be able to include in the UK delegation representatives of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly Government; it was the first time that that had happened.
The coalition Government are determined to tackle the accelerating threat of climate change. We intend to demonstrate how a successful and prosperous low-carbon economy can be developed in the United Kingdom and the European Union, providing employment, exports and energy security and reducing emissions. The Energy Bill published last week and the consultation paper on electricity reform to be published later this week are key components of that, as is the adoption of a more ambitious target for reducing EU carbon emissions, and in that context I welcome the Spanish Government’s recent declaration of support for a 30% reduction in EU emissions by 2020. We are pressing for an ambitious package of measures to be agreed by EU leaders in February next year to create the infrastructure and incentives for a faster move to a low-carbon economy within Europe.
On the international front, we will build on the momentum achieved in Cancun. There is much still to be achieved, but we can now look forward with renewed optimism to the Durban conference next year. As the representative of one non-governmental organisation said,
“Cancun may have saved the process but it did not yet save the climate”.
That is true, but in saving the process it represents a triumph for the spirit of international co-operation in tackling an international threat, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming that.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for early sight of it.
International progress on climate change is of the utmost importance to us all. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has been able to attend the House in person today, so that we have a chance to question the Government on progress. We must acknowledge that the agreements made in Cancun are an important step in the right direction, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Mexican Government on creating an environment in which the nations of the world could agree a common statement. The statement of intent that has come out of Cancun builds on provisions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in Copenhagen last year, and we all hope that it will pave the way for more ambitious aims in South Africa next year.
We welcome the establishment of a climate fund to help developing nations and commitments to take action on deforestation. We also welcome the acknowledgement of the gap between the promised emission cuts and the cuts that the science tell us are necessary. Does the Secretary of State believe that holding to an increase of below 2º is enough, given that scientists now say that an increase of between 2º and 4º is more likely?
We have a long way to go, and, as the Secretary of State said, it is essential that the Government take a lead internationally. The right hon. Gentleman has already suggested that the European emission reduction target should be 30% by 2020, and he recently issued a statement with Germany and France pressing for such a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Last week, the Committee on Climate Change reported in support of that aim. We are delighted that Spain is now on board. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether that is the extent of European Union support? He talks of pressing for measures in the EU, but will he say what practical steps he and the Government are taking in Europe? It might be said that the Government whom he represents are not of one mind when it comes to European relations, and we and the country need to know which point of view dominates the agenda. Will there really be progress by February?
The Secretary of State was involved in discussions and conversations on Kyoto. Is he able to give the House a better sense of how those negotiations went, although they were not an outright success?
The climate fund to assist developing nations is a welcome step, but we need assurances that funds will be in place. I welcome the Secretary of State’s aim to see rapid progress on the part of the transitional committee. Can he give us a timetable for that progress? We have agreements, but we need to make sure that actions are taken or else the agreements will not be a foundation for change. Will the Secretary of State also give us further details on how finance will be secured, because the developing countries need this life-saving finance and they and their citizens cannot wait?
Finally, we need to see leadership from Britain and Europe over the next 12 months, before countries meet again in South Africa. The Government must demonstrate leadership at home—here in the UK—and in Europe. We need the Government to commit to low-carbon growth and to show they can deliver before the opportunity has passed. Although we have had welcome announcements from the Government about implementing the green deal for householders, we do not know whether it will include a carbon reduction target. The right hon. Gentleman has also announced that he will go ahead with the green investment bank, but we do not know whether there will be enough money for it to do its job.
We lack detail, therefore, yet we hear from businesses of the need for certainty, and households in fuel poverty need support and certainty too. We need flesh on the bones, and we need action between now and the next conference in South Africa.
Chris Huhne
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks, and I am delighted that there is, I think, a broad measure of political support from all three main parties in the House—and also from the nationalist parties, although none of their representatives is in the Chamber.
The hon. Lady was absolutely right to mention the continuing gap between what the science tells us is necessary to reduce carbon emissions and the pledges that were made in the Copenhagen accord and that are now incorporated in the United Nations framework convention on climate change process. The gap will be assessed as part of the work that will be set in train as a result of the agreements in Cancun, and the UN environment programme report was a useful first step in pointing that out.
I make no bones about the fact that we argued for, and would have liked, a clear commitment to a peaking of global emissions by 2020. The reality is that time is running out, and we need to be as precise as possible. We were not successful in achieving that clear and specific target, but we did have a clear commitment on peaking global emissions as early as possible and, obviously, we will move as quickly as we can towards achieving certainty.
Yes, it was welcome that Spain joined us. We have been working quite hard on the 30% commitment, including through some meetings in Cancun. The Minister with responsibility for climate change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), had meetings with the incoming presidency, and I had meetings with the Spanish Minister and other colleagues. Apart from Spain, France and Germany, we also now have a commitment from Denmark, and I am confident we will shortly have a commitment from Sweden as well, with all of them broadly in the same place. We must recognise that there are difficulties, especially for some of the economies still in transition, particularly Poland, which rely very much on lignite and hard coal, and we can try to deal with that. The process is under way and it will be important to address that in the new year.
The negotiations on legal form were always going to be exceptionally difficult, and we knew we could not reach an outcome. For the UK, the key negotiating strategy was to make sure that we embodied in the agreement at Cancun a substantial amount of substance that we can then show at Durban next year. Hopefully, that will provide a real incentive to the progressive countries that want to do a deal and to some of the more reluctant countries, by showing that there is enough on the table to make them be a little more flexible than they have been thus far on, for example, whether there is a commitment in the Kyoto protocol or whether it is in the convention track—and, indeed, whether there is a legal commitment in the convention track, which I very much hope, so that we can, effectively, have two parallel sides.
The hon. Lady asked about the finance. Fast-start finance is under way, and I am very pleased to be able to say that the Government have already disbursed the fast-start commitments we made for this financial year, and they have also been identified for the next financial year. Therefore, that money, which was agreed at Copenhagen, is being paid out. On the broader objective of $100 billion a year, we had an agreement to take note of the work that the advisory group on finance had done. That means that a lot of the work—for example, on bunker fuels and the potential for raising finance from aviation—can be taken into account and will go forward to Durban. I am cautiously optimistic that this advance will be crucial in getting the developing countries to sign up next year. This agreement, by the way, is the first time ever we have had an agreement by the developing countries to reduce their emissions compared with business as usual. That is quite a step forward, although it would obviously be nice to make it legally binding.
I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no division in the Government on leadership in Europe. I know she is sceptical, but we have worked very closely with all parts of Government, particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has done an outstanding job. The team in Mexico City and the FCO more widely have done an outstanding job in helping us to prepare for these talks. It is an agreed part of our strategy as a Government that we recognise that our power as a nation to achieve our national objectives in the area of climate change is immeasurably greater the greater the extent to which we work through our European partners and manage to get them on board. That has been a key part of our approach to this issue.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
May I echo my right hon. Friend’s words about Patricia Espinosa, the chair of the summit, and indeed echo her words to me in Cancun, which commended my right hon. Friend personally for the positive role that he played? May I ask him to elaborate a little further on the issue that he was asked to tackle by her, namely the risk that in 2012 we may still see the planet unprotected by any continuing international agreement?
Chris Huhne
We would obviously like, as my hon. Friend knows, to have a legally binding global agreement. That is our objective and I know that it is shared by those on both sides of the House. It is also shared by our European partners. We must not underestimate, however, the fact that although the convention track is not yet legally binding and does not have a commitment to a legal outcome—although a process was set up at Cancun whereby the convention track can discuss options for a legal outcome—the political commitment that it represents of incorporating the Copenhagen accord pledges within the UN framework and of having an agreement about the monitoring, reporting and verification of those pledges on the Kyoto side and international consultations, analysis and separate wording on the convention side is a significant step forward. We can have a lot of trust, and so can businesses, in the fact that that will underpin many of the investments that are being made.
Let me add one other point that gives me cautious optimism. Some of the countries that have been regarded as difficult and sceptical about making international commitments were much better as regards our objectives at Cancun. I hesitate to single out any one in particular, but it is striking that China is making commitments through its latest five-year plan that, were they incorporated into an international agreement, would reach a long way towards where we would like China to be. The Indian Government—in particular, I pay tribute to Minister Ramesh—played an outstanding role in ensuring that we could get a verification system that will stand the test of time.
This is a very significant agreement. We do not have a legally binding agreement yet. We would like that, but the political commitment and the substance of many of the decisions that have been taken are substantial.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State gave slightly shorter answers from now on. We have other important business and I am trying to ensure that every Member gets to put their one brief question to him.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I recognise and welcome the Secretary of State’s and the Government’s commitment in this area, but given that the $100 billion a year by 2020 was announced last year and the money did not come and given that the $30 billion a year fast-start funding was announced last year and did not come, why should any developing nation believe that Mexico will be different and not only that the money will come but that it will be new money that will be evenly balanced, as it was supposed to be, between mitigation and adaptation?
Chris Huhne
The fast-start finance is being paid. [Interruption.] No, actually, a very substantial amount is coming through. If one looks at our European partners and the Dutch Government’s website, which lists all the commitments that have already been made, including those outside Europe where countries have been stepping up to the plate, one sees there is a substantial measure of commitment. Things are not perfect and we are not all the way there but there is real money going through, and that can underpin real action early on to help developing countries in their efforts.
On the $100 billion, there is much more flesh on the bones than there was a year ago. We have the report of the advisory group on climate change financing, which has done a lot of good technical work, and it has been taken note of here. We will make progress through the rest of the year.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Obviously, we all welcome the progress that was made at Cancun and it is extremely good news that we are talking about processes being re-established. How does the Secretary of State think that China and India could be encouraged to co-operate more fully with the targets on carbon dioxide reduction?
Chris Huhne
I have already mentioned the very positive efforts that Minister Ramesh and the Indian Government have made, as well as the way in which China is incorporating real targets into its domestic legislation, including ensuring that more than a fifth of the Chinese population is covered by low-carbon pilot areas. China is now in a serious, leading position in a number of low-carbon technologies. It is the world’s largest producer of solar photovoltaics and I have had expressions of interest from Chinese firms about investing in the UK in offshore wind manufacturing facilities. Frankly, there is an enormous and very impressive level of commitment within China to serious investment in low-carbon products. I believe that will come forward in terms of an international commitment for the simple reason that those businesses need certainty about the international framework in exactly the same way as our businesses do, so we will get that change—indeed, we are getting it—in the Chinese Government’s position.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Given the importance of achieving some progress, however small, at Cancun, does the Secretary of State think that UN procedures are fit for purpose? In terms of the improvements that are needed, what role can Parliament take, given that the previous Government’s Climate Change Act 2008 gives us an opportunity to take a leading role across the planet?
Chris Huhne
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s question—I say that with some feeling—because she has hit the nail on the head. The agreements that we reached at Cancun were, in my view, reached despite the process and procedures rather than because of them. Frankly, I have never been involved in any international or national set of procedures with so little in the way of standing orders and rules of procedure designed to guide the participants towards a result. As a member of the National Union of Journalists, I think that any union chapel would despair at the lack of procedures and the lack of ability to push things through. Reform of the UN is above my pay grade, but having participated in this process I strongly hope we can move on and get to a better process, because this is a serious issue that needs it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend. What proportion of the funds going into the green climate fund and of the $100 billion by 2020 in funding for developing countries will be sourced from existing budgets that are currently available to the Department for International Development?
Chris Huhne
I can answer for the UK Government, but not for others. Some £2.9 billion will be drawn from the UK’s aid budget and that figure will rise to 0.7% of gross national income by 2013, so it will be additional to existing spending. We are also maintaining the previous Government’s commitment that the £2.9 billion will continue to account for less than 10% of overseas development assistance in every year of the spending period.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has spoken very grandly about his aspirations and what he wants from the UN and for the globe. On a much more mundane level, if he gets all his aspirations on carbon targets and renewables, how much extra will my constituents have to pay in their energy bills in each of the next 10 years?
Chris Huhne
Every year, in the annual energy statement, we set out the impact on consumers. The last time we made that calculation, in the annual energy statement in the summer, we calculated that, assuming an oil price of $80 a barrel, which is rather less than the current price, the total increase in household bills, taking into account our other policy measures, including energy saving, would be 1%. The higher oil and gas prices are, the greater the savings. The break-even point comes at $100 a barrel, beyond which our consumers will gain from the move to a low-carbon economy and away from the fossil-fuel economy.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeing the negotiations through to the very end last week; it was certainly worth it. Now that the green climate fund has been agreed, how does he intend to broker international consensus on which of the options for climate finance may be taken forward to fill it?
Chris Huhne
This is going to be a pretty difficult issue—we know that from the proceedings in the advisory group on climate change financing. There are a lot of options on the table, the technical work has largely been done and we have to hope that we can make further progress over the next year. Now that we have identified a clear political will to find that finance, we have to hope that the technical means to provide it will be there, but the technical options on bunker fuels, aviation and so on are set out in the group’s report.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I particularly welcome the progress on the REDD agreement that the Secretary of State has announced, especially given that deforestation accounts for up to a fifth of all annual global CO2 emissions. Will he be in a position, by the Durban summit, to update the House on the sources of funding for the programme, particularly on the contribution that will be made by businesses and Governments in the UK and the EU?
Chris Huhne
I hope that we can update the hon. Gentleman even before then because there was a commitment in Cancun to use fast-start finance to get this going. Sadly, I can answer only for the UK Government and not for the 192 or so other Governments who were represented at Cancun. However, I very much hope, and will keep my fingers crossed, that we will make even more progress on this.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the role that he and his team played at Cancun and on continuing the Labour party’s policies in that respect. Does he agree that individual European countries could afford to take a second Kyoto commitment period and that the EU could raise its emissions reduction target to 30% at very little extra cost given that, in the light of the recession, emissions have dropped?
Chris Huhne
I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady and I have repeatedly made exactly that point to my European Union colleagues. That argument is making real progress—for example, Spain is the latest country to commit to the 30% target—so we are gradually getting there, but there are problems for some member states. Rome was not built in a day, and neither was the European Union.
Bill Presented
Localism Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Secretary Pickles presented a Bill to make provision about the functions and procedures of local and certain other authorities; to make provision about the functions of the Local Commission for Administration in England; to enable the recovery of financial sanctions imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the United Kingdom from local and public authorities; to make provision about local government finance; to make provision about town and country planning, the Community Infrastructure Levy and the authorisation of nationally significant infrastructure projects; to make provision about social and other housing; to make provision about regeneration in London; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 126) with explanatory notes (Bill 126-EN)
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 230 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 225 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Before I call the Home Secretary, I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
From the very start of British policing, Sir Robert Peel’s key principle that the
“police are the public and the public are the police”
has set the standard across the world.
I am sure the whole House will join me in praising the bravery, courage and professionalism of our police officers and staff, who do their dangerous job usually unarmed. As we saw again last week, police officers up and down the country put their lives on the line every day. Neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers deal with antisocial behaviour, catch and deter criminals and reassure the public. The Government appreciate and value all their efforts.
But it is a sad fact that despite these efforts, crime is still too high, too many communities still live in fear, and too many people still do not believe, rightly or wrongly, that the criminal justice system is on their side. Our reforms to policing will make the service even better at fighting crime, more responsive to the needs of their local communities and much more efficient.
We will not just talk about being tough on crime and its causes. Instead, we will free police officers up to be tough on crime by slashing the bureaucracy and targets that have kept them from the streets, and by giving them back the discretion to do what they believe is right. We will shift power directly into the hands of the public as they elect police and crime commissioners to lead the fight against crime and disorder in their areas.
At national and international level, we will support the police in dealing with crime that crosses police force and international borders, so we will use subsequent legislation to introduce a powerful new operational body, the national crime agency, to take the fight against serious and organised crime to the next level and to enhance the security of our borders.
Britain remains a high crime country. In England and Wales alone, the police are recording more than 1,000 incidents of grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm every day and more than 4 million total crimes a year. That is unacceptable. We have one of the most expensive criminal justice systems in the world, but only half the public trust that it will protect them from criminals. We are now faced with the added challenge of cutting crime at the same time as we deal with the record budget deficit.
To those who say that we should slow the pace of reform because of the need to make budget cuts, I say that the economic situation makes reform more important, not less. We need to do more to cut crime, reduce bureaucracy, increase accountability and drive value for money precisely because we are reducing budgets.
The current policing governance arrangements are simply not working. Police authorities have become remote from the public—only 7% of people have even heard of them, and only 8% of local authority wards in England and Wales are represented on their police authority. They are not effective at doing what they are supposed to do. Fewer than one in three police authorities inspected last year were found to be performing well overall, and fewer than one in five performed well in setting strategic direction and value for money, despite the fact that these are their two main functions. They have neither the democratic mandate to set police priorities, nor the capability to scrutinise police performance.
We need a new approach, one that takes power from the bureaucrats and puts it back in the hands of the people and the professionals. So the deal for the police is greater public accountability through police and crime commissioners and, in exchange, more freedom to do their jobs, less Government interference and much less bureaucracy. We have already begun slashing Labour’s bureaucracy. By scrapping the stop-and-account form and cutting the items recorded during a stop and search, we will save 800,000 hours of police time every year, and that is just the start.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady join me in commending the work of Jan Berry, who was appointed by the previous Government but completed her report under the present Government, and her recommendations to reduce police bureaucracy? Will the right hon. Lady give the House an undertaking that that work will continue, and that Jan Berry or someone like her will continue to monitor the reduction in the bureaucracy that is hampering the police in doing their job?
Mrs May
I am happy to take up the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Jan Berry did a very good job in looking at police bureaucracy. Obviously, she had considerable experience which enabled her to do that. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the work will continue. We are already taking forward further work in a number of ways to examine the bureaucracy surrounding policing so that we can take further steps to reduce the amount of bureaucracy that the police have to deal with.
With a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box, police and crime commissioners will hold their chief constable to account for cutting crime. They will have the power to appoint and dismiss chief constables if they do not believe they are performing effectively. If the public do not believe that their police and crime commissioner is performing effectively, the commissioner will face the ultimate sanction of rejection at that same ballot box. Importantly, police and crime commissioners will set the annual budget for their force and will determine the local precept—the local contribution to policing costs.
Police authorities are not properly accountable for how public money is used, so they do not drive value for money in their forces. The democratic mandate of police and crime commissioners will put them in a much stronger position to drive the efficiencies and value for money needed to ensure that resources are focused on the front line.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Lady mentions a number of functions and areas of accountability. Does she agree that whoever is responsible for the police must ultimately be judged by success in reducing crime, which is the single most important objective that the police have to deliver?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I shall not echo what the Home Secretary has been saying. One of my big anxieties is that she talks about accountability in relation to the commissioners, but each of the forces in our land is a rather curious geographical unit. For instance, in the South Wales police, the demands of Swansea and of Cardiff will be completely and utterly different from the demands of valleys communities such as those in the Rhondda. It will be extremely hard for one person to reflect that better than a body of people who come together from the different communities.
Mrs May
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will shortly deal with part of the point that he makes.
Earlier today, we announced police force funding allocations. These ensure equal treatment across all forces, as each force will receive the same percentage reduction to its core Government funding. At the same time, we are giving the police service greater freedom than ever before over how to use its resources. With this new budgetary freedom, police and crime commissioners will be able to make real decisions about funding local priorities.
Concerns have been expressed about placing this degree of power in the hands of one person. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made the point about an individual representing, in some cases, a large area with competing and different requirements within it. The Bill will ensure that there are appropriate checks and balances on those powers.
At the core of our proposals is the establishment of new police and crime panels. These will ensure that there is a robust support and challenge role at force level, and that the decisions of the police and crime commissioners are tested on behalf of the public on a regular basis.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the ability of a single individual to be visible and accountable in an area such as Greater Manchester, with 2.5 million people. Is it not the case that the police and crime panels which the right hon. Lady proposes are remarkably similar to the police authorities, which have been criticised time and again for lack of visibility and lack of accountability?
Mrs May
No. I shall come on to describe some of the powers of the police and crime panels. That democratically elected individual is essential, restores a link between the police and the public, and makes sure that at those elections the public are able to have their say about what their police and crime commissioner is doing in terms of the responsibilities of the police. To those who raise the issue of representation of the full area, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda, I repeat the figure that I gave earlier in my speech: only 8% of local authority wards are currently represented on the police authorities, so the police authorities are not providing representation on the same basis as some of those who call for their continuation would argue.
Hazel Blears
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary, because those issues have obviously tested many Home Secretaries over the past few years. Has the right hon. Lady given any consideration to electing those local representatives, who would then be visible, accountable and have a local mandate?
Mrs May
Yes. Indeed, the right hon. Lady’s own Government looked at the possibility of electing police authorities and rejected it, but we are sure about what we are doing through the police and crime commissioners and the police and crime panels. The panels will comprise locally elected councillors and some independent and lay members, who will be able to veto a commissioner’s proposed precept by a three-quarters majority and veto any candidate a commissioner proposes for chief constable by the same majority. The public will also be given opportunities to scrutinise the performance of their police and crime commissioners directly, through enhanced local crime information, including street-level crime maps.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
On accountability, is it not the case that London has an elected Mayor, covering 6 million people? That person is highly visible, highly accountable and, even, highly popular. There are executive mayors throughout the country, including in Lewisham and in east London, who are highly visible and accountable, too, so surely the argument about accountability is a bogus one.
Mrs May
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is exactly right: this is not an untried method of dealing with police accountability. The Mayor of London is indeed the equivalent of a police and crime commissioner. Earlier, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said that the Mayor of London was “too visible”, but politicians should be out there, visible and able to take on—
Mr Hanson
Will the Home Secretary clarify one point? Under current legislation, it is illegal for a police officer to be a member of the British National party or of other extremist groups, but will she clarify whether these elected individuals, at local council level or at commissioner level, will be able to be members of such political parties? Will that be compatible with managing police officers, who cannot?
Mrs May
I am about to come on to exactly that point. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether it is appropriate for such individuals to belong to a political party of which a police officer cannot be a member, but one could argue that the same position already exists: Home Secretaries are elected under political banners. I actually trust the people of this country on elections.
I shall return to that point, because police and crime commissioners will give the public a real voice in policing. They will ensure that what the public care about is taken seriously, and that local people’s priorities are the priorities of the police. I thank ACPO for its constructive engagement in the reform process, and the Association of Police Authorities will have an important role to play until police and crime commissioners are introduced. We will continue working with the APA until that point. We have consulted widely with the public and with key partners, such as the APA and ACPO, through the consultation document “Policing in the 21st century: reconnecting police and the people”, which was published earlier this year, and in other consultation with them. We have listened to their views and amended our proposals accordingly.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
On consultation with the Association of Police Authorities, there is a letter in The Guardian today—[Interruption.] It is signed by the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour leaders on the APA, and it says:
“There is no evidence that PCCs”—
police and crime commissioners—
“will improve the service the public receive, and every reason to reject this proposal.”
Why has the Home Secretary failed to persuade Conservatives on the APA that her proposals are good proposals?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] His hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd can even do the turkey noises for him.
Let me explain my earlier comment. It is very straightforward. We have had discussions with the APA about the future of police and crime commissioners, and it is no surprise that police authority members are not as convinced as we are about setting up PCCs, because when they are set up, police authorities will be abolished. That was my point, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit of his views.
Ed Balls
Turkeys voting for Christmas? May I quote Sir Hugh Orde, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who said:
“Every professional bone in my body tells me it is a bad idea that could drive a coach and horses through the current model of accountability for no added value but plenty of confusion”?
Is the Home Secretary calling the head of ACPO a turkey as well?
Mrs May
No, I am not. Had the right hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have heard me say already how grateful we are for our constructive engagement with ACPO. We have listened to its comments on the introduction of police and crime commissioners and amended our proposals accordingly.
To return to the point about democracy, first, I see no reason not to trust the British public. We trust the public and we trust democracy, so I see no reason to constrain democracy by vetting or by excluding candidates we might think are extremist. The British public have shown over the years that they are perfectly capable of stopping extremists where they should be stopped—at the ballot box.
Secondly, although the whole point of our reforms is to improve the local accountability of the police, that in no way means that cross-boundary challenges such as organised crime, terrorism or other national policing issues will be neglected. Police and crime commissioners will be supported by a new strategic policing requirement to help them to hold their force to account for all its policing, and they will have a duty to collaborate with other police forces and other agencies, including the new national crime agency, on issues that cut across force boundaries. I am clear that the structures that we are putting in place must address national policing issues as well as local ones. Commissioners will also be required to work with other forces to simplify the arrangements for procurement and back-office functions in order to improve efficiency and achieve better value for money.
Thirdly, let me reassure the House that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will in no way affect the operational independence of the police. Commissioners will not manage police forces.
Mrs May
No, I am going to make some progress.
Commissioners will not manage police forces, and they will not be permitted to interfere in the day-to-day work of police officers. The Bill sets out for chief constables and for police and crime commissioners clearly defined roles that, in the words of the director of the Institute for Public Policy Research, are
“actually a pretty good definition of operational independence”.
I should also like to point out for the benefit of Opposition Front Benchers that we have included provisions to prevent police and crime commissioners from appointing political advisers from public funds. All appointments will need to be made on merit, and all posts must be politically neutral.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary clarify that point? My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) quite rightly raised the issue of political advisers for police and crime commissioners, but the Policing and Criminal Justice Minister says that the posts will be politically restricted. Although “politically restricted” means not being active politically, it does not mean that these political advisers cannot be a member of a political party. Will the Home Secretary therefore confirm that political advisers to police and crime commissioners can be members of a political party?
Vernon Coaker
I apologise to the Home Secretary for intervening again, but this is an extremely important point. When the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice explained the meaning of the term “politically restricted,” he said:
“You may not, for instance, be a member of a political party.”
It is not correct to say that someone cannot be a member of a political party when they are in a politically restricted post. Will the Home Secretary confirm that?
Mrs May
I am happy to confirm—this is at the heart of the matter, and I know that Opposition Front Benchers have been trying make something of the issue—that we are very clear that police and crime commissioners should not be able to appoint political advisers from public funds. I do not believe that that would be right. That is the intention behind what we are doing and this Bill.
Ed Balls
It is very important to be clear when we make statements in the House. It is not the case that Opposition Front Benchers have been trying to make something of the issue. At a meeting of the APA, the Policing and Criminal Justice Minister said that the first decision he would make if he were elected a police and crime commissioner would be to appoint a political adviser. Did he say that? Can the Home Secretary confirm that? If he did say it, can she tell him he was wrong to say it and that it is not in fact true?
Mrs May
I have just checked with my right hon. Friend and he is absolutely clear that he did not say that. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to think that the issue has suddenly arisen in the last minute, that the document that summarises the consultation responses to “Policing in the 21st century” states clearly on page 13, at paragraph 2.12:
“Whilst the PCC will be able to appoint staff to advise and assist them, all staff must be appointed on merit and will be politically restricted posts.”
[Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait. It goes on to state:
“Party political office holders and active party members will not be able to be appointed to the PCC’s staff.”
Our intention is absolutely clear.
The running costs and day-to-day expenditure of police and crime commissioners will not be any greater than that of police authorities.
Mrs May
I am going to make some progress; I have been very generous in giving way to Opposition Front Benchers.
The running costs and day-to-day expenditure of police and crime commissioners’ will be less than 1% of the total costs of policing. What will be different is the value that the public get for that money. Police and crime commissioners will need to demonstrate value for money to local people or they will simply not be re-elected. The only additional cost of police and crime commissioners will be the costs involved in running the elections because, as we know, democracy costs money. That cost will be £50 million over four years, compared with the £50 billion that will be spent on policing in the same period.
Mrs May
No, I shall make some progress. Let me make this point clear: the money will not come from funds that would otherwise have gone to policing. In the spending review, the Treasury provided funds specifically for these elections because it knows, as I do, that this money will help to cut crime. In contrast, I ask hon. Members to remember that we currently spend £120 million of public money every day on paying the interest alone on the debt that the previous Labour Government racked up.
Our proposals to introduce police and crime commissioners will reconnect the police with the public they serve, and will ensure that the police focus on what local people want, not on what national politicians think they want. Our proposals will help to cut crime and will deliver the efficient, effective and responsive police service that we all want.
As well as giving power back to communities in terms of policing, the Bill will give power over licensing decisions back to local communities. Five years ago, when Labour introduced 24-hour drinking, they promised us a European-style café culture. I was the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the time, and I told the House that Labour was being reckless in pressing ahead with longer licensing hours without first dealing with the problems of binge drinking. Sadly, Labour’s Licensing Act 2003 has proved to be the disaster that many predicted. The police continue to fight a battle against alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder, and the taxpayer continues to pick up the bill of more than £8 billion per year. Last year, there were more than 1 million alcohol-related hospital admissions. That cannot go on.
Over the summer, we consulted on plans to overhaul the Licensing Act to give local communities greater power to tackle the problems associated with alcohol. We received more than 1,000 responses, which we have taken into account. The Bill will give all those affected by licensed premises the chance to have a say in the licensing process. It will allow early morning restriction orders to be extended to between midnight and 6 am and it will give licensing authorities the power to take swift action to tackle problem premises by refusing licence applications or applying for a licence review, without having to wait for a relevant representation from a responsible authority. The Bill will also lower the evidential hurdle for licensing authorities, so that it is easier for them to refuse or revoke licences from irresponsible retailers. In addition, the Bill will double the maximum fine for under-age sales to £20,000.
Mrs May
May I pay tribute to the Home Affairs Committee’s work on the issue? I shall finish talking about what is in the Bill and will then comment on the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which is not covered in the Bill.
We shall allow local councils to charge a late-night levy on licensed premises that open after midnight to help to pay for late-night policing and other services, such as taxi marshals or street wardens. On the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which is not included in the Bill, the Government remain committed to banning the below-cost sale of alcohol and we will bring forward proposals on that shortly.
Right hon. and hon. Members will not need me to tell them of the growing concern about the availability, use and potential harm of so-called legal highs. We supported the previous Government in the action they took to ban mephedrone, and we have taken legislative action against a similar but even more potent drug: naphyrone. The existing arrangements for bringing a drug under control using the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 remains our preferred approach. However, it simply takes too long to respond effectively to these new and fast-evolving substances. In the meantime, their availability in the UK goes unchecked and we run the risk that they will gain a foothold—as mephedrone did—and that they will cause damage on our streets and harm to our young people. The power in the Bill to make year-long temporary class drug orders—temporary banning orders—will strike the right balance between swift action and expert advice. The offences in the Bill are rightly targeted at suppliers and traffickers, and carry significant penalties.
On a different issue, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from all parties would agree that for too long the historic Parliament square has been subjected to unacceptable levels of disruption and abuse caused by long-term encampments occupying the site. The actions of a small minority have also prevented others from enjoying an important public space. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 tried to deal with the disruption on the square by targeting protest as a whole, but it went too far and missed the point. The continuing occupation of the square and last week’s violence, on which I updated the House earlier, have shown that those measures have not worked. The Bill will restore the right to peaceful protest around Parliament by repealing the relevant sections of the 2005 Act.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I confess that I was responsible for the original clause in what became the 2005 Act. I would like to apologise for that, because we did not quite get it right. However, it is not the drafting of the legislation that matters but whether people are prepared to implement it. The Home Secretary will certainly have my support if she can manage to get the police and the local authority to work together to do something, rather than simply talking about it.
Mrs May
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I think it is fair to say that the whole of Parliament thought that previous attempts to deal with the matter had succeeded and that people were disappointed when we discovered that that was not the case. I can confirm that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who deals with crime prevention, has been working very closely on the matter with the Metropolitan police, the Greater London authority, Westminster city council and, indeed, with the House authorities where relevant. Those parties are willing to work together to ensure that we keep Parliament square clear of encampments. The Bill does not deal with the problem of permanent encampments by restricting protests across the board; it bans the use of tents, other equipment and the unauthorised use of loudhailers in Parliament square.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The Bill must go through the relevant parliamentary procedures and will probably not receive Royal Assent until the end of July. Is my right hon. Friend conscious of the fact that the royal wedding is in April and that there will be pressure to remove the encampment before that auspicious occasion?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Prime Minister made it clear at Prime Minister’s questions, and I have made it clear separately, that we need to ensure that we can clear Parliament square for the royal wedding on 29 April.
The Bill addresses another important area of law that is not currently working—the whole issue of how we apply universal jurisdiction, which is a key principle of international justice that enables some of the gravest offences to be prosecuted here, regardless of the state in which the offences were committed.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary accept that there are already adequate safeguards in this respect? It is not a question of someone simply going to the magistrates court alleging that a war criminal is on British soil. There is a feeling—she obviously does not share it—that this law is being changed as a result of the pressure that Israel put on the previous Government and is clearly putting on this Government. It does seem unfortunate that we are going to change the law because a foreign country has put such pressure on us.
Mrs May
We are not changing the law because a foreign country has put pressure on us. In relation to this law, the evidential requirement that is needed in order for somebody to go and get an arrest warrant is significantly less than that required for a successful prosecution. We are saying that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be able to look at any such application that is made and give consent to it or otherwise.
Charlie Elphicke
The measures on universal jurisdiction are one of the more important aspects of the Bill, because what we have seen before has made Britain a laughing stock as a place of fishing and trawling for international justice in matters that are better dealt with elsewhere.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is certainly clear that the current process for applying for an arrest warrant has deterred some public figures from overseas from coming to the UK. The Bill will make the process fairer and safer by requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before a warrant can be issued.
Mrs May
The key issue that the DPP will look at is the basis for the request for the arrest warrant and the extent to which there is a genuine basis for bringing it forward. He will look at the prospects for a successful prosecution and balance that issue in the view that he takes. At the moment, the threshold requirement is significantly less than would normally be required in bringing a successful prosecution.
Mrs May
As I said, I am about to finish my speech.
The Bill is focused on cutting crime and putting power back where it belongs—in the hands of local people. Directly elected and directly accountable police and crime commissioners will bring reform to the police, ensuring that they cut crime, focus on local priorities and drive up performance. The problems of 24-hour drinking will be tackled by giving our communities greater powers over licensing decisions, and the emerging problems of legal highs will be dealt with through temporary banning orders.
At the international level, our relationships with our overseas partners will be strengthened by the introduction of the key safeguard in the application process for universal jurisdiction arrest warrants. At home, our democracy will be strengthened by the restoration of the right to peaceful protest outside Parliament, at the same time as we take targeted action to deal with the long-term encampments and loudhailers which cause so much disruption and distress.
This Bill is necessary, it is proportionate, and it is right. I commend it to the House.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill because it introduces an expensive set of reforms which will do nothing to bring the police closer to the communities they serve; because it risks a single elected politician remote from the frontline overruling operational policing decisions, thus ending one hundred and seventy years of tradition of police independence from politicians; because it gives insufficient attention to the risks of police force collaboration being undermined by the creation of individually elected police commissioners; and because the Government has indicated that it will implement this expensive and disruptive reform in the same year as the Government is making the biggest annual cut to police funding as set out in the Spending Review.
Protecting the public and giving people confidence that they can live free from the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour is the first duty of Government. On the front line in the fight against crime are our police and police community support officers, who do a difficult, sometimes dangerous job with great professionalism. We should start by congratulating our police, who, in record numbers, under Conservative and Labour Governments since 1994, have delivered a 50% fall in crime. We congratulate them on that achievement. We will support the Government, where we can, to ensure that our police have the resources and the powers that they need to do the job.
It is right, too, as the Home Secretary said, that the police must be close to the local communities they serve and be responsive to the views of local communities in order to be accountable to the taxpayer. I pay tribute to the reforms made in recent years by Labour Home Secretaries who have introduced neighbourhood policing, which has ensured that the police are embedded in our communities. That is an achievement of which Labour Members can be very proud.
However, we will argue in Committee that there is more that we can do to deepen that accountability at the force level and at the neighbourhood level to ensure that the police are properly and fully responsive to local communities. I have to say to the Home Secretary that the approach to police accountability that the coalition is pursuing in the Bill is absolutely not the answer to that challenge. Indeed, the judgment of the Association of Police Authorities, which said that elected police commissioners are the wrong reform at the wrong time, is looking more prescient by the day.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the cuckoo months of the previous Prime Minister’s Administration, when the then Home Secretary, the former Member for Redditch, considered the idea of elected chiefs of police and then discarded it, not because of politicisation or fears about cost, but because of lobbying from Labour councillors who did not want to lose their lucrative positions on police authorities?
Ed Balls
I merely draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the excellent House of Commons research report on the Bill, which makes it absolutely clear, in terms, that the then Home Secretary rejected that proposal because it would lead to the politicisation of our police, which is exactly why we are opposing these measures.
Look at the storm that is now gathering around the Home Secretary. Over the past few days, we have seen the events in Sweden—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen mock the events that are happening. We are seeing a rising terrorist threat. We saw the events of last Thursday and the statement that we had to have this afternoon about disorder on our streets. We have the Olympics coming up the year after next, with the Home Secretary now proposing to force through a 20% cut in the Olympic policing budget.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman raised the Olympic security budget in his response to my statement earlier. I refer him, yet again, to today’s written ministerial statement on police funding allocations, which says that we have protected the £600 million expenditure on Olympic security. In fact, we think that what is needed can be done more cheaply than that, but we are protecting the £600 million. Will he now withdraw his accusations?
Ed Balls
I will do no such thing, and I will tell the House exactly why. We are consistently told by the Home Secretary that she has protected the counter-terrorism budget. What she means by “protected” is that it is cut by only 10%, unlike the police budget, which is cut by 20%. That is what the protection is all about.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I note that the Policing Minister’s letter says that he hopes to make savings and not to use the £600 million. Today’s Birmingham Mail points out that despite an earlier promise that the Pope’s visit would be subject to a special grant for security, that grant was never provided, and west midlands police have virtually exhausted their contingency for special events. If that happens around the country, how can the Government possibly hope to make savings on the Olympics?
Ed Balls
I do not know the answer to that. When I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), the shadow Olympics Minister, about it this afternoon, she said that she was assured that any reduction in the £600 million budget would be briefed on in advance with the details of the savings, but she has had no such briefing. It looks to me as though the commitment to keep £600 million in principle was rushed in at the weekend.
The reality of the position is that the Home Secretary is seeking to achieve a 20% cut which will further stretch Policing around our country at a time when the largest cut in our police budgets in peacetime history over the past 100 years has just been announced. In the west midlands and Greater Manchester, 2,500 officers are already set to lose their jobs, not to be appointed, or to be removed through regulation A19 powers, with equivalent numbers among PCSOs and other public staff. Other forces around the country will be considering today’s announcement of 20% real-terms cuts. The health budget was broadly flat, although falling slightly; the schools budget was broadly flat, although falling slightly; and the defence budget was cut by 8%. People around the country are asking where the Home Secretary was and how come the police budget was cut by 20%.
Ed Balls
As my hon. Friend knows, the Association of Police Authorities estimates that 600 officers’ jobs could be saved with the money that will be spent on the unnecessary election of police commissioners. We hear nothing from the Liberal Democrats, who all stood on a manifesto commitment of 3,000 more police officers, not 20,000 officers being cut.
Ed Balls
I am happy to accept my hon. Friend’s clarification on that point.
The context for this legislation includes the largest cuts to policing that we have seen, police officers losing their jobs through A19 powers and a freeze on recruitment across the country, at a time when the security threat is rising. The Home Secretary and the business managers have chosen the day on which the cuts have been announced to ask for support for the risky experiment in police accountability that is elected police commissioners. The coalition has no mandate and no evidence base for that reform. It has not done a proper consultation and it has failed to win the active support of either the police or the public.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Before the election, when the then Home Secretary was asked whether he could promise that police numbers would not be cut under Labour, he replied “No.” Is not that and this nonsense about the Olympics budget why nobody is listening to the right hon. Gentleman as shadow Home Secretary?
Ed Balls
I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s previous erroneous intervention before I give him a second go to see whether he can do better. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, an independent body, said that it was possible to make reductions of 12% in the central Government grant over four years, without cutting front-line policing, as we heard last week. The Government are pushing through savings not of 12% but of 20%, and they are doing so not over four years but by front-loading them, so that the biggest cuts are in the first two years. As police authorities say, it is impossible to make such cuts without cutting front-line policing capability. If what we proposed was being done, cuts to front-line police numbers—indeed, cuts to all police numbers—would be avoided. Under the coalition, there will be cuts to front-line policing. No Government Members were elected on such a manifesto, and they will be held to account in the coming months and years. I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can have a second go.
Matthew Hancock
I do not mind being held to account for sorting out the nation’s finances. The right hon. Gentleman should answer the question. He said that my intervention were erroneous. When the previous Home Secretary was asked whether he could guarantee to protect police budgets from being cut, did he not say, “No”?
Ed Balls
The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his own question. He can wave his arms around in a histrionic way, but the reality is that the previous Home Secretary said that he could not guarantee the individual decision of every chief constable of the 43 forces. However, he said that on the basis of a 12% reduction over four years, there would be no need for any reduction in police numbers. Under the coalition, the Police Federation estimates that 20,000 officers will be cut. We know that 1,100 officers will be cut in Birmingham and that 1,400 will be cut in Greater Manchester. The difference is that under our proposals there would have been no cuts to police numbers, and under the coalition proposals there will be cuts in every constituency and in every police force in the country. Those cuts will be made worse by the additional expenditure on the ridiculous and flawed proposals before us.
Michael Ellis
Am I correct to say that the shadow Home Secretary admitted that £1 billion of police budget cuts had to be made? If so, where would he make those cuts?
Ed Balls
If, rather than framing his intervention, the hon. Gentleman had listened to the previous one, he would have known the answer to his question and would not have had to bother asking it. HMIC said that a 12% reduction in the central Government grant over four years was deliverable without cuts to front-line policing. That advice has not been taken by the Government: they have gone not for 12% but for 20%, and it will be front-loaded on the first two years. The coalition policy will mean not 3,000 more police officers, but visible, front-line police officer cuts in police forces up and down the country. That is not the manifesto on which Government Members were elected, and they will be held to account.
Chris Bryant
Will the cuts not be more savage in particular areas? In police forces such as South Wales, the work that absolutely must be done, such as policing major sporting events, looking after the Welsh Assembly and the continuation of anti-terrorism work, will not be cut, meaning that the neighbourhood policing that happens in ordinary people’s streets will end up being cut?
Ed Balls
I hope that that will not be the case. The chief constable of West Yorkshire police has said the opposite to me. His priority will be to protect neighbourhood policing, if possible.
That point brings me to a smear that has been propagated regularly by those on the Government Front Bench. On the basis of the HMIC report, they claim—in my view erroneously—that only 11% of policing has been visible at any one time and that the other 89% has somehow been wasted on bureaucracy and form-filling. The fact is that 50% of that 89% comprises the policing of organised crime and domestic violence, criminal investigation departments, and work on drug and alcohol policies. Perhaps such policing is not done in neighbourhood teams, but it is vital nevertheless. It is discounted by those on the Government Front Bench as waste and bureaucracy. Frankly, that is an outrageous slur.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he would have cut police funding by £1 billion a year, which is the HMIC proposal, and that under his proposals, there would have been no cut in police numbers. Will he explain how he would achieve £1 billion of savings?
Ed Balls
I fear that we may be wasting time by going over the same point, but I will explain it again. HMIC said that a cut of more than 12% in central Government funding would lead to a cut in visible, front-line police numbers. The coalition is cutting central Government funding not by 12% but by 20%. As the previous Home Secretary made clear, on the basis of the HMIC report, savings could be made in procurement and through collaboration—precisely the sort of cross-force collaboration that will be undermined by elected police commissioners. It is possible to do that without cuts to front-line policing. It is the Minister’s 20% cuts that will lead to a reduction in police numbers, as is accepted universally by police officers across the country.
Mr Hanson
I hope to help my right hon. Friend. As he knows, I was the Minister with responsibility for policing in the previous Government. The £1 billion that we sought to save was made up of £500 million to £600 million from overtime and shift patterns, several hundred million pounds from police procurement of things such as helicopters and uniforms, and savings through back-office staff mergers. All those savings could have been made without cutting front-line policing. The HMIC report shows that the additional £1 billion that is being taken out by the Government will damage front-line policing.
Ed Balls
My right hon. Friend is making the point that the previous Home Secretary would have fought his corner for the police and Home Office budgets. In the spending review, the Home Secretary did not exactly lead the police chiefs up Downing street, as the Secretary of State for Defence did with the defence chiefs. We heard nothing—not a squeak. The Home Secretary calls what we ended up with a fair settlement, but it is a deeply unfair settlement, compared with that for schools, health and defence, that hits the police disproportionately with spending cuts. Police chiefs around the country ask me, “Where was the Home Secretary?”
Charlie Elphicke
I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman for the past 10 minutes, and I have yet to hear a credible alternative plan. All we have is another blank sheet of paper.
Ed Balls
What the hon. Gentleman will not hear from us is support for a reform that a former Met commissioner has today said is
“without any intellectual underpinning or historical understanding”.
It will weaken police accountability by making it more personalised and less representative of local communities, and it will overturn a 170-year tradition of independence in policing by empowering one elected individual to direct police priorities, fire chief constables and hire political advisers to do his bidding. It will make cross-force collaboration harder, not easier, and it will divert millions of pounds—the equivalent of 600 police officers—from the front line to new elections. It is a flawed reform that will waste millions and do nothing to reduce crime, so we are very sceptical about giving the Bill a Second Reading.
Mrs Moon
South Wales police currently have a police authority that contains cross-party representation from the leaders of a number of local authorities as well as people who are independently selected. How can it be said that there is greater democratic accountability when one person is directly elected than when there is cross-party representation from across the whole police authority area?
Ed Balls
I do not know, and that is one of the flaws in the Bill that we will need to investigate in Committee. As I understand it, that problem was why the Liberal Democrats did not support the policy. They rejected it in their policy documents in the past two years, stating that
“police authorities must be representative of the whole community, including women and ethnic minorities, which is why we reject…plans for elected sheriffs.”
That was why they rejected the policy in the first place.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has described the current situation as “non-optimal”. May I ask him what he means by that term and what his own plans for reform are, or is he doing just what his leader is doing and bringing nothing but a blank sheet of paper to the Chamber?
Ed Balls
As I said at the beginning, we will propose amendments in Committee to strengthen accountability at force and neighbourhood level, but in a way that is consistent with an approach to policing that respects political independence and ensures broad-based accountability across an area. Concentrating power in one individual will lead inevitably to political interference, and it will be impossible for one individual to represent, for example, the individual point of view of every town and community in West Yorkshire.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his patience with me. In Kent, the police authority’s idea of accountability seems to be to sue people who question it for libel, which I regard with serious concern. That should not be done with public money. The Library report to which he referred states that two thirds of the public said that they did not know who to go to if they had a complaint, and that 59% said that it was very difficult to have a say on how their area was policed. Surely an elected police commissioner would be more responsive.
Ed Balls
I do not know whether the Library report quotes the Conservative chair of the police authority in Kent, who, as I understand it, totally disagrees with the hon. Gentleman and says that the proposal is flawed and will not work. It will not be properly representative.
Bizarrely, the coalition came along and proposed the abolition of police authorities, but then realised that it was a flawed policy. It then decided to reinvent police authorities and give them a new name so that they would be called panels rather than authorities. The problem of representation needs to be solved, because it is serious.
Hazel Blears
Does my right hon. Friend agree that visibility and accountability have to be balanced with the integration of services, particularly with local authorities and other partners? Partnership working in policing has been shown to work over the past few years, and a single elected commissioner could well tear the system apart and lead to much less effective policing on the ground.
Ed Balls
I agree, and effective accountability really ought to happen in the main in the basic command unit. We need to ensure that the police are accountable to their community, but that they can demand support from the local authority, the health service and the other agencies that are vital to tackling the causes of drug crime and wider youth crime. All that will be ripped up under the Government’s proposals, and we will end up instead with one elected person for a massive area, who will be able to visit each ward perhaps once every other year. That is not local accountability at all.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has just said that a single elected individual could rip apart the policing in an area. Is that what he would say to Bill Bratton, who was the single elected individual who increased the detection of crime in New York and Los Angeles?
Ed Balls
The shadow policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), read out to me earlier the views of Bill Bratton on the Conservative proposals and the risky and reckless way in which they are drawing conclusions from the American experience. Bill Bratton said:
“What I would suggest is create your own experience; don’t try to learn from us—seriously.”
He went on to explain exactly why the American policing model does not translate into a British context, and why it is dangerous to draw such a conclusion.
Alun Michael
I am interested that my right hon. Friend has read the evidence given by Mr Bratton, who went on to say that telling all 43 police authorities that they had to be managed in the same way was an experiment. He contrasted that with the plethora of different ways in which things are done in the States, including the variety of experiences that he had had himself.
Ed Balls
He did say that, and I am glad to receive my right hon. Friend’s praise for reading the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee. I do so on behalf of the shadow Policing Minister, who read it in even greater detail.
The question of new panels points to another flaw in the Bill. There is one area in which the Home Secretary has agreed that the panels actually will have power, and it is the one in which we would think an elected police commissioner ought to have legitimacy—the setting of the precept. Rather bizarrely, on abolishing police authorities and establishing the panels, the one power that the Home Secretary gives the panels is to veto any proposal for a rise in the precept by the elected police commissioner. The commissioner will not have the power to set the precept without veto from the panel, and apparently will not be involved in operational policing, so it is not clear what they will be able to do. They will be even less powerful than the police authorities are at the moment.
I will not go into detail on the issue of political advisers, because we have done to death the mistake of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice in saying to The Guardian that staff of the policing and crime commissioners will not be able to be members of political parties. It is absolutely clear that he is wrong about that and that they will be so able.
The Home Affairs Committee report is very instructive on the matter of operational responsibility. The problem is that one individual will be elected solely on a policing mandate and will stand alongside a chief constable. That makes the definition of operational responsibility very important. As I asked the Home Secretary earlier, what will happen if a commissioner is elected on a mandate of, for example, abolishing speed cameras or introducing water cannon—if the Home Secretary allows that—and the chief constable says, “No, in my judgment that is not required operationally”? Who will decide? I am afraid that the lack of clarity on that issue raises the spectre of politicisation in certain circumstances. That will need to be discussed in Committee, because the Home Affairs Committee was right to say that without a proper definition, a memorandum and a way of getting the situation clear, there is an inevitable risk of politicisation, which is exactly the fear of police chiefs across the country.
The final point that we hear regularly is that London is somehow a model. Of course, in London the Mayor is elected not for policing but for a wider range of powers. He tried to get involved in the hiring and firing of commissioners, but decided that it was inappropriate because it risked politicisation, and had to stand aside for his non-elected deputy to take over responsibility for the matter backed by a police authority of elected members from the Greater London authority with proper powers. The Home Secretary invents reasons why the model that she proposes cannot apply to London, but the reason is that it has been tried there and did not work.
I want to address some of the wider issues in Bill. They cover only one third of the clauses, and our intention, where possible, will be to seek consensus on these proposals. The Bill contains a number of changes to the licensing regime and to powers for councils that build upon, rather than reversing, the licensing reforms of the past decade. If the Bill receives its Second Reading today, we will clearly need to examine the proposals in detail in Committee, but we will support extra powers to enable local communities and the police to keep public order to ensure that people can enjoy a night out in a safe and secure manner.
We will look into the proposals on drugs in detail, but at this point, we cautiously welcome the temporary banning orders that the Home Secretary is proposing. However, there is a suggestion, in the changes to the role of the advisory committee, of a move away from evidence-based policy making on drugs. That gives us some cause for concern, and we shall need to look closely at the matter in Committee. As we heard from the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the devil will be in the detail, as it was with the reform of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. We will look closely at the detail of the proposals in Committee.
We will also probe the details of the clauses on universal jurisdiction in Committee. The Opposition believe strongly in the importance of universal jurisdiction, and we will support the proposed changes to make it work more effectively in each of the relevant areas. We will seek to achieve consensus in Committee, but, as I have said, these measures add up to less than one third of the clauses in the Bill, and as far as the policing issues are concerned, it has been very hard to be the shadow Secretary Of State.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I should first declare that I am a member of the Kent police authority and that I support our abolition. I should also correct the right hon. Gentleman: our chair is not a Conservative. On the issue of operational independence, surely Ministers have made it very clear that there should be no interference by politicians on matters of individual investigation or arrest. Does he not agree, however, that it is quite proper for there to be democratic oversight of the broader issues of strategy and of the setting of budget priorities?
Ed Balls
I fully agree about the importance of that middle tier of political accountability for chief constables. What I and many other experts fear, however, is that if one individual is elected on a direct mandate for policing, it will be very hard indeed to prevent their supposed mandate from crossing operational dividing lines. That does not happen now, because each police authority—half of which comprises independents, the other half of which is indirectly elected—covers a number of areas and often comprises a number of political parties. They ensure that there is a collective sense that operational responsibilities are properly respected. I have no doubt that some elected police and crime commissioners will want to respect operational independence, but I have no doubt that individuals might be elected on a mandate that explicitly crosses that line. Unless that element of the Bill is sorted out quickly, we will end up with an expensive politicisation of policing in this country that will overturn 170 years of policing tradition.
I have looked carefully to find support for the Bill. I have already quoted Sir Hugh Orde and ACPO. I have also quoted the Association of Police Authorities. Police superintendents take the same view, as do Liberty and the Local Government Association. I have spoken on this matter at two conferences where I have urged anyone in the room who supports the proposals to identify themselves to me privately afterwards, because no one will dare admit to it publicly. As a member of a responsible Opposition, I want to know the arguments, yet nobody will come forward. It is very hard indeed to find anyone who supports this policy.
As a result of assiduous research by our shadow team, however, I have identified three organisations that support the proposal. The first is a think-tank called Policy Exchange. Yes, it is the think-tank that was founded by the Secretary of State for Education, and the think-tank that said that the solution to unemployment in the north was for people to move to the south. Mr Blair Gibbs made the case for these commissioners on behalf of that organisation. He was in fact chief of staff to the Policing Minister between 2007 and 2010.
The second organisation is called Direct Democracy, which included in its book “Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party” a chapter on the case for independent police commissioners. Yes, that is the Direct Democracy that was founded by the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and by the Tory MEP Mr Daniel Hannan—he who described the NHS as a “60-year mistake”. Unfortunately, the chapter in the book was authored by the Policing Minister himself.
The third organisation is a think-tank called Reform. In its 2009 pamphlet, it also advocated this policy. Yes, the Reform think-tank is now headed by the former Tory central office head of political research, and it was founded by the Policing Minister. So there we have it: a former chief of staff to the Minister, a chapter written by the Minister and a think-tank founded by the Minister. Unusually for the coalition, the Minister responsible for the policy actually supports it, which is quite a turn-up for the books.
Mr Burley
The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about operational independence for the past five minutes. Does he not agree that, when Tony Blair summoned all 43 chief constables to a knife crime summit in Downing street and urged them collectively to do more about knife crime, he was illustrating exactly the way in which politicians could constructively influence the police?
Ed Balls
Of course the hon. Gentleman is right: Prime Ministers should take an interest in these matters, and I am sure that the Prime Minister of the time did that while fully respecting the operational independence of the police. The present Prime Minister is an advocate of individually elected police commissioners; in fact, it was in his 2005 manifesto. It is always good for the Home Secretary to support the Prime Minister if she can, but sometimes, as I know, it is important to say no. I am afraid that, on this matter, she has been remiss in her duties. It would have been much better if she had said to the Prime Minister, “I am very sorry, Prime Minister, but a policy that sounded good in opposition is deeply flawed and unimplementable in government.”
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned three organisations that support the proposals for elected police commissioners. I should like to read him a quote from a fourth:
“And with local meetings, new elected police representatives, and online crime mapping, people will have more information and more influence over what their local team is focused on.”
That quote is from the Labour party website, www.labour.org.uk.
Ed Balls
As I have said, we are looking carefully at this proposal. We have investigated it in detail, and we have concluded that it is a bad idea because it risks politicising our police and it is a waste of money. The money would have been better spent on police officers on the front line. We had a record number of police officers, and now we are seeing the biggest cuts in peacetime history.
Chris Bryant
Is not the absolute proof that the Government know that these are to be politicised posts the fact that the Bill allows for the Home Secretary to make provision for the candidates for the posts to be included under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000? They will effectively become politicians; they will be party nominees.
Ed Balls
As I understand it, though, the drafting of the Bill has not taken into account the fact that funding needs to be restricted on third-party campaigning. This issue needs to be cleared up and properly brought into line with other political elections. We know that the matter will be politicised by those on the Government Benches, because they have said so.
It is the job of the Home Secretary to stand up for public safety, to fight for police numbers and to resist barmy political reorganisations that get in the way of progress. Instead, we have seen her standing back and giving in to the Chancellor on huge and disproportionate cuts to policing, and being steamrollered by the Treasury into proposing front-loaded cuts. We have seen her stand at the Dispatch Box and recite a script that was written by the Prime Minister before he was Leader of the Opposition, back in 2005. To agree to any one of record police cuts, front-loading of cuts or a risky change to political accountability would be a foolish thing to do, but to sign up to all three at the same time is very reckless indeed. That is what the Home Secretary has done over the past six months in the job. It is time that she got some operational independence and started to do the job that she was appointed to do. She must stand up for our police and our communities, and resist these barmy proposals. We oppose giving the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Due to the number of speakers, I am introducing a 10-minute limit on speeches.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
As we saw in the ugly scenes outside this building last Thursday, the police deal with people at their worst, when they are in states of anger, violence, grief, shock and fright, and frequently when they are unpredictable because of drug or alcohol use. Through all that, they have to retain their composure, sense of perspective and humanity. Many of us here today have had the opportunity to go on patrol with our constabularies better to understand the pressures that they routinely face on our behalf.
A Saturday night patrol gave me a unique insight into the diverse range of incidents that a two-man team can be called upon to deal with. As we went from one incident to the next, I was impressed by their patience and professionalism, and their ability to maintain a sense not only of perspective but of humour. I went home exhausted, with a feeling of achievement at just having survived the night, while they, of course, had to go and do it all again the following day. I have spoken at length to my local chief constable and other police officers about the Bill. Why? Because it is too important to get wrong. No one knows when they will need to call upon the police for assistance, but we do know that, at that point, we will expect them to be there.
Budget reductions are never desirable, but in the current economic climate they are necessary to get the country back on track. Some forward-thinking chief constables might see it as an opportunity to rethink traditional practices, restructure management hierarchies, get the best out of support infrastructure such as HR and procurement, see opportunities for cross-boundary collaboration and information sharing, and run things better and more effectively.
The scope of the Bill is vast, but there are three main parts that I want to talk about, beginning with the proposals on licensing. In a previous life, I sat on the licensing committee of the local council, and local residents would often cite their frustrations with the antisocial behaviour of people leaving bars and clubs late at night. At present, the responsibility of the landlord ends outside the bar or club, and short of ushering customers away from their premises with a plea to leave quietly, they are essentially free to make their money while others are left to clear up the undesirable after-effects.
What taxpayer in their right mind would prefer to see their money pay for police in yellow jackets spending all night dealing with teenagers who have drunk themselves stupid on alcopops, rather than catching burglars, rapists and murderers?
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Scenes such as those my hon. Friend has just described are all too typical and do much damage to the night-time economy. Does she agree that the late-night levy will help to deliver a safer night-time economy, which will be a boost to the vast majority of law-abiding customers who are all too often put off by the actions of the disgraceful minority?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that the levies are imposed only on venues that supply alcohol between midnight and 6 am. That means the responsible pubs and clubs that shut earlier and are managed well, are able to go about their business without any such levies. The funds generated by the levy will be payable to the police and crime commissioners to help to fund the necessary policing, as well as to other organs of local government that address the effects of alcohol-related crime and disorder.
Another positive outcome of the Bill is the reduction in centrally set targets and in bureaucracy. The mass data collection prescribed by the previous Government is one of the biggest frustrations for our police. In Hampshire, it amounts to 130 weeks’ worth of extra work per year—two full-time members of staff—just to satisfy the demands of the Home Office. And I have no idea who reads all that stuff. The plea from local police is that this great advance towards common-sense policing needs to be reflected in changes to the criminal justice system. At the moment, our police spend thousands of hours preparing court cases in which the perpetrator says nothing on arrest or at interview but pleads guilty in the Crown court. All the preparation work was therefore an utter bureaucratic waste of time. There has to be some way of mitigating that.
Hampshire has the sixth biggest force in the country, policing about 2 million people, and substantially more during the summer.
Chris Bryant
Is the hon. Lady really suggesting that police officers should not do any preparation because they think that someone might plead guilty? What then happens when the person does not plead guilty?
Caroline Dinenage
I suggest that far too much police time is spent preparing for an inevitable guilty plea.
Caroline Dinenage
Well, in some cases it is an inevitable guilty plea. It is thousands of police hours—not in every case, but in many.
There are clear benefits from increased collaboration between forces, not least improved efficiency, the driving down of costs and the avoidance of reinventing the wheel. Police forces can do a lot by sharing back-office functions and procurement. In Hampshire constabulary there will be collaboration with the neighbouring Thames Valley force on facilities such as dog teams, firearms response, IT and surveillance aircraft.
We also need to ensure that the collegiate approach is backed up with shared local information. So many times, the police talk of the frustrations of the record management system, with local criminal information not being available across county borders, which the bad guys are happy to exploit.
There is a tendency for people to view the police as “them and us,” but the police are us; the us that is prepared to deal with humanity at its worst. As both Robert Peel and the Home Secretary have said,
“The police are the public and the public are the police.”
In Gosport, our local police work hard to build up trust in traditionally wary neighbourhoods. The Bill starts to recognise that work and build on it, and is joined up in both its approach and its delivery.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
What my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) has said about the attacks on the strength of the police and about the cuts in police budgets particularly affects us in Greater Manchester, where we have an absolutely excellent local police service that will be severely damaged by what the Government propose.
I wish, however, to concentrate on clause 151, which has been smuggled in to fulfil a Conservative election pledge made in a full-page advertisement in the Jewish Chronicle during the general election, namely the change in the administration of universal jurisdiction in this country. There is no need whatsoever to change the law. To obtain an arrest warrant for a suspected war criminal, it is essential to surmount a high hurdle, and that rarely happens. Such applications are made rarely, and are granted even more rarely. This change in the law would never have been proposed if it were not for the case of Tzipi Livni, the war criminal daughter of a terrorist father, who was scared off coming to this country because of the danger of an arrest warrant being issued for her. She was jointly responsible for the slaughter in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead in which 1,400 people were killed, including 300 children, in a war in which 14 Israelis were killed, some by friendly fire. It is bizarre that a major change in our criminal justice system is being made at the demand of one of the most discredited regimes in the world.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman specifically identifies Tzipi Livni and talks about the accusations that have been levelled against her, but I am sure that he will agree that, as Foreign Minister, Livni would not have had either direct or ultimate command responsibility for any of the alleged atrocities. Will he concede that what he has just told the House is incorrect?
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Of course not. Tzipi Livni is a war criminal and, what is more, she issued a vocal and extreme statement in support of the attack on the Gaza flotilla. She is not wanted in this country—
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Without the change in the law she would not dare come here.
The Israeli Administration are one of the most discredited regimes in the world, and have persisted in committing war crimes, right through to the lethal attack on the Gaza flotilla on 31 May.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
I shall give way in a moment. Israel breaches international law and the Geneva convention—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Hon. Members should know better. I do not want a debate going on across the Chamber from sedentary positions. If Members want to intervene, they should do so in the correct manner.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
The fact is that Israel breaches international law and the Geneva convention every single day. It has just snubbed the President of the United States by refusing to halt the illegal building of settlements—that in itself is a contravention of international law.
Robert Halfon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I must say that his hatred for Israel knows no bounds. He explains exactly why universal jurisdiction needs to be changed—it is being used as a political football by people such as him who have hidden agendas.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
There would have been no proposal to change the universal jurisdiction law if Tzipi Livni had not been scared away from this country after committing appalling war crimes against the people of Gaza. It is as simple and as plain as that.
As I said, the Israelis have just snubbed the President of the United States by refusing to halt the illegal building of settlements. The Israeli regime uses its powers of arrest without charge arbitrarily. Two Members of the Knesset, including the Deputy Prime Minister, were scared away by the law, but 30 members of the Palestine National Council are currently held by the Israelis without charge. That is not a threat of arrest, but an actual arrest.
Last month, when I was in Jerusalem, I visited three PNC members who are taking refuge from arbitrary arrest by the Israeli police with the international Red Cross. I met and heard the testimony of young Palestinian children who were assaulted by Israeli police—they showed us their scars and bruises—as a result of the arbitrary and illegal way in which the Israeli police treat Palestinians, including Palestinian children. When we met the Foreign Minister of Jordan in Amman, he told us that he had to offer diplomatic shelter to the President of Palestine because when they were driving along one after the other, the President was continually halted at Israeli checkpoints. For all those crimes and many more, the Israelis are answerable to no one. Now, one of the few sanctions on those crimes will be removed. As a result of the Bill, Israeli politicians will be literally allowed to get away with murder.
That comes at a time when the ground is shifting. As I said, the pledge on the measure was made in a full-page advertisement in the Jewish Chronicle in order to get Jewish votes in the recent general election, but there is an upheaval in the Jewish community, as a result of which the across-the-board support for anything an Israeli Government do is no longer available.
Chris Bryant
My right hon. Friend referred to what people said during the general election. Does he recall what position every single Liberal Democrat MP took before and during the general election?
Sir Gerald Kaufman
I am well aware what they said, because week after week, I sat in the Chamber at business questions, when the current Deputy Leader of the House rose without fail to say how heinous and unacceptable it would be for the Labour Government to change the law on universal jurisdiction, and how the Liberal Democrats would be totally opposed to any such change. We have an obligation to remind the electors of Oldham East and Saddleworth of the broken Liberal Democrat pledge of 3,000 more police on the streets, and of their broken pledge to oppose any change in the law on universal jurisdiction. Those things will not go by unnoticed.
As I said, an upheaval is taking place in the Jewish community. The attitudes of leading Jews who have been vocal champions of Israel are becoming deeply critical of the current Israeli Government. One of the most active and vocal supporters of Israel has accused them of being in the process of turning Israel into an “apartheid state”.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats on universal jurisdiction is unlimited, as on so many matters. Week after week, their spokesman rose and vehemently opposed a change in the law for which he will vote tonight, just as Liberal Democrats voted last week in blatant breach of their election pledges.
Whatever change in the law the Government introduce for the most craven reasons, Tzipi Livni and her ilk will remain unwelcome in this country. What worries me is that without a valid and operable legal sanction—one currently exists, but the Bill will repeal it—and without the legal deterrent that the Bill removes, disapproval of the presence in this country of Livni, Netanyahu and their cronies will take forms that I and many others deplore.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is at the extreme in his views on Israel? Many of us consider them abhorrent, and Front Benchers on both sides of the House have expressed their support for clause 151. It is interesting that he has used the debate on the Bill as a vehicle to display his political views rather than to debate justice. Does he agree that arrest warrants should be issued when there is insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, because that is at the heart of this matter of justice, not his political views?
Sir Gerald Kaufman
The hon. Gentleman may wish to behave like a creep to his Front Benchers—I was elected to Parliament not to creep to my Front Benchers, but to speak on behalf of my constituents. Indeed, I persuaded the previous Prime Minister to abandon his proposal to change the law on universal jurisdiction. I went to see him and persuaded him that the proposal was mistaken, and he did not proceed with it. If my Front Benchers do not want to agree with me, that is their business. I state a view that I have stated consistently in the House for very many years, and I shall continue to do so, because it is the Israelis who are in trouble, the Israelis who are turning Israel into a pariah state, and the Israelis who will be overcome by demographic changes—they will be outnumbered by the Palestinians—and this Government are an accomplice to what they are doing. God forgive them.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I should like to use this opportunity to thank the police for performing the difficult role of policing our country while ensuring that people’s civil liberties are observed.
I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) for mentioning Oldham East and Saddleworth, because it gives me an opportunity to tell him that I was there on Saturday; and Sunday. I can assure him that the circumstances that led to the by-election are at the forefront of the minds of residents. They are reflecting at some length on the action the Labour party took in the general election campaign, and I am sure that they will continue do so as they walk into the polling stations to cast their votes.
The bulk of the Bill clearly deals with the elected police and crime commissioners.
Steve McCabe
Is the action that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the legal action mounted by the Liberal Democrats several weeks after they lost an election they thought they would win?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Liberal Democrats went to the courts because allegations were made in the Labour party literature that were completely unsubstantiated. They were not just the normal unsubstantiations that one expects from the Labour party, but significant unsubstantiations and—indeed—slurs and innuendoes against the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not sure that Oldham has much to do with this debate. We all know the way to Oldham now.
Tom Brake
I regret being led astray by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe).
I was saying that the Bill is principally about elected police and crime commissioners, who will provide the potential to improve police accountability. I believe that it will lead to something that does not exist currently: individuals with whom local residents can identify and hold directly responsible, in electoral terms, for the success or otherwise of policing in their area and the strategy and budget adopted to tackle crime. It is our role—I hope it is the Labour party’s role too, but we will have to see in Committee—to improve further on this positive development by ensuring, for example, that elected police and crime commissioners are truly accountable.
An essential ingredient will be the effectiveness of the panels, and one way of judging their effectiveness will be to look at their powers of veto. I seek clarity from the Minister about the power of veto over the appointment of chief constables. I would also like to know why no reciprocal powers have been proposed in relation to the suspension of elected police and crime commissioners should it be necessary.
Under clause 30—I hope the Minister will pick up on this at the end of the debate—an elected police and crime commissioner can be suspended if found guilty of an offence that carries a maximum term of more than two years. The Local Government Association and Liberty have expressed concern about that. Given that an assault on a police constable, for instance, could lead to a term of just six months, why has the threshold been set at two years? Although one would not go to the extent of requiring an elected police and crime commissioner never to have had a parking ticket, they would need to observe certain standards.
Clause 58, to which the shadow Secretary of State referred, provides for elections. I hope that the Minister will address a couple of issues that the Electoral Commission has flagged up. It has said that there do not appear to be provisions enabling the commission to provide advice and assistance to returning officers, political parties, candidates and agents. However, it might be expected that it would do so anyway and that therefore we do not need provisions enabling it. The second issue is whether third party campaigns would have to report any financial expenditure in support of a particular candidate.
On clause 79, the Minister will be aware that one of the big discussions about elected police and crime commissioners has been on how they will balance their essential role of dealing with local crime with their equally essential role of focusing on national priorities, which might not be as visible to the electorate but will still need addressing. The Minister will have been lobbied by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and a range of other organisations concerned about national policing capabilities and the effect on their—perhaps niche—concerns. I am not saying that looking after children is a niche concern—it is an essential priority. I am thinking of other areas, such as business crime. The Minister has covered that brief for many years and, like me, will have been lobbied for years by the business community on the importance of addressing business crime. The British Retail Consortium, among others, has requested that it be covered in the national policing capabilities. I do not know whether that much is necessary, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Part 2 of the Bill does not mention the below-cost sale of alcohol, so I hope that the Minister will tell us what is planned in that respect. The principle of the late- night levy is excellent, but he will know that the LGA has sought greater flexibility to allow it to take into account the extra costs, but without the additional administration of a late-night levy. I hope that he can explain why a late-night levy was adopted, rather than providing more flexibility in tackling the full cost of processing licences.
I do not feel the same animosity as other hon. Members do towards the noise from Parliament square. It is an important principle that people should be allowed to demonstrate there, which is why we need clarity on the proposals, particular on the oral instructions given to people. How will that work? How will people know when a formal oral instruction has been given requiring them to comply with a direction not to use amplified noise equipments, tents or sleeping bags, for instance? I also have concerns about the force and forfeiture powers that might be provided to employees of the Greater London authority and Westminster city council.
On the misuse of drugs, the Minister has made it clear that there is no attempt to stop scientists being involved in this process—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) might be tabling amendments on this point. We want to be certain that scientists will be involved, and that policies will be evidence based.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton made a point about arrest warrants. I understand his concerns, but I think they can be addressed—I hope this will be made clear in the Bill—if the Director of Public Prosecutions is under strict instructions to ensure that any requests for warrants are processed within a very short period. That would ensure that the process is not used as a means of preventing action from being taken simply because it takes too long to consider a matter. I have had discussions with a previous DPP, whose clear view was that requests can be turned around quickly and that they will not get in the way of action being taken when necessary.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
It is essential that the role is conducted in a timely fashion. However, does my hon. Friend agree that for the public to have confidence in the arrangement the DPP must be able to exercise his or her role without political interference from the Attorney-General, who is an elected politician exercising a supervisory role over the DPP?
Tom Brake
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the previous DPP whom I was talking to would have ensured that there was no political interference of the kind he describes, as will, I am sure, the current DPP.
It is difficult in the time allotted to do justice to what is in the Bill. There are solid proposals that we can improve on—and which I am sure we will debate at length in Committee—for elected police and crime commissioners. There are also some positive developments in relation to licensing that I know local authorities will support. On the misuse of drugs, I welcome what the Minister has said before—and what he may say again today—regarding the important role that scientists will play in making an evidence-based assessment of the impact of drugs. Finally, on the proposals to change the way in which arrest warrants are issued, it remains my view—and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames)—that sufficient resources will need to be provided to the DPP to ensure that arrest warrant requests are dealt with speedily, and are not used as a means of ensuring that appropriate action is not taken. This Bill provides a positive step on policing, and I look forward to debating it in greater detail in Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I would like to focus on part 1 of the Bill—on the proposals for directly elected police and crime commissioners. The proposals throw up a wide range of issues and will fundamentally undermine the foundations of policing, ending years of police independence from politicians. There is a great deal in the Bill to which I object, but I want to focus on two particular concerns. First, the implementation of elected police and crime commissioners is an expensive process, coming at a time when our police forces are facing deep and serious cuts. Secondly, the Bill concentrates a great deal of power into the hands of one person—the elected commissioner—and will, in my view, lead to our sacrificing the police’s political independence, which has existed successfully for more than 170 years.
The reforms come at a crucial time for the police—a time when they have to absorb the impact of cuts to both the Home Office and local government funding and when, despite the Tory rhetoric, the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a massively underfunded shake-up of the criminal justice system. For those with an interest in crime and justice, these are indeed worrying times. It happens to be a fact that under the last Labour Government, crime fell by 43%, while the chance of being a victim of crime fell to a 30-year low. There can be no doubt that that great achievement was underpinned by record police numbers. That progress is now being put at risk by reckless cuts.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Gentleman talks about police numbers. Will he remind us what happened to police numbers in Humberside in the last year of the Labour Government? If he cannot remember, I will remind him that we saw a fall of 130 in the number of officers.
Karl Turner
It is convenient for the hon. Gentleman to suggest such a thing, but the reality of this Government’s proposals is that police numbers will fall substantially. He represents Humberside, as I do, and I am sure that he, too, will have heard the concerns of police officers about the risks to which this Government are exposing them. Police numbers will fall as a result.
The reforms are happening at a time when, despite the rhetoric that we hear, the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a massive shake-up of the system. Although the Home Office has claimed that the annual cost of running police commissioners and panels will be the same as the cost for police authorities, we understand that extra costs of £136.5 million will be incurred, owing to the need to hold elections. In addition, there is a further £5 million fund for redundancy payments. It seems that this Government cannot implement any policy without slashing jobs. The Tory manifesto stated: “Policing relies on consent.” My fear is that the Bill will stretch the public’s consent to breaking point. One has to imagine a situation in which police numbers fall and crime increases, while at the same time the public are asked to shoulder the cost of another level of bureaucracy in the policing system.
I also have grave concerns, as do many others, about operational independence and the politicisation of the police force. The political independence of the police is as important in our democracy as the independence of the judiciary. A crucial principle of UK policing is its operational independence and unwavering commitment to non-partisanship. If policing operations are overseen by someone who is politically motivated, maintaining police independence will become increasingly difficult.
Karl Turner
Not at the moment. I would like to make some progress.
Any change to police force operations must ensure that that independence remains. The Government’s proposals will not maintain that crucial division. Although they have stated at every turn that forces will retain their operational independence, I do not feel that their proposals can even remotely achieve that. The political interference begins from the very start of the process, with the selection of candidates. Even if election expenses are capped, prospective candidates will have to invest money and raise their profiles across the force area, as well as picking up issues that will help with their campaigning.
Karl Turner
Not at the moment.
The Government’s proposals inevitably restrict the range of candidates to either those who are sufficiently rich or those with party political backing. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are making comments from a sedentary position, but that happens to be a fact. The process of electing police and crime commissioners will be fraught with difficulty. It is not beyond the imagination of any Member of this House to see that the sensitive parameters of the commissioner’s role and the importance of operational independence may be compromised, as candidates seek popular support on local law and order issues. Besides that, I feel that we are in danger of unrealistically raising the expectations of local communities about what a commissioner can truly achieve. That will serve only to undermine trust in police forces further.
Once the polling has drawn to a close and the commissioner is in place, there is great potential for further problems to arise. There is an increasing risk that someone who has been elected will be reluctant to make an unpopular decision, regardless of its necessity. A prime example would be on the visibility of police officers, which is a particular concern to me. In my view, an elected commissioner would prioritise highly visible policing, such as policing to tackle antisocial behaviour, while less visible policing, such as policing to tackle organised crime, high-value electronic fraud and paedophile rings, would be left to one side. An elected commissioner would be faced with a stark choice: do they do what is in the best interests of getting re-elected, or do they do what is in the best interests of community safety? The Government’s proposals mean that policing decisions will be made in people’s narrow electoral interest, and not in the wider national interest. That is a concern supported by Sir Paul Stephenson, who stated that
“we must ensure that this does not become just talking about popular visibility issues”.
The powers conferred on the commissioners, such as drawing up the police and crime plan, the firing of chief constables and the control of the budget, will give them a broad amount of control over operational matters. They will get to decide that visible crime such as antisocial behaviour is prioritised over invisible crime such as the criminality I discussed a few minutes ago.
Bearing in mind the commissioners’ wide-ranging powers and the party political nature of their election, I also have grave concern about the hijacking of these positions by extremists. Having one person in control of such a vast power, particularly in regard to law enforcement, will naturally attract those from the far right. To dismiss these concerns as “scaremongering” is both short-sighted and inappropriate. Twenty years ago, no one would have imagined the British National party sitting in the European Parliament. Despite not winning a parliamentary seat in this place at the last general election, its overall share of the vote increased.
This Bill poses an important question for the future of this country’s policing. We are faced with the choice of abandoning political independence and objective decision making for politicised choices made in the electoral interest. At stake in this Bill is the integrity of our police forces. Chief constables, such as the one in my area, are expressing concern about being forced to make cuts that will impact on front-line services. The Government must decide what they value most: is it to be the ill-thought-out, dangerous and costly policy or will they fund the police properly and ensure that front-line services are not affected?
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Thus far in today’s debate, we have heard some interesting comments about a wide-ranging Bill that covers increasing licensing powers, banning legal highs and ending the disgraceful occupation and vandalism of Parliament square—a situation that it is hard to conceive would have been allowed to develop had people decided they wanted to set up a campsite on any other pavement or public square in the United Kingdom.
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his remarks. Is he concerned, as I am, that the provisions to deal with the Parliament square encampment will not receive Royal Assent until the end of July, which means that the royal wedding in April could still be subjected to the awful sight of this encampment in Parliament square?
Mr Burley
I share the concerns of my hon. Friend, who makes a good point about the timing of this legislation and the effect or otherwise it will have on the royal wedding. We all heard the Prime Minister say that he hoped the encampment would be gone by April, so I look forward to seeing how this progresses. I understand that my hon. Friend has some ideas of his own, and he will no doubt inform the House of them at a later date.
I would like to focus my remarks on the provisions around police and crime commissioners, the direct election of whom will, I believe, mark one of the most significant and positive changes to policing in our country. The Jack Daniel’ s adverts currently on the tube billboards read: “No one built a monument to a committee”—and if they were intended to refer to police authority committees, it is not hard to imagine why. They are possibly the least effective, least visible bureaucracies in the public sector that I can think of—visible to just 7% of the UK public. I believe that the bold changes in the Bill will finally end governance by committee and instead enable transparent and accountable policing in this country.
Opposition Members—not that there are many of them left in their places—have advanced a few arguments against police and crime commissioners today, and I would like to address, in order, the three main criticisms that have come out of the debate. First, the Opposition have argued that commissioners will cost more than police authorities; secondly, they have alleged that PCCs will interfere with the operational independence of chief constables; and, finally, they have said PCCs will do nothing to bring the police closer to the communities they serve. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary has said that this Bill
“goes against a 150 year tradition of keeping politics out of policing.”
The Opposition are mistaken on every single one of those counts, and I welcome the opportunity to explain why.
Let me first turn my attention to the issue of cost. Implementation costs, which are the price of shifting from police authorities to police and crime commissioners, are expected to be £5 million. The forecast cost of holding elections every four years is £50 million, but the running costs of the police and crime commissioners and their panels are predicted to be the same as for the current police authorities. Opposition Members would do well to remember that when Labour was in power, increased spending of any kind was slavishly hailed as a sign of automatic improvement in public services. They would be well advised to think carefully before voting against this investment, which, contrary to most of the Labour Government’s spending, will promote democracy, accountability and thrift.
I cannot recall many Labour Members arguing against the price of democracy when introducing elections for regional assemblies or indeed when it came to Lord Prescott’s proposals for regional government, which fortunately never made it through to the ballot box—although if they had, I am sure there would have been a price attached to them.
Where police authorities are invisible, police and crime commissioners will be high profile; where police authorities fly below the radar of public scrutiny, PCCs will be held accountable; and where police authorities are divided, wasteful, bureaucratic and inefficient, PCCs will be firm of purpose and leaner in expense. The reality is that police authorities are a costly collection of committees that are simply no longer fit for purpose. They cost £65 million and taxpayers fund all the generous expenses and allowances that individual members claim. In the light of the rising costs, we simply cannot ignore the value of bodies that fail to hold police properly to account and are invisible to the people they claim to represent.
Government Members need to counter the “scaremongering” myth peddled by some that election costs for these commissioners will come out of already stretched local authority budgets. This is unfounded and inaccurate: they will be funded by the Home Office budget and, as I said earlier, it is not the intention that PCCs should cost more than existing police authorities. In fact, it is quite the opposite: the intention is to give much better value for money.
Let me move on to the issue of independence. I agree with the Opposition’s stance on maintaining the importance of operational independence. For this reason, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice emphasise in September the need to maintain the operational independence of policing. He said that
“someone has to hold the police to account. In my view that should be an elected politician. We cannot have the police answering to no one. Therefore what we are discussing is simply the nature of that accountability; but politicians will be involved in one way or another.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 241WH.]
I believe that, far from interfering with operational independence and duty to act without restraint, I believe that this Bill will serve to improve it. Chief constables will have greater professional freedom to take operational decisions without fear or favour to meet the priorities set for them by their local community through their commissioner.
The Opposition’s charge of politicisation is, I am afraid, based on a fundamental misconception. The governance of policing is rightly, and by its nature, political. Deciding where to deploy limited resources is a political decision. Deciding whether to put officers in cars or on the beat is a political choice. Deciding whether they patrol in pairs or singly, on the same side of the street or the opposite side, is a political decision. As I mentioned earlier—I would have reiterated it later if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) had accepted my intervention—when Tony Blair summoned all 43 chief constables to Downing street for a summit on knife crime to put political pressure on them to do something about the explosion of that crime, that was political interference, to use the words of Labour Members, with the police. It was entirely legitimate, however, because Tony Blair as a politician democratically representing the people of this country wanted to put pressure on our police to do something about a problem. It is precisely the same principle in the Bill.
Mr Offord
Although my hon. Friend is right to mention the influence of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair in the context of the street crime initiative, I think that members of the shadow Cabinet are concerned about the fact that he intervened in other circumstances where we know he exerted influence. I am thinking of, for instance, the Serious Fraud Office and the investigation into British Aerospace. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Government Members will not accept such actions either?
Mr Burley
I agree. Operational independence is about, for example, decisions to arrest people. No one is suggesting that we should give police and crime commissioners the power that Winston Churchill had in the Essex street siege to order police officers to arrest people, but I think it democratically legitimate for a police and crime commissioner to be elected on a mandate of, for instance, putting more police on the streets where they are visible and accountable, because that is what the public want. Over the past 10 years—indeed, throughout the 1980s and 1990s—there has been a move to put police officers in cars and say to their chief constables and senior officers, “This is my democratic mandate. We want more police on the streets. Tell me how you will achieve it.” That does not strike me as interfering with operational independence.
Let me now say something about transparency and accountability, both of which have been criticised by Opposition Members under whose Government any hint of either was lost in the mire of sofa government. Despite costs of between £52 million and £78 million a year, there is scant awareness, and therefore scant accountability, in relation to the authorities themselves, let alone their expenditure. Public input is exceedingly low. A significant proportion of police authorities received a meagre average of three letters or e-mails per week between 2007 and 2010.
When asked by the Home Affairs Committee how one individual could improve police accountability, Kit Malthouse, London’s effective police and crime commissioner, replied:
“It allows there to be a kind of funnel for public concern. For instance, when I was appointed to this job in May 2008, and given the job title Deputy Mayor for Policing, the post bag at City Hall on community safety went from 20 or 30 letters a week up to 200 or 300. The letters just came and came.”
According to Louise Casey’s 2008 crime and communities review, only 7% of the public are even aware that police authorities exist. According to MORI, however, 68% of people agree that a single person should be elected by local people to hold the police to account on behalf of the community.
For too long the fight against crime has been caught up in red tape, which has created a gulf between law enforcement agencies and the communities that they serve. The shadow Home Secretary himself said in Cannock that the work of police authorities
“isn’t always as visible as it could be. Around police landscape, around accountability, there is more to do”.
If he opposes the Government’s police reforms, may I ask what he proposes to do about that? Surely he cannot attack our plan without having a plan himself.
Establishing commissioners will only serve to improve the alarming statistics that I have mentioned, and to raise the profile of the police force as a whole. It will enable us to turn our backs on a corrosive legacy that has done nothing to prevent the British public from being misinformed about, and unaware of, how to influence directly the strategy of policing in their areas. It is impossible to conceive that after just one term of police and crime commissioners, only 11% of police officers will still be visible and available, only 7% of the public will know how to contact their police and crime panels, and there will still be record dissatisfaction with the police despite the existence of a record number of them.
Locally elected police commissioners will be transformative. They will ensure that the police concentrate on the crimes that most affect local people’s quality of life. The existing top-down, target-ridden culture will be replaced by something altogether preferable: accountability to the public. The Home Affairs Committee’s report concludes with the words:
“Police and Crime Commissioners will be judged on whether they succeed in bringing the police closer to the public they serve.”
It is clear that the proposals for police and crime commissioners and their supporting panels will go a huge way towards achieving that aim.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I oppose clause 151, which is entitled “Restriction on issue of arrest warrants in private prosecutions”. I do so as chair of the Back-Bench all-party parliamentary human rights group, of which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is treasurer. I hope that my arguments will prevail on him, and that he too will see that to change the position in that regard would be invidious.
Tom Brake
I think that if the Director of Public Prosecutions, having taken on this responsibility, is given resources enabling him or her to process a request for an arrest warrant in a very short time, all the right hon. Lady’s concerns may disappear. If they do not go away, will she explain why?
Ann Clwyd
I hope to, if I am able to develop my thoughts.
Much of our criminal law is territorial, applying to acts committed in England and Wales or by British people, but we have agreed to prosecute those who commit crimes, such as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and torture and taking hostages here, wherever or by whoever those crimes are committed. That is universal jurisdiction intended by all the countries who accede to it to ensure that there is no international hiding place for perpetrators of grave crime. We have a duty to seek out the culprits, and either to extradite them or to prosecute them here. For example, in 2005 an Afghan warlord, Zardad, was successfully prosecuted in the United Kingdom for torture offences abroad.
In the United Kingdom, it is not only the police who can initiate proceedings; any individual can apply to a magistrate for a summons or warrant to bring someone to court. The test for the magistrate is whether there is prima facie evidence of an offence on the part of the person named. Many cases involving serious offences cannot proceed beyond that stage without the Attorney-General's consent. I have a little experience of that, having chaired Indict, a human rights organisation which for seven years gathered evidence against Iraqi war criminals, many of whom are appearing in an Iraqi court or have already been sentenced. I have no time to go into what happened then, but in the current circumstances it is extremely difficult to obtain an arrest warrant. It took two years just to discuss the case of Tariq Aziz with the Attorney-General and with Scotland Yard. It was then thrown back to the Attorney-General, and we did not secure a decision. There was a strong possibility that Tariq Aziz, who travelled a good deal, had come to this country, perhaps to spend Christmas with George Galloway, who had spent Christmas with him in the past.
We did not manage to obtain that arrest warrant. English law does not allow arrest warrants to be granted on flimsy evidence, but although our evidence was very strong indeed, we still could not obtain one. Only two of the 10 private arrest warrant applications made in the past 10 years have been granted. Nothing needs fixing, as nothing has been broken.
Universal jurisdiction is a vital, agreed-on basis for tackling impunity in states that do not sign up to the International Criminal Court.
Mr Slaughter
My right hon. Friend clearly knows what she is talking about. I do not know whether she was as dismayed as I was by the fact that the Home Secretary clearly did not know what she was talking about when she was asked what standard of evidence the DPP would require. Is it the prima facie test, the full code test by the prosecutor, or something in between? Perhaps my right hon. Friend, like me, hopes that the Minister will clarify the matter in summing up the debate. If the answer is a full prosecutorial test, that effectively means that no warrants will ever be issued, because that standard of evidence will not have been gathered at the arrest stage.
Ann Clwyd
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing that point, on which I attempted to extract more information from the Home Secretary. I am afraid that I did not get an answer however, and I too hope this might be explained further in the summing up.
The 1949 Geneva conventions require us to seek out and prosecute absolutely anybody suspected of committing war crimes. Similar duties exist under the torture convention, where we also have a duty to apply criminal law uniformly. A special legal or procedural system for those cases that is different from the rest of criminal law could breach that obligation. Victims securing the arrest of visiting suspects fulfil an important rule-of-law purpose. No state inference should bar their access to courts. As Lord Wilberforce said in 1978, the right to bring private prosecutions remains
“a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of the authority”.
Lord Diplock similarly described it as
“a useful constitutional safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law”.
Michael Ellis
Does the right hon. Lady not accept that many countries with similar legal systems to our own—Canada, for example—have established a similar system? In the Canadian context, the Attorney-General or deputy Attorney-General has to give leave before the exercise of their universal jurisdiction power. Many other countries have similarly fettered the misuse of universal jurisdiction, which has often taken the course of party political or other politically biased purposes, and they have not had any difficulties in respect of the point the right hon. Lady is making. Where Lord Diplock and others refer to interference of the state, they did not apply it to this test.
Ann Clwyd
I hope the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch Mr Speaker’s eye, as he obviously has a speech in the making. I have experience of trying to get an indictment against some of the Iraqi war criminals in other countries such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Belgium. The closest we came to getting an indictment was in Belgium, but that was thwarted at the last moment because somebody brought an indictment against Sharon, and the Belgian Government changed the law. Sometimes the pressures can be very different, but we do not have time to go into the details of this now.
Mr Slaughter
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between what is being proposed and what happens in Canada is that in Canada the DPP is entitled to appear and present evidence for or against the issuing of a warrant, but the decision is a judicial one? What is being proposed here is wholly different, although the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) perhaps does not understand that. The decision is made by the state, before the court has a chance to consider the matter.
Ann Clwyd
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s expert knowledge of this issue.
Senior district judges are trusted to deal with highly sensitive terrorism and extradition cases. They are very highly thought of—I would like to hear anybody say they are not highly thought of—and their role should not be undermined, but that is precisely what the Government are attempting to do. These judges are known to have thrown out cases against Israeli Defence Ministers Mofaz in 2004 and Barak in 2009, plus several cases against Mugabe. Eight refusals out of 10 means the system is already robust enough to weed out illegitimate cases. Indeed, there is not a single example of the current system failing to filter out cases that are an abuse of process. What is the evidence that the judge acted wrongly in the two cases in question? Does the Crown Prosecution Service have a view? Perhaps we will hear.
Some people are, of course, wildly exaggerating the real impact of the current law on them and officials from other countries. We know very well that many people from other countries who are currently in government—Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and perhaps sometimes Defence Ministers—are free from any arrest warrants of this kind and can travel freely. In fact, absolute immunity applies to serving Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and so forth, so I do not know what the problem is. It is a problem of the Government’s own invention, and I am sorry my Front-Bench team seems to be going along with them at the moment as does the coalition partner—although the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington might like to indicate whether he has changed his mind again. I think they are misled and we do a disservice to the many people all over the world who have been injured in some way by some of the people who can clearly be identified as war criminals.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Because so many Members wish to take part in this debate, the time limit is being reduced to eight minutes.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
In the eight minutes available to me, I hope to cover two key issues that are of the utmost importance to my constituents: elected police commissioners, and the impact of alcohol in our town centres.
I was grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for addressing in such detail the germination of policy among Conservative think-tanks down the years, as I have spent many a long hour in the twilit, striplit demi-monde of Conservative think-tanks listening to speaker after speaker talk about these ideas while drinking slightly warm orange juice and eating slightly stale croissants. I have to say that it was not initially an issue that particularly excited me. I did not feel inspired by the idea of elected police commissioners.
It was only when I started talking to real people in the real world that I actually began to understand why there was such intense anger and frustration. During the Labour leadership contest over the summer, it was interesting to note that its participants had been agonising and soul-searching as to why the Labour party’s core vote has wandered away. Might I suggest that the arrogance over law and order is at the heart of the reason?
I am proud to represent the fourth most deprived Conservative-held seat in the country. There are many hard-working families on below-average incomes who routinely tell me how angry and frustrated they are at the disconnect they perceive between the police and the people. It is a growing gap. That saddens me, and it should sadden the police as well.
I get much positive and valuable feedback about individual police officers at ward level and about individual police community support officers because of the social value they add to their local communities—whether a PCSO in a local school organising football on a Saturday morning or the local beat bobby who looks after a few of the elderly residents, checking they are okay. What I do not get positive feedback about, however, is the overall structure. People do not have a sense that when something goes wrong—when there is an act of social disorder in the street or a theft from the front garden—all they have to do is pick up the phone and someone at the end of the line will listen to their concern and a policeman will appear. That confidence has long since gone. That is a very great shame, as it is fundamental.
What Sir Robert Peel said is being forgotten. We heard the Home Secretary quote Sir Robert Peel, so I thought I might offer my favourite Peel quote. He said that it is important
“to recognise that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour.”
There can be no police without the support of the public, and I worry that that is in danger at present. That is why these reforms are so essential.
My constituents do not know who to go to in order to make complaints. The police authority is not a constant presence in their life. In saying that, I do not criticise those well-meaning individuals who from a sense of public duty and public service serve on that authority, but it is a fact that police authorities are no longer fit for purpose. We need the focal point of a figurehead who can bring together all the disparate strands of crime reduction partnerships, community safety partnerships and police and communities together—PACT—meetings. Everything that goes on at a local level needs to be brought together by one individual.
The same people who are expressing concerns about the disconnect between the police and the public are expressing concern about the impact of alcohol on the town centre. It is a sad fact that many elderly people in my constituency tell me that they are too scared to go into Blackpool town centre of an evening. That is a great tragedy because it is their town as much as anybody else’s. I understand that when Labour Members brought in their reforms to licensing they wanted to create a continental style café culture. From their Tuscan palazzos, they had observed the intergenerational passeggiata and it had warmed their hearts. I think it is fair to say that the passeggiata and the café culture that they so admire on their summer holidays has yet to make it to Blackpool town centre on a Friday or Saturday evening.
Justin Tomlinson
Does my hon. Friend agree that if he could get a safer night-time economy, that would be a real boost to tourism in his town?
Paul Maynard
I agree entirely. The importance of the night-time economy is much misunderstood. It is not just about vertical drinking establishments, how many stags and hens we can cram into the town centre or about how much alcohol can be consumed. A town such as Blackpool has a much wider range of things to offer. We have an excellent theatre in the Grand theatre.
Andrew Percy
Does my hon. Friend agree that the implementation of the late-night levy will be incredibly effective in helping to address some of these problems? A 50:50 split between the police and the local authorities would mean that that local authorities, on a business improvement district-type model, could work with the local licensees to address the priorities. Most licensees are decent people who try to do a good job. Does he not agree that a 50:50 split would perhaps be better?
Paul Maynard
That is certainly an interesting point, and I hope that it will be explored more thoroughly in Committee. Many of the elderly people who would otherwise be keen to go to the Grand theatre for an evening’s show do not do so because they do not want to have to form crocodiles for safety, weaving their way through the town centre to find a local taxi rank because they are scared.
Paul Maynard
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, because of the lack of time. I have given way twice already and I apologise to him.
It is also important to understand that alcohol has a social impact. This is one of the great unresolved issues, certainly for me, politically. On the one hand, I believe in freedom of choice and the freedom of the individual. Alcohol is a perfectly legal substance. We should all be able to consume it in moderation, perfectly legally, without the forces of the state interfering with us. On the other hand, it is impossible to be the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and not to have a genuine understanding of the social cost of alcohol consumption in such a deprived area.
Some of the statistics frighten me. Some 75% of all the domestic violence in Blackpool is linked to alcohol and 42% of the violent crime takes place in the three town centre wards. We are beyond saturation point when it comes to off-licences. In some of the town centre wards, such as Bloomfield, there is one off-licence for every 250 residents. To me, that is not so much a market as an oversupply. It is a market that is not functioning. We have 1,900 on-licensed premises supporting the hospitality industry. There must be freedom of choice, but there must be an understanding of the social cost of alcohol, too. That debate needs to take place.
That is why I am such a supporter of the alterations to what is known as the vicinity test. I know that many in the alcohol trade are concerned about that change, which will allow many more people to put their views forward on the issues of granting extra licences. It will no longer apply just to the adjacent roads. Anyone from across the town will be able to have their say. That is a vital step forward.
We need a much more mature and wider debate in this country about the role that alcohol plays in our lives. We need to understand how we can balance our freedoms with the need to protect the vulnerable. When I am walking around the streets of Blackpool, I understand why we are the national capital for liver disease, sad as that might be. I can see why we have a problem with domestic violence and violent crime. When I look at the number of alcoholic establishments outside my constituency office and the numbers crowding around of a Friday evening, I see the importance of trying to tackle underage drinking. I welcome the heftier penalties, but they need to be imposed.
It is vital, however, that, in addition to tackling that problem, we recognise that the state can do only so much. We can try to tackle under-age drinking by imposing extra fines and closing down the off-licences that sell to the under-age people, but I do not think that the state can ever tackle issues such as proxy purchasing, where adults go into the off-licence on behalf of the child, or drinking at home.
Unfortunately, there is only so much that the state can do, but none the less I welcome wholeheartedly the provisions proposed in the Bill as a sensible step forward and as an example of how localism can work and how local authorities that have imagination and bravery can use legislative implements to improve the lives of their inhabitants. I hope that after this Bill is passed many more of my constituents will feel able to take back their town centre and to go into Blackpool and find out that it is not the scary place they read about in the local papers but somewhere in which they have a stake, as well as the stag parties, the hen nights and the day trippers. I believe that Blackpool is for the inhabitants of Blackpool as well as for the tourists.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Second Reading debate on what I believe to be a very important Bill. The issues are close to my heart, not just because, like the Policing Minister, I struggled with the tension between visibility, accountability and performance for the three years for which I was Policing Minister, but because I know how important those things are to my constituents in Salford and Eccles and to communities across the country.
There is undoubtedly a problem with the visibility and accountability of police authorities. I believe that the public are entitled to know much more clearly who is responsible for setting policing priorities as well as ensuring that chief constables address the issues that are important to local people in an effective way that achieves the best value for money. It is a complex set of tasks for any police service, but over the past few years we have done pretty well. We need to do more, however. Having a safe community not only transforms life for ordinary people but affects business, investment and economic transformation, and that is why it is so important.
Let me make it clear that I believe that if local people are given the chance to elect their police representatives, they will do so sensibly and rationally and that the spectre of their electing an extremist candidate is unlikely. It is the responsibility of people like us, in this House and elsewhere, to ensure that, in any direct elections, we get involved, campaign on a proper platform, reflect the people’s priorities, offer political leadership and support our citizens in making their democratic choices. I have always trusted the public and they often—in fact, nearly always—get it right.
I have real concerns, however, about the idea of electing a single individual who is not connected to the rest of the local governance arrangements for the provision of public service. I would be interested to hear from the Minister when he responds to the debate whether he has really considered that issue. Evidence shows that what has worked in policing in the past few years is the integration of services—for example, in family intervention projects and tackling antisocial behaviour—and joint working between agencies, particularly between police and the criminal justice system. On Friday, I visited a new pilot in Greater Manchester of intensive alternatives to custody, which involves embedding police officers with probation and family support workers—again, involving integrated services. Approaches such as the co-location of key staff and the sharing of data have been part of the direction of travel that has led to effective policing.
That is the direction in which all public services are moving. As part of the previous Government, I started the Total Place work to bring all public services together. It is called community budgeting under this Government. I do not mind what it is called, but it is the most effective way to provide services. It is designed to break down barriers, integrate staff, set joint priorities, pool budgets and get more for less. If the move to having a single, elected police and crime commissioner means setting the police apart from the rest of that system, I honestly believe it will be a seriously retrograde step.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the call for elected police commissioners came precisely because the public do not feel that the current system, integrated or not, is serving them? Is not there a need for the public to have a single voice?
Hazel Blears
Indeed, and I am about to put forward an idea that would meet many of those concerns. One way of achieving the greater visibility for policing that the hon. Lady talks about would be having a directly elected person in each local authority area who would be responsible for local policing but would also have a duty to operate within the rest of the local public service framework to mobilise all those resources to make communities safer. Those directly elected local commissioners could act collectively at force level to hold chief constables to account and to provide direct, local links to their communities. I am genuinely concerned about the ability of a single police and crime commissioner to be visible and accountable to 2.5 million people across Greater Manchester in communities as diverse as those in Rochdale, Wigan, Stockport, Oldham, Manchester city centre and Salford. I wonder whether the Minister has considered having directly elected local commissioners. There is all the rhetoric about localism, but then this policy of having a single police and crime commissioner for millions of people. That is not localism.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Is not the right hon. Lady effectively making the case for an elected official for each basic command unit? In such a system there would not be co-ordination between different parts of Greater Manchester, because those people would compete with one another for resources and to work and co-operate with other state agencies. That would be a recipe for duplication, expense and confusion.
Hazel Blears
It is a difficult circle to square and I shall suggest how we might address some of those issues. There is no perfect system, but I do not believe that having a single person who is supposed to be visible and accountable to millions of people will work.
I understand that the police and crime panels, which are to be made up of local authority representatives and which will be remarkably similar to the police authorities that have been criticised for their lack of visibility, will have the power to advise and scrutinise the work of commissioners, but would it not be better if those local representatives were elected and therefore had a direct local mandate and accountability? I am very concerned that there will be a lack of consistency between the plans and strategies of local authorities and the health service, plans on tackling drugs and the possible crime plans of the police and crime panels. The local reps could come together and pool the sovereignty of their elected mandates to consider issues of serious, organised and trans-border crime—issues that are properly the concern of whole force areas. Currently, there is concern that police and crime commissioners will concentrate almost solely on very local issues, because of the electoral impetus, and that they might ignore some trans-force, serious and organised crime issues as well as national priorities.
It is inevitable that commissioners will be pressed to prioritise local, visible neighbourhood policing. I do not argue against that, as there is no greater advocate in the House than me of neighbourhood policing. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and I drove a culture change through the police service to ensure that neighbourhood policing was properly valued and rewarded. Hon. Members will remember that 10 years ago the sexy end of the police business was going out in the squad car with the blues and twos blazing and a helicopter circling overhead. People thought that was real policing. It was not entirely dissimilar from Gene Hunt’s kind of policing and it took a great deal of effort to bring the police back to tackling antisocial behaviour, closing crack houses and tackling prostitution on our estates. That was the really important part of policing for local people. I believe that the police get that now and know that being visible in their communities is hugely important to restoring and improving local people’s confidence, but we still need to keep the pressure on to make sure that that happens.
Some crime is not immediately visible to people on the streets, but is hugely important to address—whether it is counter-terrorism, serious and organised crime, the emerging problems of cybercrime, drug enforcement or tackling knife and gun crime. All that work needs to be done. The Home Secretary can talk about the national policing priorities in the Bill, but there is no provision for those second-tier regional priorities. In my own area, Salford, we have just had a fantastic operation called Operation Gulf, which entailed the long-term surveillance of organised crime gangs, using a range of powers—not police powers, particularly, but bringing in, for example, the Department for Work and Pensions to examine tax and benefits fraud, working with the Security Industry Agency, and investigating illegal protection rackets and pubs that have been used for organised crime. All that is not immediately visible to people on the street, but it is tackling those serious criminals who are role models for many of my young people. It is about confiscating their assets, and it is long-term police work that costs money. I worry enormously that a police commissioner will not give that the priority that it needs.
In the short time left to me, I shall say a word about the people whom we ask to carry out all that work on our behalf. We spent a long time trying to get a proper skill mix within our police service, recognising that we do not need fully warranted officers to do every single job in the service. Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, has been a tremendous champion of work force modernisation. When I met him last week, he was desperately worried that with the very severe cuts that we have to make in such a short period of time, the people who will be most vulnerable are the PCSOs and the civilian staff who, because of their employee status, can be made redundant, unlike police officers.
I worry that we will go backwards, rather than forwards. We have got police officers away from being escort officers, custody officers or scenes-of-crime officers, and we have got them on the front line. As a result of cutting so quickly and so deeply, we will find uniformed officers again in the back-office doing file preparation or escort duties. That is utterly ludicrous. It is a backward step which will lead to much less effectiveness in our service. Our chief constable must get rid of 3,000 people over the next four years. He has said publicly that that will affect front-line policing. As a result of the speed at which it needs to be done and the arcane employment regulations in the police service, we will find ourselves making the wrong decisions about effectiveness.
The public will judge success not simply by elections. They will judge it by what happens on their streets and in their communities. If they can go to bed at night and not wake up with the fear of being burgled, if they can get up in the morning and find that their car has not been slashed and trashed, that will be the sign of success. Accountability, as commissioners will find, will be a pretty tough thing.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to the police in my constituency, who have been helping to deal with the protests over tuition fees. We have had a few minor actions and in each case the police have demonstrated fantastic support.
It has been a great pleasure listening to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). She is heading in the right direction, though not far enough and certainly not fast enough. It is right that we consider the question of accountability in the policing of Britain.
Let us talk first about the commissioners. It is important that they are elected, that there is just one of them, and that they are responsible for planning, as outlined in the Bill. The electorate want an interface with a single person who will speak on their behalf and deal with the issues that arise in everyday policing. My one concern about the disqualification list is whether a recently retired chief constable is the right person to be elected as a commissioner. That needs to be discussed in Committee.
I listened carefully to the shadow Home Secretary. He mentioned Councillor Rob Garnham, the chairman of my police authority in Gloucestershire. Councillor Garnham is well known, probably because he has launched a campaign to save police authorities, not because of the work he did as chairman of the police authority. I believe that the membership and function of police authorities are not properly understood by the electorate. We could test that by asking people who they think is on their police authority. Some people would look rather surprised. They certainly would not be able to provide an answer, because the police authority is just not recognised as the equipment for maintaining police accountability.
It is right to introduce commissioners, and it is right to get rid of police authorities. It is also necessary to improve value for money in our police forces, because police authorities have just not exercised that function terribly well. I heard only today just how many police forces buy the same equipment from the same old firm, without going through proper competitive tendering, driving down the price or saying, “If you don’t do a better price, we’ll go somewhere else.” The process is too sloppy, and it needs to be tightened up.
The Bill includes some other interesting areas, one of which is licensing and the role of local communities and local authorities, because it is important to ensure that decisions are properly enforced locally. That is one of the key things. Local authorities already have a useful set of powers, but the question is about ensuring that they are deployed and that the decisions are made to stick.
The Localism Bill will enhance the role of the community, so we need to link it to the Bill before us. We have to engineer a change not just in powers, but in culture, so that local authorities are keen to make decisions properly, to be ambitious, to work hard for their communities and to be ready to make different decisions from their neighbours’ and more interesting decisions for themselves.
On the cost of drink, I am sympathetic to higher prices, because it is important that we deal with binge drinking. One can go to France to buy cheap beer—there it is, at LeClerc, the local supermarket. One can also buy lots of cheap wine, so other countries have cheap drink, but the French, for example, do not have much binge drinking. That is something to be discussed, and we need to look at the causes of binge drinking, because it is a cultural issue.
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend knows that 70% of all alcohol sold in this country is sold through supermarkets. Is not the danger that all the measures before us put extra burdens on pubs, which have to deal with the consequences? The Minister will say that supermarkets can be controlled within the late-night levy, but the problem is clearly not supermarkets selling alcohol after 12 o’clock, but people buying alcohol at 6 o’clock in the evening and drinking it before they go out. The pubs and clubs then have to deal with the consequences. Do we not need to tackle binge drinking and supermarkets’ irresponsible pricing if we are to tackle the problem of alcohol-fuelled violence?
Neil Carmichael
That is why I am sympathetic to dealing with the problems in supermarkets. My hon. Friend is right: we do have cheap booze; it is bought in bulk; it is consumed in a bingey way, which does cause huge problems; and we have to address the issue.
We had a debate about pubs last week, but let us repeat the point that we must recognise the pub as a useful, controlled environment in which people can drink.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but following the previous intervention does he not agree that alcohol sold in supermarkets is often bought by people who cannot otherwise afford it? Surely, the only restrictions should therefore be on so-called alcopops and drinks like that.
Neil Carmichael
I thank my hon. Friend and appreciate all the interventions—the two of them, at least—that I have had. He makes a good point about alcopops, and we need to think about that, because we can be too draconian, but I shall make three general points about drinks. First, we have to think about binge drinking and its causes; secondly, we need to look at the role of supermarkets in supplying the drink; and, thirdly, we need to bear in mind the strength of the drink.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some very important points about the balance of responsibility for binge drinking. Does he agree that the burden of the balance of responsibility is placed unduly on the pubs and not sufficiently on the supermarkets? Regulation focuses on the pubs and there is insufficient regulation of the supermarkets. Does he think that this is an opportunity to redress that balance?
Neil Carmichael
Funnily enough, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. When one considers the number of regulations and bureaucratic requirements that a pub has to fulfil, we wonder why people want to be landlords. They do so because they enjoy the job and do a great thing for communities, but they are often discouraged from getting on with the job because of all the work that they have to do. My hon. Friend is right about supermarkets. If we consider the abolition of resale price maintenance and the relentless march of supermarkets in number and size over the past few years, we realise that supermarkets are not controlled as much as they should be. We need to consider some sort of ombudsman system to ensure that supermarkets have a more responsible approach to drinking.
The other thing about supermarkets is that they are quite powerful. They are able to control price, and supply and demand. We must recognise that. As a farmer, I remember being told what prices my products would be simply because the group of five supermarkets concerned knew in advance how much they would pay. Let us remember that supermarkets have power and let us be prepared to address the question of binge drinking with that in mind. However, we should also have in mind the restrictions and problems that pubs have been confronting over the past few years.
In summary, let us be confident about the role of the commissioners. Government Members think that they are a great thing and one Labour Member obviously supports that direction of travel. We must accept that our police authorities do not set the world on fire in discussing policing policy, and we must think very carefully about value for money and ensuring that police forces are much more responsive to people’s needs. Is it not simply right for local communities to feel that they are being listened to? Sometimes just the act of listening can lift a huge amount of confusion and alarm from local communities, who are often bewildered by other more complicated arrangements for expressing themselves. The Bill is good. It is the right kind of measure and it is consistent with localism and with law and order. Above all, it is consistent with setting a useful agenda for responsible behaviour in our society.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) was absolutely right in saying that the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) was making an excellent speech. He did make an excellent speech—not just in his comments on alcohol-related crime, but in what he said about procurement—and it is a pleasure to follow him. If ever there is a vacancy on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I hope that he will apply to join us because his speech was really excellent. I will speak very briefly, as all hon. Members must, and will make just four points. I agree with much of the Bill, as many of its provisions reflect the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendations in the previous Parliament.
As the House knows, 50% of crime in this country is alcohol related. All hon. Members who have spoken on that subject have talked about the effect that alcohol-related crime has on local communities in their town centres, and the enormous amount of police resources that have to deal with it. The Government have taken a very important step in terms of licensing. I was reassured during my intervention on the Home Secretary when she said that the Government would continue to consider the issue of minimum pricing. Tonight’s speeches reflect the fact that there is concern not necessarily about the pubs and clubs in our town centres, but about the supermarkets.
If one goes to Asda or Morrisons—I am not suggesting that hon. Members on either side of the House may choose to do this; the Chamber may be about to empty—one can get 36 cans of lager for £18, or about 50p a can. [Hon. Members: “How do you know?”] I do not drink alcohol, but one of my researchers looked into this over the weekend. There is no doubt that it is cheaper to buy alcohol in supermarkets. As we heard earlier, people get tanked up before they go out because of the very cheap cost of alcohol there. I am glad that the Government are doing something about minimum pricing, and we look forward to seeing what they do.
Andrew Griffiths
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when one can go to a supermarket and buy a can of strong lager more cheaply than a can of Coca-Cola, that sends out an extremely damaging message to young people? That is why so many young people are pre-loading. Before they go out for an evening, they drink far too much, and we see the effects on our high streets, in our police cells and in our emergency units.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although some may say that drinking Coca-Cola is almost as bad for young people as drinking alcohol.
My second point is about drugs. The Government are taking absolutely the right powers in the Bill to be able to ban legal highs. Mephedrone—commonly known as meow meow—has been a big problem. The Select Committee heard very eloquent evidence from the mother of a young girl who had died as a result of a legal high. It was clearly taking too long to ban such substances, so we warmly welcome putting into the hands of the Home Secretary the power to be able to bring a statutory instrument before the House to deal with these matters.
I also warmly welcome what has been proposed about Parliament square, especially after what happened last Thursday.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
On the subject of drugs, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Bill has some suggestion of weakening the role of scientific input? I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but does he agree that it might be helpful to secure that aspect and to ensure that in the case of any temporary bans, there are at least some scientific suggestions before the decision is made?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman, who is the resident scientist on the Home Affairs Committee, is right to point to the need for evidence-based decisions and the role of science.
My final point concerns police commissioners. Two members of the Select Committee are here—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—and other Members have spoken about this. There was no agreement in the Committee on whether elected police commissioners were a good idea, and we therefore put it to one side. We were more concerned with producing a report that would be helpful to the House before this debate and would enable Members to look at the implications and practicalities of elected commissioners.
The Committee asked the Government and the House to note three points, the first of which—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud—was whether it was desirable for a chief constable who was serving in a certain area subsequently to stand for the post of an elected commissioner. We thought that there should be a cooling-off period so that if the chief constable for Leicestershire, for example, wanted to be a commissioner he—it is a man at the moment—could not do so until his whole term of four years had expired. There was unanimity on these points. We hope that the Government will consider this and that others will do so if they are lucky enough to serve on the Bill Committee.
The Select Committee’s second point concerned the cost of commissioners. I noted the exchange between those on the Front Benches about special advisers. Of course, I accept what the Policing Minister has said. We need to be very careful about costs, especially those associated with the crime panels. I do not agree that those bodies should be elected, but they should be representative. As the Select Committee said, they should comprise those who have already been elected to represent district areas. It is important that they are as representative of the local community as possible, with the right to appoint independent members to deal with the issue of gender and ethnicity balance, which may be lacking in relation to elected representatives.
The final point relates to operational independence. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is not here, but he is the Committee’s leading expert on operational independence. The Committee felt that the time had come for a clear definition of where the responsibilities of the commissioner begin, where those of the chief constable end, and where those of the Home Office impact on the new responsibilities. We suggested not a Magna Carta, but a charter or a memorandum to set out those powers and responsibilities. We think that this is an appropriate time for that so that there is clarity. I hope that when hon. Members discuss this matter in Committee, they will find a way forward on such a memorandum of understanding.
Every local authority is different: Leicestershire is different from Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire is different from Cambridgeshire, and Greater Manchester is different from Birmingham. This is not Gotham city—I am sure that you were a fan of Batman and Robin, Mr Deputy Speaker. Commissioner Gordon will not put the light up in the air so that Batman—the equivalent, I suppose, of the chief constable—comes rushing forward to solve the crime. If only it were as easy as that. I am sure that there would be mobile phones in any new series of Batman. The fact is that these are complicated issues.
If we take the party politics out of this matter and analyse the discussions that we have had today, including the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and other hon. Members from both sides of the House, I am sure that we can make some progress. I hope that progress can be made in Committee on accountability and on the other important issues that have been mentioned today.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on a Bill that will fulfil many Conservative manifesto commitments, namely electing police commissioners and tackling the antisocial behaviour that is caused by excessive drinking in some of our towns. It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for the second time in a week. I found myself losing concentration thinking how wonderful it would be to be able to summon Batman to tackle the crime in our towns, but I sense that that solution is not possible.
I will start with the less high-profile measures in the Bill and leave police commissioners for the end of my small amount of time. Even areas such as mine, which lack a large city and its attendant problems, face the problems of alcohol-induced antisocial behaviour in the early mornings; people finding back routes home from the pub that take them past people’s houses, where they disturb people with their noise; and people’s frustration when they are not allowed to object to a licence because a vicinity test does not quite work. The reforms on those matters are greatly to be welcomed.
We must be careful that in the well-meaning attempt to tackle these problems, we do not create a different problem or use the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the nut. An example is the late-night levy, which is an important measure and a great tool for councils. My understanding of the Bill is that if a council such as mine introduces the late-night levy, it has to do so for the whole borough. My seat contains three towns, so all three towns would be included and not just the one where there might be a problem. We could therefore end up imposing a provision that is not required on establishments that are completely responsible and in areas where there is no issue to be tackled. Perhaps that point can be addressed in Committee so that the words achieve what we want them to.
Nigel Mills
I am sorry, time is too limited.
Police commissioners, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, are not something that one reads about and at once thinks, “Oh, marvellous.” People do not come to our surgeries and say that they want a police commissioner by May 2012. However, when one works through the ideas and looks at the problems that we are trying to tackle, it is clear that constituents feel divorced from the police. Perhaps unfairly, they think that the police are not accountable to them and are not doing what people want. In comparison, people are usually quite happy with the safer neighbourhood team with which they associate. There is a general view that the police are happily sitting behind desks or racing around in cars, rather than doing policing. That is a real problem that we need to tackle, because we all believe in policing by consent.
No one is arguing that we do not need some kind of authority or body to hold the police to account. We would not want to leave it to the chief constable to do whatever he felt like. We all accept that there have to be policing priorities. We cannot have police everywhere doing everything on every issue all the time. It is right that when difficult choices have to be made, there is some democratic accountability.
No Member has argued tonight that police authorities are a great success. I imagine that most of my constituents would struggle to name a single member of their police authority, and I do not recall an election leaflet saying, “This guy’s been on the police authority for the past four years. Hasn’t it been terrible? You should vote him out because of his record on that”. It just does not happen.
Nobody appreciates or values what police authorities do, and despite the costly newspaper that appears through my door every so often, nobody really understands what on earth they are for. There is a vacuum, and I cannot imagine that the way to fill it is through each district electing its own commissioner and all of them coming together to try to agree on something. I cannot see that working. The right answer has to be to elect an individual whom the public will recognise. People will understand that that is the person who is there to be accountable and to whom they can complain. That is the person to blame, who can set the strategy that the police force will follow. People will know that if it does not work, they can vote that person out four years later. That has to be the right way forward.
I do have some concerns about the electoral system for police commissioners included in the Bill. It is a bit strange that we will have a referendum next year to decide how we elect our MPs, yet we have jumped almost to the other side of that debate in the Bill. I might have preferred us to use the same electoral system for commissioners as for MPs. That would be far more understandable for the public.
I understand the argument that the method proposed will ensure that we do not end up with an extremist person having a commissioner’s power by mistake on a flukily low vote, but frankly, I would trust the people of Derbyshire not to end up in that situation. Those of us who represent a seat where there are British National party councillors can be a little nervous about that, but we can trust the people to elect a responsible person as commissioner. They will see that it is a very important job, and it will be valued, so I do not think people will do unfortunate things with their vote.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. It meets a whole load of the promises that we made at the election, and it will be a great step forward in bringing the police back closer to the people. We should all welcome that wholeheartedly.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), which is becoming a regular occurrence. We seem to be making quite a habit of it.
I am not sure that I share the hon. Gentleman’s views on police commissioners, because I believe, as Conservatives used to believe, in the old maxim, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. That is why I have real doubts about police commissioners. I invite any Conservative Member to show me a recent inspection report that raised major concerns about the functioning of police authorities. I am not saying that there are not things that we could deal with, but there have not been major concerns.
Even if there is some merit in the idea, I should like to know what the hurry is, especially at a time when we have so many other matters to contend with, such as massive cuts in the police budget, increasingly violent demonstrations, renewed terrorist threats and, I believe, a likely explosion in crime, especially if the Secretary of State of Justice gets his way and we have reduced prison capacity and reduced community justice budgets. I do not see the urgency at all. The Home Secretary said earlier that the money is not coming from police budgets, but surely the question is why she thinks she has any money to fritter away on non-essentials at a time like this.
I can see the reasons for the London arrangements in the Bill, because the Mayor doubles as the commissioner. However, little thought seems to have been given to the situation in other parts of the country that could also have powerful directly elected mayors. What will be the situation there, especially if there is a fundamental disagreement between the mayor and the commissioner? If I read the Bill correctly, a commissioner could well be nearly six months into his or her first term before their first policing plan was signed off. That does not sound like a model of urgency or efficiency. What would happen if a chief constable were profoundly to disagree with elements of the plan? That could be a recipe for stalemate.
We want the public to feel more engaged with the process, but, as I read the Bill, the police and crime commissioner will determine the manner in which their response to any recommendations on or criticism of their plan is published. That obviously means that they could choose to bury the parts to which they do not want to give exposure. Equally, I understand that they will be allowed to publish the plan itself as they see fit. If the idea is to ensure that people become more engaged with this process, I would have thought that the commissioners should be urged to publish the plan in a way that guaranteed maximum public access to it, rather than in the way that they see fit.
As this Bill begins its parliamentary route, we still have no idea what the salaries or pensions of the police and crime commissioners will be. Nor do we know anything about the salaries of the chief executives or the chief finance and accounting officers, but if they are anything like their equivalents in Birmingham, those people are going to be earning salaries greater than that of the Prime Minister, and I am not sure that that would be very smart at a time like this.
I welcome some of the measures in the Bill, particularly those relating to licensing powers. It is a good idea to give communities greater input and to listen to their representations and calls for the review of a licence. I shall be interested to see how that works, however, because my experience of licensing authorities is that they do not always pay anything like sufficient attention to local communities. I also welcome the doubling of the maximum fine for those who persistently sell alcohol to under-18s, and the increase in the period of suspension of the licence for premises involved in that activity. What most people want, however, is for the licence to be permanently revoked from premises that are persistently causing trouble and selling alcohol to under-18s.
I am slightly worried by what might be an unintended consequence of the powers for licensing authorities to impose conditions on a temporary event notice on environmental or health grounds. In a place such as Birmingham, that could result in the local authority tying good, honest charity events up in ridiculous bureaucracy and red tape. That must surely be an unintended consequence of the Bill that we would not wish to see.
I think it was the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) who referred to clause 15, which covers the power to commission the supply of goods from any source. That sounds good on the surface, but what will be the safeguards against illegal favours or monopoly arrangements? That is not the sort of thing I want to see. I also wonder about the powers in clause 16 for the commissioner to appoint persons who are not on the staff of the local policing body. I am sure that that is intended to deal with joint appointments, but it could be a consultants’ charter. I notice that clause 22(3) gives the Home Secretary the power to intervene if the budget is set too low and could endanger public safety. If this is such a good Bill, and if we can be so confident about the performance of police and crime commissioners, why would she have to take a power like that? It suggests to me that the Government have their own concerns about this matter.
Much in the Bill requires far more scrutiny in Committee. The Government need to explain a lot to reassure us that, while some of the measure’s intentions are good, its practice will not prove wrong.
For me, the centrepiece of the measure is the wrong policy at the wrong time, which, I fear, will lead to the wrong outcomes. The Government’s focus should be on preventing a rise in crime, helping victims and safeguarding our communities. It should not be on political experiments that waste money, risk politicising the police and take attention away from the need to bear down constantly on violent offenders and career criminals.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and the debate. I have four substantial points to make: where there is direct democracy and policing elsewhere in the world, it works; we must do more to support special constables; we must tell the truth about crime in our statistics; and universal jurisdiction must be reformed so that the Director of Public Prosecutions has control over issuing warrants.
We have rehearsed the arguments about police commissioners this evening. I am a passionate supporter of the policy because I believe that local people should have some say in the policing they want for their neighbourhood. The public want that—they are unhappy with police authorities. Extremist groups have not taken control of the police in north America, where there has been no great backlash against democracy.
I want mainly to speak about special constables. I have long believed that we must do more to support them and make them into a reserve force, like the Territorial Army or reserve firemen. Since 1997, the number of specials has fallen dramatically from 20,000 to fewer than 14,000. I have tabled three early-day motions on the issue—1160, 598 and 520. I also raised it at business questions last Thursday, and welcomed the Leader of the House’s response.
I am grateful to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who previously agreed with me in the House that there is huge untapped potential for recruiting more specials, who are in many ways like neighbourhood watch: a genuinely local force and a vital source of community intelligence.
One suggestion is to allow councils to discount council tax for those who become specials. That would act as an incentive and fit in with the Government’s big society proposals. The Association of Chief Police Officers supports the idea and Southampton city council has already trialled a scheme, which offered special constables a rebate rather than an up-front discount on their council tax. However, because of the legal uncertainties, the process took months and was only a one-off. At the end of the debate, I intend to table an amendment to clause 10(3) to make such action much easier for our colleagues in local government.
Under the new duty to co-operate, I would like the Bill to clarify that local authorities are free to co-operate with police forces, if they choose, by exempting special constables from council tax, or, at the very least, offering them a substantial discount. That does not have to be expensive. Essex is lucky to have nearly 700 specials. If each was offered £100 off their council tax bill, it would cost the grand sum of £70,000. Given that the public sector spent £10 billion in Essex last year, £70,000 is not an astronomical sum. I hope that the Minister and colleagues will be able to consider my amendment.
We must tell the truth about crime in our statistics. There is huge bureaucratic and political pressure to say that crime is decreasing. Everyone wants to believe that things are getting better. However, the tragedy is that that translates into immense personal pressure on individual police officers not to record crime because if they go out on the streets and find criminals their statistics look worse and worse. I recently met the Home Secretary and the chief constable of Essex to discuss crime in Harlow, and the chief constable made that point powerfully. One solution is to record two sorts of statistic. An innovative proposal is to use the Australian system and distinguish between crimes that the public have reported and those that the police have discovered.
Imagine if instead of one single box for recording crime, where everything gets jumbled and mixed together, we had two boxes. In the first box we could measure crime reported by the public, police officers and PCSOs, and in the second we would measure crime proactively discovered by the police. If the number of the latter crimes increased, we would not worry unduly, because it would mean that the police were doing their job, patrolling the streets and uncovering the hidden criminals who are disrupting our neighbourhoods.
I sincerely hope that when we consider that reform, we consider how to free our police officers from the immense political pressure to say that crime numbers are coming down. I welcome the reforms to public information, such as crime maps, which the Government are pushing for, and measures such as clause 89, “Crime and disorder strategies”, and clause 34, which contains the duty to liaise with local people. However, I hope that the Minister considers the Australian system of recording crime.
Finally, I believe that universal jurisdiction must be reformed so that the Director of Public Prosecutions has control over issuing warrants. Currently, the process for private prosecutions is being abused—it is used as a political tool for campaigning and point scoring—but the purpose of our justice system must be justice, not media campaigns. Therefore, I welcome clause 151, which will ensure that universal jurisdiction cases proceed only on the basis of solid evidence.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there is evidence that the current process was abused in the past, and that it got in the way of peaceful discussions and an understanding of different points of view?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The problem is that the current arrangements have been used as a political tool. A disproportionate number of arrest warrants sought for war crimes are directed at Israeli officials and politicians. It is worth remembering that Israel is a democratic country with the rule of law, and that it has a thriving judiciary and a Supreme Court that often rules against the state in cases with sound legal bases. If we want to promote peace in the middle east, Israel’s leaders must be able to come to Britain for talks with the British Government. The current misuse of universal jurisdiction actually hinders reconciliation efforts. That applies not just to Israel—for example, I understand that an arrest warrant was issued against Henry Kissinger.
In conclusion, I am hugely supportive of the Bill. The more democracy, the better. I hope that the Minister and colleagues will consider my amendment on special constables and reforming the flaws in our crime statistics, but I welcome the Government’s reforms, especially on universal jurisdiction and elected police commissioners. The Bill is in the same vein as all the Government’s policies and can be summed up in four words: power to the people.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I pay tribute to many who have spoken this evening, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who made a number of rational and intelligent suggestions in respect of the Australian system that I have not heard before, which I commend.
I also pay tribute to the police force in my constituency. I work closely with it, and spoke with the operational commander on Sunday morning. The force is swift, efficient and effective, as it has been for quite a few years, and it is very targeted, so it is no surprise that crime rates have gone down.
I support a charity called Families Fighting for Justice, which came to my attention in a rather unusual way. A constituent of mine sadly suffered two tragedies in her family—her children were brutally murdered—and as she went through that process, she felt that the system supported the perpetrator far more than the victim. I need tell no one in the House how appallingly bleak it must be for any parent to lose a child, but to lose two is beyond compare. Through meeting her I did a lot of research and came across the charity Families Fighting for Justice. I do not agree with everything it wants, but a number of the issues it is interested in and has been pushing concern the flippant guilty pleas that change just as a person gets to court. This Bill could begin to address issues where perpetrators have been perceived as getting away with murder—to coin a phrase—and level the playing field more. Speaking on behalf of Families Fighting for Justice, I think that the Bill is taking a step in the right direction for people such as my constituent who have been through such tragic circumstances.
I fully support the Bill. The key thing is that it will improve police accountability, allow the Home Secretary to react quickly to the constantly evolving criminal narcotics industry and tackle some of the root causes of antisocial behaviour. It covers some broad strategic issues that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tackled, but I would like to concentrate on antisocial behaviour, which might be seen as a relatively minor issue. I come from a family of police officers—an uncle, grandfather and great grandfather were policemen. So there has been a considerable number of policemen in my family. If it is any consolation, they are mostly supporters of the party of my coalition colleagues—but bless them. They are relatives, and I love them dearly.
I have always supported and had a great interest in the police force. I suppose that I might be termed as being on the robust wing of the Liberals. I am aware, as all MPs are from their constituency experience, that antisocial behaviour is appalling, particularly in disadvantaged areas where it is possible for one close or cul-de-sac to contain just one or two families who make life a misery for everyone. I have always been very strong on that. In fact, I was supportive of the broken window policy started in New York by Mayor Giuliani a few years ago through an elected police commissioner. He started dealing with crime at its root causes—for instance, broken windows and graffiti—and coming down on them very hard. As a result, the bigger crimes also began to reduce.
Antisocial behaviour in all its forms, especially at night, can be devastating for those it affects, which is why I am glad that part 2 of the Bill will amend the Licensing Act 2003 to shift the balance of power from pubs and clubs to local authorities and, more importantly, local communities. As is well known, a significant proportion of antisocial behaviour has alcohol at its root. I was stopped yesterday by a constituent in Eastbourne, which I hasten to add is a paragon of peace—it is also the sunniest town in England, so hon. Members should visit it in their holidays and spend all their money there. Over the weekend, I was walking around my constituency, talking, meeting and listening to people—as we all do—when I was stopped by a chap who works as a street pastor. He goes out late at night working with others, helping people and being there for young people, old people and middle-aged people in case of trouble. He told me that he once came across a young woman of about 16 or 17—lord knows how she got hold of the alcohol—who was comatose. Fortuitously, the ambulance arrived within 20 minutes or so, but this man, who is an experienced older man and former pastor, said, “Stephen, frankly, if the ambulance had been another 30 minutes, if there had been a hold-up, she probably would have died.”
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Not so long ago, I went on patrol with my local police in Crawley on a Friday night and into the early hours of Saturday morning. I was astounded to discover that, I would say, nine out of 10 of the incidents that we responded to were alcohol related.
Stephen Lloyd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his intervention. The overall statistics show that well over 50% of violent crimes involve alcohol. It is absolutely shocking. A number of colleagues talked about the cheap price of alcohol. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) declared that he did not drink cheap drinks or what-have-you—I am sure that he does not, and neither do I for that matter—but there is one cider in particular called White Lightning. I know of shops in Eastbourne where, sadly, it is used by young and old people specifically to get absolutely blitzed, and I am sure that there are similar shops in every town in the constituency. Given the damage that White Lightning causes, and especially because of its price, it is commendable that the Bill is beginning to look at such issues seriously.
A key part of this Bill comes back to antisocial behaviour. The more that we can give the power back to the people—back to the local authority—to challenge those establishments where alcohol is freely served and abused, the more that life will be made easier for many constituents around the country. I go back to the fact that it is often the smaller, perhaps less notorious aspects of crime that can cause so much damage. Antisocial behaviour is one of those, and it is clearly linked to alcohol. The changes in licensing will make things more efficient and, crucially, will give power back to the people. Those provisions are highly sensible, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I am delighted to follow the speakers who have recently been addressing the House. I completely support and commend the Bill. I intend to refer in the few minutes available to a couple of its clauses, but it strikes me very much that the Bill as a whole tremendously empowers people in our country, drawing power away from the state. As such, it is to be highly commended, and I congratulate the Minister on that.
The handful of Opposition speakers—and it is a small number—who have spoken on the issue of universal jurisdiction and the safeguard in the Bill have confirmed why it is so necessary to improve the law on universal jurisdiction as it stands. This issue is not just about Israel: the Chinese Trade Minister has apparently been threatened with arrest because of the current provision, as has Henry Kissinger. There have been difficulties in Europe with Donald Rumsfeld’s freedom of movement, and I believe that White House staffers have been threatened with arrest in Spain because of the principle of universal jurisdiction. I am given to understand that even the former Prime Minister Tony Blair has had a large number of petitions levied against him in the International Criminal Court, so this issue is not unique to the United Kingdom or Israel. It is an area that has needed reform for some considerable time.
The principle of amending the law on universal jurisdiction is in no way about stifling meritorious complaints. However, where jurisdiction is very wide, as it currently is in this country, it will tend to act as a magnet for complaints that are rooted in political vendettas, regardless of their merit. Universal jurisdiction has tended to mean that high-level consultations and meetings have been disrupted, and at times even cancelled. London has a long-established and important reputation as an effective venue for warring parties around the world—indeed, it has a cherished ability to act as such, serving as a diplomatic hot spot.
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Ironically, universal jurisdiction is getting in the way of diplomatic efforts to engender peace and in the way of peace talks and discussions, particularly in this international venue that is London. The Bill’s provisions are thus absolutely correct.
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. There have been literally dozens of examples in our recent history where London has been a centre for the negotiation and conclusion of important international agreements between warring factions, and we are in danger of losing that ability because universal jurisdiction has been misused, misapplied and inappropriately applied as a means of pursuing political vendettas. All that is required for the proposed changes is the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions—it is, incidentally, already required in certain other routine prosecutions—which would enable the system to withstand attempts to exploit the law for settling political scores. I very much welcome that provision.
Other important provisions are designed to deal with the encampment on Parliament square. The Prime Minister has said that he would like to see that encampment done away with; the Bill will achieve that, although it will be some months before Royal Assent is granted. Having looked at the existing laws, I take the view that law is already available on the criminal statute book, which could be applied to remove the encampment in time for the royal wedding in April.
Members will be fascinated to know that I have in mind the Vagrancy Act 1824. As Members will obviously know, section 4(2) of the 1824 Act says:
“Every person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or wagon, and not giving a good account of himself or herself… commits an offence.”
Members might be interested to know that this Act is not as obsolete as its antiquity would tend to imply. It is, in fact, a piece of legislation that is used regularly around the country. I myself have prosecuted people for this offence in relatively recent times, in my former guise as a member of the Bar.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I thought my hon. Friend was going to say that he had been moved on under the terms of the Act, so I was grateful that he finished his sentence. I am delighted that he has found a potential wrinkle to help us to clear the encampment outside this building, which I think disgraces the motherhood of democracy. Does he agree that although we all share the commitment to freedom of speech and the right to protest, this is simply an eyesore that we have tolerated for far too long? The provisions on this issue are important and should be welcomed.
Michael Ellis
I very much agree. Of course we all recognise and cherish the right of people to protest in this country; we have an extremely liberal democracy that allows and, indeed, encourages it. It has however, reached a point of utter nonsense in Parliament square gardens.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 can be used to remove these people because they are either
“in the open air, or under a tent”,
and committing an offence under that provision. The maximum penalty for breaching it is a fine at level 1 of the standard scale, which is a maximum of £200. However, Members will be interested to know that if a person is prosecuted a second time for this offence, they can then be classified as “an incorrigible rogue”. The provision then allows the magistrates to remit the matter to the Crown court for sentence. Whereas on first prosecution the maximum sentence is a £200 fine, on second conviction for the same offence the maximum penalty would be up to 12 months’ imprisonment. That might well act as a disincentive to those encamping themselves on Parliament square, encouraging them to move on. The only requirements for prosecution are that the people concerned have been given an opportunity to take shelter elsewhere and have not availed themselves of that opportunity; that they have persistently ignored reasonably accessible alternatives; and that their remaining in situ would have offensive consequences or those consequences would appear likely to occur. I think that the House could well deal with the encampment by means of a prosecution before the Bill is given Royal Assent.
I have dealt with two clauses. I have only two minutes in which to cover several hundred more, but let me say a little about the proposal relating to police commissioners. It is a fundamentally democratic proposal, which I strongly support. Only a tiny number of people currently know that police authorities even exist.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that in this country we police with consent—the consent of the people—and that there is no better way of securing the consent of the people than a democratic election?
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been quite strange to observe Opposition members baulking at the suggestion that police and crime commissioners should be elected. One would have expected them to support the democratic process.
Karl Turner
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the proposal politicises the police?
Michael Ellis
I do not accept that at all. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Prime Minister but one, Tony Blair, summoned chief constables from around the country and put them under pressure to deal with knife crime. That was a form of politicisation of the police, and it is not something that police commissioners will be doing. Democratically electing police commissioners will, in fact, legitimise them.
I, for one, support all the provisions in the Bill, and commend it as an excellent and honourable measure that will increase the democratic process.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate to which many Members on both sides of the House have contributed. At the heart of the Bill is disagreement about whether the reforms will lead to politicisation. Government Members may assert that they will not, but there is real worry among not just Members of Parliament but many outside organisations.
The hon. Members for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), discussed the measures to deal with alcohol. Many of us welcome those measures. Let me say to the Home Secretary and her Ministers that I consider it important to enforce not only the new laws in the Bill, but the existing laws.
Some of the problems relating to alcohol, and in particular to binge drinking, are cultural. There is not just one homogeneous problem; there is the problem of binge drinking, the problem of the purchase of alcohol on estates by under-age drinkers and the problem of alcoholism, which usually involves older drinkers. We need to understand that there are three separate problems, each of which requires a separate solution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East also mentioned the measures relating to drugs, which I welcome. Obviously, we will have to consider their practical implications in Committee, but this is certainly a sensible and realistic attempt to deal with what we all recognise to be a real problem.
Although we are in favour of universal jurisdiction, I repeat to my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) something that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said: we will look at its implications in Committee.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) talked about the issue of commissioners, which is at the heart of the Bill. We all accept that accountability is important and necessary, but the question is: what is the right way of ensuring that the police are held accountable? The Bill proposes that the right way is through a single individual on a force-wide basis. My two hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary pointed out some of the difficulties in that, as I will too.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) pointed out that the Bill’s proposal for a single individual accountable at force-wide level does not address the real accountability issues, which, as most Members will know, are at neighbourhood, street and ward level. People come to me about drugs problems in the pub car park or a gang of youths at the end of the street; they do not come to me about the force’s counter-terrorism policy, or come to me and say the force does not have the right strategic approach to serious and organised crime. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the accountability gap people often feel and the confidence that is then sometimes under threat are at a neighbourhood and street level, and I do not see how a single force commissioner can deal with that.
Vernon Coaker
I will not give way at present, as I want to make a point about an issue the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) raised. He talked about the need to tackle antisocial behaviour, and we all agree with that. People ask why the crime statistics are sometimes not believed. As Bill Bratton said to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, unless antisocial behaviour—some of the minor crimes which are nevertheless real issues—is dealt with, people sometimes do not believe the broader crime statistics. That highlights the importance of having somebody at the local or neighbourhood level who—
Vernon Coaker
Let me finish this point. That highlights the importance of having somebody at the local or neighbourhood level who is accountable for dealing with such matters. That is the really important level of accountability.
Vernon Coaker
I am going to take one intervention. As some of the Members on their feet have already been granted interventions, I will give way to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord).
Mr Offord
A central tenet of the Local Government Act 2000 was the introduction of greater accountability and transparency in the decision-making process and the introduction of directly elected mayors, so why does the hon. Gentleman not support the same rationale in this Bill?
Vernon Coaker
Because I did not think they were a very good idea then. The hon. Gentleman has to deal with this: the accountability his party seeks to put in place through this Bill is at a force-wide level, and I am saying it is the wrong level of accountability.
Vernon Coaker
I cannot give way as I have to finish in four or five minutes. Those Members wishing to intervene can argue this point in more detail in Committee, as they do not have to be Committee members to do so.
The Bill makes a number of proposals on issues such as drugs, alcohol and protests around Parliament, but at its core is police reform and the proposal for elected police commissioners and police and crime panels. At the same time as we have massive cuts to policing that will mean thousands fewer police in every single area of the country, the Government are subjecting police to an unwanted organisational upheaval. Of course, not only are police officers under threat but police staff in the back office and police community support officers will go.
Vernon Coaker
I cannot. I would normally, but I have not got time. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
As we have seen from the police grant reports today, every single police force will be under huge financial pressure, yet the Government want to spend more than £100 million on these commissioners, equivalent to the cost of 600 full-time officers. This organisational change will happen in May 2012, just before the Olympics, and in 2012-13, the year of the biggest cuts.
Who wants this? The Minister must tell us who is demanding these so-called reforms. We have seen in The Guardian today that the APA is completely opposed to the reforms—the letter is from Conservative, Independent, Labour and Liberal Democrat members. Liberty is opposed to them, so are the LGA and the police. We have a so-called listening Government who are, frankly, telling people that they know best.
The Minister has failed to answer the questions. If the commissioner is elected based on a particular proposal, who will decide? The elected commissioner or the chief constable? If I am an elected commissioner and I promise that every police officer will be visible and on the street, but the chief constable says, “No, I want some for domestic violence, for cross-border organised crime, for tackling economic fraud and for child protection,” who will decide? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said, the Government have a duty to be clearer about where that dividing line will occur and about what operational independence and operational responsibility mean. We have no clarity about that in the Bill.
Vernon Coaker
I cannot; I have not got time.
I have dealt with subject of the wrong level of accountability, and it is also unclear how police and crime panels are to work. Are they to hold commissioners to account or to work with them to deliver what they want? They have a power of veto in only two areas—namely the precept, or budget, and the appointment of the chief constables—but they must have a three-quarters majority for that veto to be effective. That is a greater majority than the Government have passed for the Dissolution of Parliament. A three-quarters majority would mean that virtually every person on the police and crime panel would have to agree for that veto to happen.
In conclusion, the political independence of the police is as important in a democracy as the independence of the courts. Political views and opinions may ebb and flow, but the police remain. That allows every individual, whatever their race, religion or politics, to feel protected. A single person who is politically motivated elected to oversee the police will make it increasingly difficult to ensure that this political independence is maintained. For that reason, above all, the Government must think again.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I apologise to the House for the fact that I had briefly to leave the debate. I was attending and addressing a meeting in the House of London members of the Police Superintendents Association, as were Opposition Front Benchers.
It has clearly largely been a good debate and I welcome the constructive comments that have been made and that have been reported to me. I shall attempt to respond to as many as I can either now or, if appropriate, later. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), mentioned his report and we are paying the closest attention to its recommendations, which we think are very considered. Like the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, he mentioned the importance of operational independence. We all agree about that and we all want to protect it. The Chairman of the Committee suggested that a memorandum of understanding might be the means by which that could be achieved. That is a good idea and the Government have already said that we will sit down with ACPO once the Bill is enacted and agree an extra-statutory protocol—I am sure that we can discuss these issues as the Bill makes progress—that will set out the terms of agreement to ensure that operational independence is protected. There is agreement between us and ACPO—it is important that the Opposition understand this—that we should not seek to define operational independence in the Bill. That is a matter for case law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) made a number of important points and I shall respond in detail at the appropriate time, but let me deal with two of them now. We will be engaging with the Electoral Commission on its recommendations. He asked whether the strategic policing requirement could cover issues such as business crime. That is important, but the aim of the requirement is to cover issues of national importance on which co-ordination is required, such as counter-terrorism and serious organised crime, to ensure that elected police and crime commissioners and chief constables have regard to those cross-border issues. I am not sure whether that would be appropriate for the issues he raised, but it is worth discussing.
Mark Reckless
On the question of operational independence, one could get the impression from Opposition Members that police forces operate and are directed in a political vacuum. Surely, it is entirely appropriate that police authorities should determine whether Tasers, for example, should be used. None of us would expect police to start using water cannon and that sort of operational tactic without political permission and oversight.
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree and the Home Secretary said exactly the same thing today. Such tactics are a matter for the operational responsibility of the police, but such major decisions have to be agreed with the police authorities that hold them to account locally.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made good speeches supporting our plans to toughen alcohol licensing. I welcome the Opposition’s support for those measures, but what a far cry it is from the claims of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) that Labour’s 24-hour drinking laws were about
“enriching the quality of people’s lives.”
How naive that was. We have seen the result of those laws—violence and disorder in our city and town centres. So, Labour now repudiates its ill-judged experiment with the so-called café culture, but it is clearly going to oppose the measures on police reform for opposition’s sake. That is not the position of the former Minister with responsibility for policing, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), however. Based on the notes I have seen, I think she made a thoughtful speech on the importance of accountability, although we may differ on the particular.
The shadow Home Secretary’s arguments against our proposals for police and crime commissioners are deeply unconvincing and he keeps getting things wrong. He attacked our statement on police funding today and got the numbers wrong. Last week, he said that the inspectorate of constabulary’s figures were “corrupt and erroneous”, but was then forced to retract those words. Today, he told the House that police and crime commissioners would have the power “to direct” policing, but that is simply wrong. Chief constables will retain control and direction of their forces, as it says in clause 2, which he should read. We are determined to protect the operational independence of chief constables. Police and crime commissioners will be able to set the policing plan with the agreement of the chief constable but they will not direct policing and nor should they.
The shadow Home Secretary said that the commissioners will be elected solely to run policing, but that will not be their sole job. They will be police and crime commissioners with wider powers and devolved budgets from the Home Office to fight crime and engage in crime prevention with the local community. If the right hon. Gentleman has such a good case, why does he need to invent objections to the Bill? He continues to assert that the commissioners will appoint political advisers, but we have repeatedly made it clear that we will not allow that. We do not want to politicise policing and we do not want spin in policing. We will not take any lectures about political advisers and spin from the friend of McBride and Whelan.
Ed Balls
I do not want to get into personal invective or to drag the important issue of policing down to the gutter. I have been told by a number of people who attended the meeting of the Association of Police Authorities at which the Minister spoke that he said that, if he were elected as a police and crime commissioner, the first decision he would take would be to appoint a political adviser. Was everyone else at that meeting mistaken or has he forgotten attending the event and saying those things?
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong and our intention is clear—we keep repeating it: we do not want political advisers and we have legislated for that in the Bill.
The Labour party complains about the cost of the commissioners and that complaint was repeated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). We have made it quite clear that commissioners must cost no more than the police authorities they replace. Yes, there will be the cost of holding the elections once every four years—an average £12.5 million a year. That is less than 0.1% of police spend, and the money will not come from force budgets anyway.
Nick Herbert
Labour’s manifesto at the last election proposed referendums five times over—on the alternative vote, on reform of the other place, on mayors, on further powers for the Welsh Assembly and on the euro. Did Labour Members advance arguments against those democratic pledges on the grounds that they would cost money? Of course not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) pointed out, of course there is a cost to running elections. Police authorities do not have that cost because they are not democratic. That is exactly what we want to fix.
Nick Herbert
For all Labour’s objections, one could be forgiven for forgetting that the previous Government twice proposed to democratise police authorities. So what happened? They backed down, twice. That is the difference between the previous Government and the coalition. The Opposition retreated from reform at the first whiff of opposition and we are determined to see it through. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”]
One thing is clear. Those on the Opposition Front Bench may be opportunistically opposing this reform, but we know what they really think about the need for it.
“Only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical.”
Does that sound familiar to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)? It should do. He said it just two years ago.
Is that too long ago? Let us look at what the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) said just two weeks ago. He told the Home Affairs Committee that “the present accountability of police authorities was not optimal.” What a masterpiece of understatement. If police authorities are sub-optimal, what proposals does he have for reform? None. He is silent on the issue. Today the right hon. Gentleman admitted that “there is more we can do to deepen accountability at force level.” What? He will not say. He is against reform of the governance of policing, but he is for it, just as he is against cuts while admitting that he would cut police budgets by more than £1 million a year. Apparently these can be delivered without losing a single police officer. That is what he said today.
Nick Herbert
On point after point, Labour Members get it wrong. They say that the constituencies—
Hon. Members: Give way!
Nick Herbert
Labour Members say that the constituencies will be too big, yet the largest constituency outside London will have 2.5 million electors, and the capital has more than 5.5 million. Londoners like the clear line of accountability that the Mayor provides. The Opposition run scare stories about extremists being elected. Did it happen in London? No. Fortunately, Ken Livingstone was replaced by Boris Johnson.
At the heart of objections to the Bill lies a deeply worrying philosophy. It is the view that one cannot trust the people. Heaven forfend that they might elect someone who represents their views. Those are the same disreputable arguments that were mounted against enfranchising the general public and women. The same attitude pervades opposition to the Bill—that one cannot trust the electorate. It is as undemocratic as it is elitist to argue that the public should have no say, and that our public services would be run so much better by people who are unaccountable and who know better than them.
Policing is a monopoly service and people cannot choose their force. This public service has to answer to someone. Is it to be bureaucratic accountability to Whitehall or local accountability to the people? We believe in trusting people and returning power and responsibility to communities. We think that local people should have a say over how their area is policed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, we think that local people should have power so that they can do something when problem drinking blights their town and city centres. We are determined to rebuild the link between the people and the police forces who serve them. That is why these reforms are right for the people, right for the police and right for the times. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Schools Admissions Policies
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Tonight, I shall try to find the balance in schools admissions between the right of schools to set their admissions policy and the right of parents to get their children into a local school. In Milton Keynes, a growing city with many in-year admissions, that is no mean feat. Hopefully we can find a resolution tonight, but it is fair to say that for many, school admissions is a sore subject. It preoccupies parents, has the power to inflate house prices and has even been the stuff of TV drama.
In Milton Keynes, schools admissions has gained renewed controversy since changes were made to the allocation process. The previous Government said that those changes would ensure fairness, but combined with other factors, they have had the unintended consequence of leaving scores of children out of education or having to travel miles across the city to get to school. The delays and distances endured by many of my young constituents are simply not fair.
From September, local authorities were charged with co-ordinating all applications for foundation schools and academies for those applying outside the yearly round. Previously, these in-year applications, usually from people moving into the city, were submitted directly to schools. Now councils must match each child’s three preferences with the schools’ admissions criteria and capacity, and allocate a place. Nationally, councils have reported concerns to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator about this new role. Pressure group Parents Outloud even championed the previous system, and admissions staff at schools have bemoaned the new layer of bureaucracy. Locally, the impact of the change has been compounded by the fact that all our 12 state secondary schools are foundation schools, with one voluntary aided and one academy. Milton Keynes council only has a team of five to deal with its new responsibility.
Since September, I have been inundated with complaints from parents about delays in the process, as well as about what has been offered. Children are now sitting at home for weeks while the council finds them a place, and then further weeks for the school to induct them. When places are offered, many of them are on the other side of the city.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is raising an important topic. Is he aware that on my side of Milton Keynes I have received a similar number of complaints, and that some of the complaints about admissions relate to primary schools as well as secondary schools?
Mark Lancaster
I am aware of the problem, because it is the same in Milton Keynes North. However, I am also aware of my hon. Friend’s sterling efforts in getting many of his constituents into school. I congratulate him on that.
This is a particularly timely debate. The Government are reviewing the school admissions framework and the school admissions code, with a view to making it simpler and fairer. A White Paper on “The Importance of Teaching” has just been published, putting the onus of fair access to schools on local authorities. Fairness is the driving force of the White Paper. I want therefore to outline the situation in Milton Keynes and consider how we can make admissions fairer for schools, authorities, parents and, most importantly, pupils.
As I have said, many of the complaints I have received relate to the delays in council allocation and school induction. This year, Milton Keynes council received 327 secondary school in-year applications. This influx is to be expected in our city, which is an area of rapid growth. The Department for Education—or the Department for Children, Schools and Families, as it was then—recommended that places be allocated within five school days. Milton Keynes council aims for a turnaround of 15 days. Owing to this year’s influx, however, parents have seen a reported six-week wait for their child’s three preferences to be processed. Then, once a place is allocated and accepted, there is a further delay as the school conducts its induction arrangements.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In September and October, I was inundated with problems from parents, particularly in the Holme Valley, Honley and Brockholes, with over-subscribed schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that consistency in admissions policy would be particularly helpful, especially when it comes to siblings being able to go to the same school?
Mark Lancaster
That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point that I will come on to.
We can all agree that the last thing we want is children out of school. In fact, parents could be prosecuted for keeping their children at home for such lengths of time. However, according to a Mail on Sunday investigation in September, bureaucracy was barring up to 15,000 primary and secondary pupils from the classroom nationally. Each school calculates its own published admissions number—known as a PAN—every year. This determines the number of pupils that can be admitted to each year group. However, such is our shortage of places that 120 of this year’s 327 secondary school applicants did not get any of their three choices.
One school is bearing the brunt of the city’s scarcity of school places. The Radcliffe school in Wolverton does not fill its PAN, so when the council cannot give in-year applicants any of their three preferences, it allocates them to the Radcliffe, seemingly regardless of where the children live in our ever-expanding city. Head teacher John O’Donnell is currently dealing with an influx of 140 allocations. A staggering 119 are from children who are out of area, many of whom will have to be bussed or potentially taxied in from outside. Understandably for students who are out of catchment, Radcliffe was not one of their three preferences. The council is fulfilling its duty—every applicant is being offered a school place—but this is turning the Radcliffe into a de facto community school. Whereas 5% of its intake came from outside the catchment area previously, that has suddenly increased to 10%, and is set to rise further.
That volume of allocations has taken its toll. Mr O’Donnell is devoting two days a week to dealing with the backlog. His induction arrangements involve meeting the pupils and families to determine their requirements, be they special educational needs, academic courses or even language—after all, 37 mother tongues are spoken at the school. The induction process has been criticised, but it is understandable that Mr O’Donnell wants to get his pupils off to the best start. His school finally broke out of special measures in October 2009, after a well-deserved record round of GCSE results, but do we want him to put children straight into lessons that are not appropriate just to get them into school, or do we want him to continue raising standards? Such is the backlog that pupils are now being allocated places at the Radcliffe, where they will not be able to start for months. The result is scores of children sitting at home—not studying, just waiting.
Why has the Radcliffe seen such an influx? It can be partly explained by the creation of the Milton Keynes academy—a fantastic new facility, and the city’s first—which opened in September 2009. As I told the Secretary of State after he delivered his White Paper on 24 November, the academy’s PAN is lower than that of its predecessor, the Sir Frank Markham community school. That has displaced people from the academy’s catchment area, who are instead being given places at the Radcliffe. For example, Mr O’Donnell is for the first time seeing applicants from the Netherfield estate, which is 1 mile from the academy, but nearly 7 miles from the Radcliffe. In fact, many of the Radcliffe’s new intake of 119 are from the academy’s catchment area.
It is worth taking a moment to consider why it is so important for children to go to a school close to home. Once they are 18, many seem to pick a university that gets them as far away as possible—or a continent that takes them even further afield, on their gap year—but most school kids just want to walk to school with their mates. The national Walk to School campaign highlights why travelling on foot is good for morale and health, taking congestion off our roads and promoting a more cohesive society.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this excellent debate and campaigning so vigorously on behalf of school pupils across Milton Keynes. I am sure that he will be aware that there is a problem right across the country. In Ingleby Barwick in my constituency, a local group called BO2SS—Barwick’s Own 2nd Secondary School—has come together to put forward a free school application specifically in order to allow local pupils to attend a school within walking distance in their community. It is important to put on record the fact that although the problem is significant in Milton Keynes, it needs to be addressed across the nation as a whole.
Mark Lancaster
I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I would argue that a good basis for the big society is schooling children in their own communities.
With Mr O’Donnell’s out-of-catchment intake, he is seeing a massive decrease in those attending after-school activities. Engagement has already taken a hit because many pupils have to change buses in central Milton Keynes. There, they are drawn to shops and attractions, rather than continuing with their journeys, which sometimes involve catching two or three buses. We have to think about what sort of society we want to create. Do we want our children to become juvenile commuters, reading bus timetables rather than textbooks?
The problem is not confined to the two aforementioned schools. For example, the Mumford family moved to a house in Newport Pagnell that overlooks a secondary school, Ousedale. Two of their daughters were offered places at the school, but not in a classroom yards from their home—rather, at the campus in the next town, Olney, which is more than 8 miles away and not on a bus route. They were alternatively offered places at the Radcliffe school, 6.5 miles away, but told that they would not be able to start until November. After weeks out of education, they face a daily commute when there is already a school on their doorstep. Likewise, a mother and her son moved to Olney, very near the town’s Ousedale campus. The son was instead offered a place at the Radcliffe school, 11 miles away. As there is no bus service that would get him to school, he was offered a council-funded taxi to take him there and back every day. Fortunately, after an intervention from my caseworker and persistence from his mother, his appeal was successful and he has happily started at his local school, without having to use a taxi, that would have cost the council £2,875 a year.
We are talking about fairness, but what is happening is unfair on children whose parents are not able, for whatever reason, to fight their case and push for appeals. It is unfair on the children whose parents cannot provide them with transport if they have to travel several miles to school or support them if they are stuck out of education for a period of time. Indeed, schools can admit above their PAN in exceptional circumstances if children fall into the categories stipulated by the fair access protocol. This protocol also applies to those who have been out of school for more than one term or those whose parents have been unable to find them a place after moving to the area. However, Milton Keynes council resorted to this protocol on only four occasions last year and not at all this year.
After my prolonged campaign for “I before E”—infrastructure before expansion—and the coalition Government’s commitment to it, I am confident that our rate of school building will keep up with our population growth. After all, Milton Keynes is the fifth fastest-growing city in the UK, but I am concerned that, as new schools appear, they will fill up with pupils from across the city before nearby houses are built. Head teachers have wanted to hold places, but the incentive is to fill places to secure maximum funding.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem is not limited to growing towns? We have a strikingly parallel situation in Cheltenham, where two neighbouring schools were both over-subscribed, which left an admissions gap between them. Again, pupils were referred a long distance away. That was resolved in the end by the good will of the governors of both schools, but with the assistance of the local authority. Does he share my slight concern that the more independence we give schools over admissions, the less incentive they will have to co-ordinate and resolve these problems?
Mark Lancaster
The hon. Gentleman comes to the nub of the problem—how we square that circle between the rights of schools to set their own admissions and the rights of families to get their children into their local school. In Milton Keynes, the consequence is that new families moving in cannot get a place at their local school.
Network Rail’s new headquarters is set to bring 2,000 new staff to the city. Yes, there will be school places for the children who move here, but will these be anywhere near their houses and how long will they have to wait to start? This situation also spells trouble as we see the creation of more academies. In Milton Keynes, two schools have applied for academy status, which I wholeheartedly support. I am delighted about it, but will they, as in the previous case, have reduced PANs and will we see yet more displacement within the city?
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State has mooted the idea of allowing schools to prioritise children from disadvantaged backgrounds in the oversubscription criteria. While this is laudable in principle, it has been suggested that allocation will favour a child’s means over their proximity to a school. Will we end up with a city where students are crossing each other’s paths as they travel to school? Indeed, this situation has posed more questions than answers. Of course there is no dispute that fairness should underpin whatever we do, but there remain two problems with the current set up: delays and distance.
Various recommendations have been made. One that head teachers say would make a big difference is allowing schools in high-growth areas to be able to hold places for people moving in at a later date. This could be made possible by “ghost funding” those places, which is the approach taken by armed forces schools. Again, I am all for infrastructure before expansion, but it has to be done in a strategic way, because at the moment people are moving next to these new schools, but are not able to get a place there.
The school admissions code needs to recognise the importance of schools admitting children from the catchment area. Councils do not seem to have a problem sending children 10 miles away; parents and head teachers do. If we want to improve attainment and children’s quality of life, we must recognise that proximity of schooling is very important. A school’s duty should be to serve its local area. John Prescott famously warned of the dangers of setting up good schools, because
“everyone wants to go there”.
Well, our schools in Milton Keynes are all good. The only danger is that many children will continue to wait too long and travel too far before they actually get to go there.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) on securing this debate. I understand the importance he attaches to education, and it was he who introduced me to Peter Barnes, an inspiring head teacher of the Oakgrove school in his constituency.
My hon. Friend is right to say that admissions policy is a sore subject. I would go a step further, and say that for many parents admissions are a cause of huge stress as they fight to secure a place in a good school when the education system provides insufficient good places. We have some of the best schools in the world, but we also have too many that are still struggling. According to Ofsted’s annual report, published on 23 November, 39% of secondary schools and 36% of primary schools are judged to be inadequate or merely satisfactory. If the admissions system is to be fair, all parents must have the opportunity to choose a good school, not just a satisfactory school. It is not good enough that nearly four in 10 secondary schools and over a third of primary schools do not yet reach that level.
Although 83% of parents secured their first-preference school in this year’s admissions round—in Milton Keynes the figure was 88%—that still means that, nationally, nearly one in five parents failed to achieve their first choice of school. It is worse in cities, with one in three missing out on their first choice in London and Birmingham. In some local authority areas, only 50% of parents manage to get their children into their first-preference schools. In 2008-09, more than 88,000 appeals were made by parents who were unhappy with the schools that had been allocated to them, and in 22% of cases the appeals were allowed.
That is the scale of the problem that the Government are charged with tackling. They must establish how to increase the number of good school places, and how to reduce the stress and unhappiness that arise every year during the admissions process. That problem is compounded by the fact that, according to the latest report by the Programme for International Student Assessment, this country’s educational ranking has fallen from seventh to 25th in reading, from eighth to 28th in science, and from fourth to 16th in maths.
We need to learn from the best-performing countries, which have been successful in closing the attainment gap between those from wealthier and poorer backgrounds while raising standards for all students. Many have drawn up comprehensive plans for school improvement that involve improving teacher quality, granting greater autonomy to the front line, modernising curriculums, making schools more accountable to their communities, harnessing detailed performance data, and encouraging professional collaboration.
Only through such whole-system reform can education be transformed to make our nation one of the world’s top performers, and that is what our White Paper “The Importance of Teaching”—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend—will allow us to do. It will provide greater autonomy for schools, an enhanced teaching profession with renewed professional status, a war on the bureaucratic burdens and red tape that sap motivation and energy, a real focus on raising standards in reading and arithmetic in primary schools, and a revised and slimmed-down national curriculum focused on core knowledge.
We also want to ease the burden on local authorities. Rather than their having to engage in activities such as setting up admissions forums or providing the schools adjudicator with an annual report because central Government says that they must, we want them to concentrate on making the admissions process as fair and straightforward as possible. As my hon. Friend intimated, we intend to simplify the admissions code, while still ensuring fair access to schools for all children.
As my hon. Friend said, local authorities have a critical role to play. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State describes them as our indispensable partners, and nowhere is that truer than in the co-ordination of fair admissions. Decisions about the allocation of school places can only be made locally. When schools are over-subscribed, the current system allows admission authorities to set their own criteria to decide place allocations, provided that they comply with the school admissions code and admissions legislation.
The use of catchment areas is a popular method, but there are others, including prioritisation based on travel distance, siblings—that too was mentioned by my hon. Friend—and feeder primary schools. The admissions code states explicitly that when catchment areas are used, they must always reflect the community served by the school and must never disadvantage particular social groups by, for example, excluding certain housing estates or addresses.
Those arrangements—as well as the timetable governing when parents apply for their children to start primary school or transfer to secondary school—have been in place for a number of years, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, local authorities have been required to co-ordinate all in-year applications and offers only from this September as a result of changes made by the previous Government. On the one hand, this means that parents have to complete only a single application form to the local authority where they live, instead of having to go through the often disheartening process of contacting schools direct. It also allows local authorities to help more vulnerable families. On the other hand, it also makes for the kind of slow and bureaucratic process that my hon. Friend North described and delays the allocation of places. In recent months, the Department has had a steady flow of correspondence from local authorities and schools echoing those same concerns—which were also echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton)—and arguing that schools should be able to offer or refuse a place directly. Admissions processes are an imprecise science, but having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North and having received representations from admissions authorities and members of the public, I am convinced that we have to look again at this issue. It will be considered as part of the review and the simplification of the admissions code that we are currently undertaking.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of travel to and from school. In common, I am sure, with all Members of this House, we want as many children as possible to be able to walk or cycle to school wherever they can. It is healthier and reduces traffic congestion. I know from the Milton Keynes “Walk’n’Roll” scheme, launched in October as part of walk to school month, and the “cycle train” interventions, that the authority is committed to working with schools to achieve precisely that.
It is far from ideal for children to have to travel long distances. Parents want their local school to be a good school that they are happy for their child to attend, which goes back to my original point that we have to do more to create more good school places and to raise standards in underperforming schools. The statutory walking distance is currently 2 miles for pupils below the age of eight and 3 miles for those aged eight and over. Where a pupil is attending the nearest suitable school and it is further than the walking distances, free home to school transport has to be provided by the local authority. I am pleased to be able to say that today’s local government funding settlement announcement included the proposal to conduct a root-and-branch review of home-to-school transport policy in the new year. The current arrangements have remained largely unchanged since the Education Act 1944 and the Government believe they are no longer appropriate for today’s modern education system. In the meantime, I know that there are specific issues in Milton Keynes and that a number of pupils face long and difficult journeys, and I have listened carefully to the points made so effectively by my hon. Friend.
In summary, we have to improve our education system and we have to improve our admissions system. Fair and inclusive admissions are a vital component of a world-class education system, and I will ensure that our review of admissions addresses all the points my hon. Friend raised today.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Children Maintenance
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Laurence Robertson
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the Child Support Agency has (a) assessed as being due and (b) collected in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
[Official Report, 8 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 170-172W.]
Letter of correction from Maria Miller:
An error has been identified in Table 1 of the written answer given to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on 8 November. The figure for the September 2006 annual assessed amount was incorrectly given as £1,146 million and should have been £1,446 million.
The full answer was given as follows:
Maria Miller
The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is responsible for the child maintenance system. I have asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and I have seen the response.
Letter from Stephen Geraghty:
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Child Maintenance Commissioner.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much the Child Support Agency has (a) assessed as being due and (b) collected in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [22664]
The attached table provides an estimate of the value of money assessed as being due and the value of money collected or arranged.
The value of money assessed as being due has been calculated by taking the average weekly assessment at September each year (excluding nil liability), and multiplying it by the caseload as at September.
Figures on average weekly assessment and caseload are available within the Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics available in the House of Commons library or online at
http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/publications/statistics.html
Quarter to: | Cases with maintenance liability | Average weekly assessment (£) | Annual assessed amount (£ million) | Total Child Maintenance collected or arranged (£ million) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
September 2006 | 751,700 | 37 | 1,146 | 867 |
September 2007 | 825,100 | 35 | 1,502 | 942 |
September 2008 | 855,700 | 35 | 1,557 | 1,090 |
September 2009 | 834,000 | 34 | 1,475 | 1,131 |
September 2010 | 854,100 | 34 | 1,510 | 1,146 |
Notes: 1. Caseload figures rounded to nearest 100. 2. Arrears and collections figures rounded to nearest £1m. 3. Caseload figures include cases administered on both the CS2 and CSCS computer systems as well as cases administered off system with the exception of the September 2006 figure and represent a snapshot as of September each year. 4. Collections and arrangements are a true representation of the amount collected and arranged over the 12 months to September. 5. Weekly assessment figures include cases administered on the CS2 and CSCS computer systems only and exclude cases administered off system. Work is underway to more accurately calculate the value of assessments. |
The correct answer should have been:
Maria Miller
The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is responsible for the child maintenance system. I have asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and I have seen the response.
Letter from Stephen Geraghty:
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Child Maintenance Commissioner.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much the Child Support Agency has (a) assessed as being due and (b) collected in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [22664]
The attached table provides an estimate of the value of money assessed as being due and the value of money collected or arranged.
The value of money assessed as being due has been calculated by taking the average weekly assessment at September each year (excluding nil liability), and multiplying it by the caseload as at September.
Figures on average weekly assessment and caseload are available within the Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics available in the House of Commons library or online at
http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/publications/statistics.html
Quarter to: | Cases with maintenance liability | Average weekly assessment (£) | Annual assessed amount (£ million) | Total child maintenance collected or arranged(£ million) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
September 2006 | 751,700 | 37 | 1,446 | 867 |
September 2007 | 825,100 | 35 | 1,502 | 942 |
September 2008 | 855,700 | 35 | 1,557 | 1,090 |
September 2009 | 834,000 | 34 | 1,475 | 1,131 |
September 2010 | 854,100 | 34 | 1,510 | 1,146 |
Notes: 1. Caseload figures rounded to nearest 100. 2. Arrears and collections figures rounded to nearest £1 million. 3. Caseload figures include cases administered on both the CS2 and CSCS computer systems as well as cases administered off system with the exception of the September 2006 figure and represent a snapshot as of September each year. 4. Collections and arrangements are a true representation of the amount collected and arranged over the 12 months to September. 5. Weekly assessment figures include cases administered on the CS2 and CSCS computer systems only and exclude cases administered off system. Work is under way to more accurately calculate the value of assessments. |
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Ratification of Treaties)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Part 2 also requires the Minister, if the “alternative procedure” in clause 23 is being used in exceptional circumstances, to lay a statement giving reasons.
[Official Report, 11 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 22-23WS.]
Letter of correction from Mr David Lidington:
An error has been identified in the written statement that I made on 11 November 2010. The penultimate paragraph stated:
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Part 2 also requires the Minister, if the “alternative procedure” in clause 23 is being used in exceptional circumstances, to lay a statement giving reasons.
The correct statement should have been:
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Part 2 also requires the Minister, if the “alternative procedure” in section 22 is being used in exceptional circumstances, to lay a statement giving reasons.
Probation Service: Employment
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Goodman
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many people were employed by (a) Durham and (b) Teesside probation areas on 31 December 2009;
Mr Blunt
The total staff in post for Durham Probation Area on 31 December 2009 was 268.65 FTE (full-time equivalent), and for Teesside Probation Area this was 292.06 FTE.
The total staff in post in Durham Tees Valley Probation Trust on 30 June 2010 was 572.27 FTE (full-time equivalent).
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Blunt
The total staff in post for Durham Probation Area on 31 December 2009 was 271.94 FTE (full-time equivalent), and for Teesside Probation Area this was 313.26 FTE.
The total staff in post in Durham Tees Valley Probation Trust on 30 June 2010 was 565.84 FTE (full-time equivalent).
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Enterprise Partnerships
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I, together with the Minister of State with responsibility for decentralisation, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), would like to inform the House that today we have written to the proposed black country, new Anglia (covering Norfolk and Suffolk), and Worcestershire local enterprise partnerships inviting them to put their governance arrangements in place.
Local enterprise partnerships see a real power shift away from central government and quangos and towards local communities and the local businesses who really understand the barriers to growth in their areas. This announcement brings the total number of partnerships so far invited to put their governance arrangements in place to 27. We will continue to work with other areas with a view to establishing further local enterprise partnerships across England.
Business Rates
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
This Government are clear that helping small shops and businesses grow is a crucial part of rebalancing and rebuilding the economy.
We have already taken action through the business rates system to support that aim.
We have doubled small business rate relief for one year. That measure is currently saving approximately half a million businesses £390 million in taxes, with over a third of a million ratepayers paying no rates at all for a year.
We are also waiving £175 million of backdated business rates demands levied on businesses, including some in ports. Thanks to that action many companies across the country will now be able to move forward confidently, unburdened by these unexpected debts. We will bring forward the necessary legislation to achieve that through the Localism Bill.
The Localism Bill will also simplify the process for claiming small business rate relief and give local authorities powers to provide business rates discounts which may be used, for example, to provide targeted support for local services or to help kick start regeneration schemes.
In addition, our proposals to enable councils to retain locally-raised business rates and deliver tax increment finance for local authorities will be taken forward through the local government resource review.
We fully appreciate the problems caused by the previous Government’s reforms of empty property rates. We have therefore given careful consideration to empty property rates and the inflation linked (based on the September 2010 rate of RPI) increase for next year’s bills.
Our ability to take action on those matters needs to be balanced against the targeted support that we have already provided on business rates, the high costs involved—we estimate it would cost £400 million to continue with the temporary empty property rates measure—and the overriding need to reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit.
Unfortunately, taking those matters into consideration, any further help in the short term is currently unaffordable.
The empty property rates threshold will therefore revert to £2,600 from 1 April. The provisional small business non-domestic multiplier will be 42.6 p and the provisional non-domestic multiplier—which includes the supplement to fund small business rate relief—will be 43.3 p.
However, while we have no immediate plans to reverse the reforms, we will keep this under review and we want to work constructively with the property industry on this inherited problem.
We are determined to continue providing the support that businesses need.
Council Housing Finance
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
For far too long, councils have been frustrated in their efforts to meet the housing needs of their tenants by a discredited system for financing council housing. The spending review and our recently published “Local decisions: a fairer future for social housing” confirmed our intention to replace this financing system with a new approach that devolves power and sufficient resources to councils to enable them to offer a better service to their tenants. This delivers a commitment in the coalition agreement.
Under the current system, Whitehall makes a series of complex annual decisions about what councils should raise in rents and what they should spend on their homes. On the back of this, Government redistribute income between councils. The result is that councils have no certainty about future income, no ability to plan long term, and in practice few incentives to drive up efficiency.
We will replace this opaque, centralised system with one that provides a direct link between the rents councils charge, the money they spend, and the services they deliver. Under this system, tenants and local taxpayers will be able to hold their landlord to account for the cost and quality of their housing. We also estimate moving to self-financing would produce over £6 billion of efficiency savings over 30 years as councils are able to plan more effectively for the long term.
The Localism Bill will take powers to repeal the existing subsidy system and replace it with powers for the Secretary of State to introduce self-financing. Implementing these changes via legislation ensures all councils start on the same basis at the same time. Our intention is to bring about these changes from April 2012, subject to parliamentary approval. For 2011-12 we will continue to run the present system and have recently published draft determinations for each council for consultation.
This statement sets out the basis on which Government intend to implement these reforms. We are satisfied that self-financing is the right approach and represents a good deal for all authorities over the longer term. However, the success of self-financing depends on a fair valuation of their housing business that guarantees all councils receive a sustainable level of debt that they can afford. As such we will continue to finalise the precise details of the settlement over the next year to ensure they take account of any relevant changes in economic circumstances. The Government will then confirm that the settlement is fair and sustainable and should be implemented next year.
We propose to adopt the basic method for calculating the debt reallocation consulted upon in March, based on a 30-year notional business plan of income and expenditure for each landlord. A payment to or from each council will then be made to reflect the difference between the value of the business and the housing debt currently supported under the HRA. The income assumptions built into the valuation will be based on the existing social rent policy for councils that their rents should “converge” with standard housing association rents in 2015-16.
We will publish a policy document in the new year setting out how these proposed reforms are envisaged to work in practice, together with the underpinning model which will include updated indicative numbers per council. This much more detailed information will provide Parliament and local authorities with the opportunity to assess these proposals and their likely impact at the same time as they scrutinise the powers proposed to support them during passage of the Bill.
This policy document will set out the updated methodology in more detail and will incorporate the following parameters:
a discount rate of 6.5% for calculating the net present value of each council’s housing business;
providing for realistic expenditure for management, maintenance and major repairs as identified in independent research published last year, increasing the costs used in the valuation by an average of 11.7%;
£116 million of extra funding each year for councils to pay for disabled adaptations to their stock;
funding for Treasury management costs and to reflect planned demolitions;
Government continuing to pay subsidy to local authorities for the PFI schemes currently funded through the HRA;
75% of net receipts from any right-to-buy sales continuing to be returned to the Exchequer. Estimates of the loss of income from RTB sales will be built into the valuation of each council’s housing business. Receipts from other disposals will continue to be held locally to spend on affordable housing or regeneration; and
council landlords being subject to a cap on overall housing borrowing for each local authority. This cap will be linked to the opening debt level under self-financing.
Using today’s figures, economic assumptions and these parameters, the net receipt to the Exchequer from these transactions is projected at approximately £6.5 billion. These will be updated in the model issued alongside the policy document and before the implementation of self-financing using the latest data and economic assumptions.
This projected receipt includes £1.2 billion attributable to the decision to continue funding PFI separately. Local authorities with PFI schemes will share this extra amount but will continue to receive subsidy. This was the option preferred by all local authorities with PFI schemes.
This is a reform intended to endure for the long term. In order to ensure it continues to be viable the Government are committed to assessing over the long term the impact of policy changes that may affect landlord income and the case to make good any losses or address any gains. The Localism Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to make a further adjustment to the debt allocated to local authorities if a future policy change has a significant material effect on their costs or income. This is designed to protect both councils and the Exchequer.
Some council may be considering taking forward housing transfer proposals with their tenants in advance of or post self-financing. In order to agree a transfer in future, the financial terms of any proposals will need to be clearly comparable with what self-financing would provide. The Government will consider transfer proposals against the costs under self-financing. This will include dealing with backlogs, the costs of future management, maintenance and major repairs and the costs of essential regeneration works due to be undertaken through the proposed transfer. There will be an expectation that councils must provide significant financial support for the transfer, and no assumptions of financial benefit should be made where some measure of Government support may be required. Proposals will be subject to a rigorous value-for-money assessment.
Localism Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I am today introducing the Localism Bill to Parliament. The legislation will set the foundations for the big society by radically transforming the relationships between central government, local government, communities and individuals. The provisions will devolve greater power and freedoms to councils and neighbourhoods, establish powerful new rights for communities, revolutionise the planning system, and give communities much more control over housing decisions.
The Bill will expand councils’ freedom to act in the interest of their local communities through a new general power of competence. This long-awaited new power will mean that rather than needing to rely on specific powers, councils will have the legal reassurance and confidence to innovate and drive down costs to deliver more efficient services.
Powers for councils will be accompanied by greater powers for local people to hold their local authorities to account and to shape their local area. There will be a new right to challenge to take over services; a new right to bid to buy assets of community value such as libraries, public houses and shops; and a new right to veto excessive council tax rises through a referendum.
The Bill also contains significant reform of the planning system. It will replace the Infrastructure Planning Commission with an efficient and democratically accountable system for major infrastructure. It will enable regional planning to be swept away and, in its place, neighbourhood plans will become the new building blocks of the planning system with communities having the power to grant planning permission if a majority of electors are in favour.
The Bill will return decision-making powers on housing to local councils, giving them much greater control over allocation and tenure of social housing and the flexibility to use their social housing stock to the maximum effect and reduce waiting lists. It will enable a new national home swap scheme that will make it easier for social tenants to relocate. The housing revenue account subsidy system will be replaced with a more transparent system that serves local communities. The Tenant Services Authority will be abolished but its vital economic regulation functions will be preserved.
The Bill will create powerful incentives for economic growth by allowing local authorities to grant discretionary business rate discounts. Its provisions will also make small business tax breaks easier to take advantage of and give affected businesses a greater say in rate supplements.
Finally, the Bill will take forward a new settlement for London which will devolve significant power to the Greater London authority and London boroughs and streamline the plethora of agencies in London’s public sector landscape.
Taken together, the measures in the Bill will give local government the freedom and powers to deliver the key front-line services people rely on and make important savings.
Education Spending
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Today I am announcing local authority allocations for their Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and capital for 2011-12 and for the Early Intervention Grant in 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Schools
I can confirm that, as proposed in our consultation, we will continue with the current distribution method for funding local authorities.
As signalled in the consultation, we are simplifying the funding system by mainstreaming relevant grants into the DSG on the same per pupil distribution as this year. 2011-12 guaranteed units of funding (GUFs) are therefore the sum of 2010-11 GUFs and the per pupil grant allocations. This means that at local authority level allocations for school funding are flat cash per pupil for 2011-12.
To protect those local authorities that have falling pupil numbers I have put in place arrangements so that no authority will lose more than 2% of its budget in cash terms compared with 2010-11.
Following this announcement, local authorities will now be able to work with their schools forums to produce 2011-12 budgets for their maintained schools. This will include resources from grants mainstreamed into DSG. Local authorities will be required to take account of the previous level of these grants in constructing their settlement for schools. This is to prevent turbulence for those schools who have previously received funding through grants that we are mainstreaming. Although the overall schools budget before the addition of the pupil premium will stay at the same level per pupil, the actual level of budget for each individual school will vary. It will depend on local decisions about how best to meet needs. This does mean that some individual schools may see cash cuts in their budgets—either because they have fewer pupils or because changes are made within local authorities to the distribution of funding. I have, therefore, decided to apply a national protection arrangement for schools—the minimum funding guarantee—and have set it so that no school will see a reduction compared with its 2010-11 budget (excluding sixth form funding) of more than 1.5% per pupil before the pupil premium is applied. The guarantee applies to a school’s overall 2010-11 budget including grants that have been mainstreamed into DSG.
Capital
The capital settlement for my Department was extremely tight, with a 60% reduction in 2014-15 compared to the historic high of 2010-11. I know that there are schools in need of refurbishment which have missed out from previous Government capital programmes, and who feel they have therefore been treated unfairly. I will continue to invest in the school estate. Indeed we are investing £15.8 billion of capital over the spending review period, and the average annual capital budget over the period will be higher than the average annual capital budget in the 1997-98 to 2004-05 period. However, over the next few years our priority is to reduce this country’s budget deficit. This is essential, as the amount we are currently spending on debt interest payments could be used to rebuild or refurbish 10 schools every day. However, I realise that in the short term it will be difficult for schools to adjust to reduced capital funding.
The recommendations from the Sebastian James review of DFE’s capital programmes will inform the allocation of capital from 2012-13. But schools and local authorities need information now on capital for 2011-12 so that they can begin to plan. I am today announcing the allocation of £2,137 million1 of capital funding for schools in 2011-12.
There are two particular pressures we face which have informed how I have allocated this funding. First, I have inherited substantial forward commitments for the Building Schools for the Future, academy and myplace projects which I did not stop in July. Energetic efforts are being made by local authorities, contractors and others to reduce the cost of these projects, but I expect the cost of these commitments to remain significant over the spending review period. If the Building Schools for the Future programme had not been stopped there would have been no additional funding for schools outside that programme or for urgently needed primary school places.
Secondly, there are significant pressures for additional school places, particularly at primary age, in many areas of the country because of rising birth rates and changed migration patterns. In 2011-12, £800 million will be available to local authorities to address the need to provide additional school places. I have doubled the amount to be spent on what is called basic need from the levels spent by the previous Government. I recognise that this issue needs to be addressed and I am supporting local areas to do so.
Even where funding is tight, it is essential that buildings and equipment are properly maintained, to ensure that health and safety standards are met, and to prevent a backlog of decay building up which is very expensive to address. Therefore, in 2011-12, £1,337 million will be available for capital maintenance for schools2, with over £l billion being allocated for local areas to prioritise according to maintenance need. The voluntary aided sector will receive its fair share of this as I have decided to retain the Locally Co-ordinated VA Programme for a further year.
In addition, £195 million will be allocated directly to schools3 for their own use. This is a much lower rate than previously. The Audit Commission criticised the allocation of large amounts of funding to schools that was not targeted to building need. Therefore, in view of the need to prioritise, I have balanced the bulk of maintenance funding to local authorities, to support local prioritisation and larger projects, with co-ordinated and efficient procurement.
Details of the allocations of basic need and maintenance funding to each authority, and indicative amounts of the capital allocations for their schools, are being sent to local authorities today and published on the website. I shall also make copies available in the parliamentary Libraries.
I know that for longer-term planning, local authorities would welcome further security on their capital funding from 2012-13. As I have said, the capital review will inform funding from 2012-13. However, while the methodology of allocation and management of the capital funding may change, I can confirm that the headline annual amounts of funding for basic need and for maintenance will for 2012-13 until 2014-15 be in line with the amounts I have announced today for 2011-12.
Local Authority Early Intervention Grant
In challenging times the Government are freeing local authorities to focus on essential front-line services, and to invest in early intervention and prevention to produce long-term savings and better results for children, young people and families. A key element of this approach is the creation of a new early intervention grant for local authorities in England, worth £2,212 million in 2011-12 and £2,297 million in 2012-13. It replaces a number of former funding streams, which are listed in a note on my Department’s website. In a tight funding settlement, some reduction in central government support was inevitable. In 2011-12, the amount to be allocated through EIG is 10.9% lower than the aggregated 2010-11 funding through the predecessor grants. The new grant will however provide a substantial funding stream, with new flexibility to enable local authorities to act more strategically and target investment early, where it will have the greatest impact.
Universal as well as specialist services have an important role to play in identifying and supporting families who need extra help before problems escalate, and helping them get more intensive support if needed. Our schools, health services, police and other services should all be concerned to spot and support the most vulnerable families early. There are great examples of effective partnerships which already do this across the country.
I want to draw attention to two important aspects of the new grant. The first is the Government’s commitment to trusting professionals and creating local flexibility. Greater freedom at local level, to pool and align funding will help local authorities and their partners achieve better results. That is why we have scrapped top-down performance management, and why we are reducing radically the number of ring-fenced grants. The spending review signalled a power shift between central and local government—ensuring local communities have a greater say in the issues that affect them. The EIG is not ring-fenced, giving local authorities the flexibility to respond to local needs and drive reform, while supporting a focus on early intervention across the age range.
The second key point is the Government’s commitment to investment and reform in early intervention at a time of financial constraint. Against the background of greater flexibility to decide priorities locally, there are key areas of early intervention where the Government are ensuring that the overall grant provides support:
Sure Start Children’s Centres. There is enough money in the EIG to maintain the existing network of Sure Start Children's Centres, accessible to all but identifying and supporting families in greatest need. Local authorities continue to have duties under the Childcare Act 2006 to consult before opening, closing or significantly changing children's centres and to secure sufficient provision to meet local need and Together for Children will be ready to assist LAs in making plans to keep centres open. Important new investment through Department of Health budgets to provide 4,200 extra health visitors, working alongside outreach and family support workers, will enable stronger links with local health services.
2-year olds. Evidence shows that early education is particularly beneficial for the most disadvantaged, for whom gaps in attainment start to appear as early as 22 months. We want to make sure that the poorest two year olds are given the best start, and subject to parliamentary approval have committed to extending free early education with an entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds from 2013, funded by an additional £300 million a year by 2014-15. £64 million and £223 million will be available through the EIG over the next two years so that authorities can build capacity and quality. Local authorities must still have regard to their statutory duties under the Childcare Act 2006 to provide information, training and advice to all providers of early education; quality matters and a highly skilled workforce is critical if we are to have a positive impact on social mobility.
Short breaks for disabled children. Providing respite to the most vulnerable families improves their outcomes and reduces the cost of care. That is why we have included within the EIG £198 million/£202 million, at the same time as investing directly in the voluntary and community organisations that support this work.
The early intervention grant is of course not limited to these areas. The grant underpins creative local approaches to local priorities, across the whole field of services for children, young people and families. Most Department for Education funding for services for young people will flow through EIG. As we maintain the commitment to raise the participation age to 18 by 2015, the grant will help local authorities to support vulnerable young people to engage in education and training, intervening early with those who are at risk of disengagement. This could include preventing young people from taking part in risky behaviour, like crime, substance misuse or teenage pregnancy, supporting young people at risk of mental health problems, and helping young people who have a learning difficulty or disability to participate and achieve. The grant will support transitional arrangements to ensure that young people have access to impartial careers guidance in advance of the all-age careers service being fully operational. EIG also provides an opportunity for local areas to pursue greater coherence of local services for families with complex needs who face the poorest outcomes and pose the greatest cost to local services. Local authorities will want to consider using EIG funds to support local action in support of the national campaign to improve outcomes for families with multiple and complex problems and reduce costs to welfare and public services.
We look forward to Graham Allen’s report on early intervention, which will identify best practice and suggest ways to make it more widespread, including through new funding mechanisms. We recognise that making the transition from the old grant regime, and investing in early intervention at a time when budgets are under pressure, will be demanding. We want to work in partnership with local government to make the case for investment in these vital areas of early intervention. To that end, we will continue to work with the sector, including organisations like C4EO, to develop and disseminate the evidence base. We will promote transparency by working with the sector to measure the key outcomes and incentivise reform and effectiveness through payment of local authorities and providers by results, working with a number of authorities to develop a fair and effective methodology.
I am writing to local authority chief executives, directors of children’s services, head teachers and chairs of governing bodies with details of this announcement. Copies of these letters with details of individual school and local authority allocations have been placed in Libraries of both Houses.
Other Area-Based and Specific Grants
This Government’s decision to prioritise and protect front-line spending on schools and to target local authority spending on vulnerable and deprived children, young people and families has meant that we have had to make some hard choices. As part of the local government announcement we have confirmed that we are ending a number of education related area-based and specific grants. The ending of these grants does not mean that we do not see a future role for local authorities in relation to schools. The White Paper , “The Importance of Teaching”, which I recently published makes clear that local authorities continue to have an important strategic role to play. Local authorities will need to prioritise services and look at opportunities for delivering services more cost effectively including through working in conjunction with other local authorities.
In other areas, although the current grants are ending, we do expect to continue to provide funding. The White Paper made it clear that we are committed to improving music education. Darren Henley is currently conducting a review of music and we will make announcements about future music funding in the light of recommendations which arise from the review.
We want all families to be able to choose the right school for their child. We are therefore reviewing home to school transport so that we can better meet the needs of not only disadvantaged families, but all families, ensuring transport is properly targeted to those that need it most. In relation to the grant which supports extended rights for free home to school travel, we will be announcing transition funding in the new year to enable local authorities to continue to deliver their duty in this area for the rest of this academic year, pending the outcome of the review.
1This includes all taxpayer funded schools, including in the VA sector, academies, city technology colleges and non-maintained special schools. The figure for local authority and voluntary aided schools is £2039 million.
2This includes all taxpayer funded schools, including in the VA sector, academies, city technology colleges and non-maintained special schools. The figure for local authority schools is £858 million and for voluntary aided schools, £196 million. Local authority maintenance allocations also include funding for maintenance of Sure Start children’s centres.
3This includes all taxpayer funded schools, including in the VA sector and academies. The figure for local authority and voluntary aided schools is £185 million.
School Funding (Pupil Premium)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
I can today confirm that the total funding available for the pupil premium will be £625 million in 2011-12, rising each year until 2014-15 when it will be worth £2.5 billion. The pupil premium, a key coalition priority, will target extra money at pupils from deprived backgrounds—pupils we know under-achieve compared to their non-deprived peers—in order to support them in reaching their potential.
In 2011-12, the pupil premium will be allocated to those pupils eligible for free school meals. We have chosen this indicator because it directly targets pupils and because the link between FSM eligibility and low attainment is strong. However, we aim from 2012-13 to extend the reach of the premium to those who have previously been on free school meals.
The level of the pupil premium will be £430 per pupil and will be the same for every deprived pupil, no matter where they live. The Coalition’s objective is to reform the underlying funding system to ensure that over time deprived children in every part of the country receive the same level of support. We will consult on how best to meet this objective.
The funding for the pupil premium is in addition to the underlying schools budget, which will be at the same cash per pupil level for 2011-12 as this year. This means there will be an additional £430 for every child known to be eligible for free school meals in any school from next year. This is clear additional money to help the very poorest who were let down by the last Government.
This additional funding will be passed straight to schools and because we have not ring-fenced it at school level, schools will have freedom to employ the strategies that they know will support their pupils to increase their attainment.
In allocating the pupil premium, we have also recognised that looked after children face additional barriers to reaching their potential, so these pupils too will receive a premium of £430. The premium for looked after children will rise in subsequent years, in line with the premium for deprived pupils.
For both looked after children and deprived pupils in non-mainstream settings we will pay this funding to the authority that has the responsibility of care for the child and will give local authorities additional freedoms to distribute the funding in the way they see best for the provision of support for these pupils. The pupil premium will be paid to academies and free schools by the YPLA.
Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we are also providing a premium for the children of armed services personnel. Service children—many of whose parents are risking their lives for their country—face unique challenges and stresses. The premium will provide extra funding to schools with service children to support the schools in meeting these needs. We expect the focus of expenditure from the premium to be on pastoral support. Today I am pleased to announce that the level of this premium will be £200 in 2011-12.
Post-EU Energy Council
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
Andy Lebrecht, Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, represented the UK at the Energy Council in Brussels on 3 December.
Ministers at the Energy Council adopted Council conclusions on a consumer energy policy and on the Commission’s recent communication on the safety of offshore oil and gas activities. Commissioner Oettinger commented on the conclusions that he wanted to raise EU standards on offshore oil and gas activities to those of the best.
The main focus of the Energy Council was a debate on the recently published Commission documents, the “Energy 2020” strategy and the communication on energy infrastructure priorities. Commissioner Oettinger presented the two communications and outlined the Commission’s priorities, including ensuring energy savings, speeding up authorisation procedures for infrastructure; and stressing the need for the EU to speak as one when dealing with its primary supply markets in the middle East, the Caspian and Russia.
Ministers broadly agreed with the Commission’s documents. There was a strong consensus on the need for progress on energy efficiency although a number of member states argued against the idea of national binding targets. Member states agreed with the Commission on the crucial need for large investments in energy infrastructure but while broadly accepting the need to explore how planning and authorisation procedures, particularly for cross-border projects, could be improved, some, including the UK, noted that these were matters for member states. The UK and several other member states emphasised the importance of implementing the Third Package of internal energy market rules to facilitate the development of infrastructure. There were conflicting views on the financing of new infrastructure with some member states supporting the Commission’s ideas of co-financing while others objected to the idea of EU funding. The UK and a number of other member states raised concerns over the idea of harmonising renewable support schemes. On external relations, most member states took a cautious approach to the Commission’s proposals for a greater role for the EU.
The UK noted the opportunity of the European Council in February (where energy is planned to be a major item) to set a vision for a low-carbon, energy-secure, competitive EU by 2050 and the direction of EU energy and related policies to secure the necessary transformation, highlighting energy efficiency, technology, infrastructure and external policy as the key issues for Heads to discuss. In summing up, the presidency noted a level of consensus on the broad priorities in the Commission documents and the key issues for the February Council.
Commissioner Oettinger then updated the Council on a number of international energy relations events—the EU-US Energy Council, the EU-Russia energy dialogue and Belarus-Russia developments on gas.
In the morning of the Council, the UK and representatives from Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Luxembourg, Denmark and Norway signed a memorandum of understanding on the North sea’s offshore grid initiative, which sets out a programme of work to facilitate the development of offshore wind resources in the region.
Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
I regret that the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), to parliamentary question 22801, Official Report, 11 November 2010, Vol. 518 column 435W, on diplomatic immunity was incomplete.
The answer originally published was as follows:
Mr Bellingham: Whether a visiting Minister of a foreign Government is entitled to immunity from arrest in the UK will depend on the status of the person concerned, whether they are travelling on official Government business, as well as on other considerations. By virtue of their office, immunities will attach to visiting Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers of Foreign Affairs, as well as, by extension, other Ministers who travel by virtue of their office. The extent to which such immunities may attach to other visiting senior officials will fall to be determined case-by-case depending on their status and the reasons for their visit to the UK.
The answer should have been preceded by the following additional information:
There are various forms of immunity that may operate in proceedings before UK courts, including, State immunity, diplomatic immunity and special missions immunity. State and diplomatic immunity are addressed in legislation; special missions immunity derives from customary international law. Each of these aspects of immunity have been addressed in UK court judgments, to which reference must be made when determining whether immunity applies in any given case.
Police Authority Grants (England and Wales)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I have today placed in the Library my proposals for the aggregate amount of grant to police authorities (referred to in the report as the Police Core Settlement) in England and Wales for 2011-12, for the approval of the House. I have also given an indication of how I intend to allocate Home Office funding for the years 2012-13 to 2014-15, for which approval will be sought at a later date. My intention in doing so is to provide police forces with the best possible information to support their financial planning.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has today also set out his proposals for police funding for the next two years. For the second two years, in England, the Local Government Resource Review may have implications for how the wider funding of local government is allocated for police authorities. The review will conclude in July 2011 and will signal the Government’s intentions for the future.
The Welsh Assembly Government are also setting out today their proposals for the next two years of funding for the four police authorities in Wales.
To ensure a simple, transparent and equal share of reductions to the Police Core Settlement, funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government and from the Welsh Assembly (which together comprise the majority of Government funding to police authorities), these allocations have been damped in 2011-12 and 2012-13 at the level of the average reduction.
This means that every police authority will see a cash reduction in this funding of 5.1% in 2011-12 and 6.7% in 2012-13. I understand that the police service is already planning on this basis and—as in previous years—I will ensure that Welsh forces receive equal damping treatment to their English counterparts. When funding for specific grants is added to this, the total cash reduction in core Government funding to the police remains 4% in 2011-12 and 5% in 2012-13, as announced on 20 October.
Damping levels for the last two years of the settlement will be decided at a later date.
These reductions will be challenging but the Government are clear that forces can make the necessary savings while protecting the front line and prioritising the visibility and availability of policing.
The Government will play their part through continuing work with authorities and forces on value for money, including more effective procurement at national level, greater collaboration between force and other partners, and better use of comparative information; through the removal of unnecessary bureaucracy which adds costs and impedes a sharp focus on front-line policing; through its policy for public sector pay; and through careful consideration in due course of the recommendations from Tom Winsor’s current independent review of police remuneration and conditions.
In order to give greater local freedom and flexibility over how resources are deployed locally there will be a significant reduction in the funding allocated by means of specific grants. Specifically, the Rule 2 Grant, Crime Fighting Fund and the Basic Command Unit Fund have all been absorbed within the Police Main Grant.
I will continue to provide a specific Neighbourhood Policing Fund for the first two years of the settlement period. This recognises that neighbourhood policing provides a dedicated, consistent and visible presence in communities. From 2013-14, the new directly elected Police And Crime Commissioners will have full discretion over this funding, recognising their accountability to the communities they serve. In London, the Metropolitan police authority will have full autonomy over this funding from 2011-12, in recognition of the role the Mayor of London and the Deputy Mayor, Policing, already play.
I will also be keeping specific funding for counter-terrorism policing and have provided relative protection to this budget to ensure that critical national counter-terrorism capabilities are maintained. Authorities and forces will receive more details of their specific counter-terrorism allocations in January.
In addition to the Police Core Settlement, the Olympic safety and security budget has been prioritised. These provisions are detailed below.
I have set aside £50 million in 2012-13 to fund the first elections of Police and Crime Commissioners in that year. This amount was specifically included in the police settlement for this purpose and has therefore had no impact on allocations to forces. I have likewise set aside funding for the continuation of police private finance initiative projects.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will today make a statement on his approach to council tax increases and capping next year. He will also announce details of the outstanding capping action to be taken against Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire police authorities.
The Police Grant Settlement 2011-12 to 2014-15
I have set out below how I propose to allocate the police settlement between the different funding streams for the next four financial years.
2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
£m | £m | £m | £m | |
Total Formula Funding: | ||||
comprising | ||||
Home Office police main grant | 4,579 | 4,251 | 4,515 | 4,429 |
National, international and capital city grant (MPS only) | 200 | 189 | 185 | 183 |
DCLG general grant | 3,345 | 3,138 | 3,0931 | 3,0511 |
WAG general grant | 161 | 151 | 149 | 147 |
Total Specific Grants | ||||
comprising | ||||
Welsh top-up | 13 | 13 | 20 | 20 |
Neighbourhood Policing Fund (NPF) | 340 | 338 | - | - |
Counter-terrorism specific grant | 567 | 564 | 563 | 562 |
Council tax (2011-12) freeze grant | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
PCC election funding | - | 50 | - | - |
PFI grants | 54 | 54 | 60 | 79 |
Total Government Funding | 9,3412 | 8,8302 | 8,660 | 8,546 |
% cash change in total Government funding | -4% | -5% | -2% | -1% |
1How this funding is paid to the police may change as a result of potential changes to the retention of business rates. 2This includes a small amount of funding that will form part of a contingency fund, which is not shown in the table above. |
Indicative allocations of these grants (with the exception of counter-terrorism funding) for each force in England and Wales for 2011-12 and 2012-13 are set out in table 3, and for 2013-14 and 2014-15 are set out in table 4.
Police Allocation Formula
I have taken into consideration representations made as part of the public consultation into the Police Allocation Formula. As a result, I have made three technical changes. These are the consolidation of Rule 2 grant; the inclusion of bar density data at CSP level; and the use of more up-to-date data to determine activity based costings. Details of these changes will be given to all forces with their allocations.
Specific Grants
Indicative amounts of these grants are set out in table 3.
Neighbourhood Policing Fund
The Neighbourhood Policing Fund specific grant will continue until directly elected police and crime commissioners are in place. Funding totalling £340 million in 2011-12 and £338 million in 2012-13 will be made available. Approximately 90% of the grant will be ring-fenced for PCSOs—contributing up to 75% of their salary costs. The remaining 25% will need to be match-funded by the police, councils, businesses and other organisations. This will not apply to the Metropolitan Police Authority who will have full discretion on the spending of this funding from 2011-12. From 2013-14 this fund will be consolidated into the Police Main Grant.
Counter-Terrorism
Counter-terrorism has been prioritised to ensure that the police will have the necessary resources to respond to the changing demands posed by the terrorist threat. We have allocated £567 million to support counter-terrorism policing in 2011-12.
Forces will be notified of their individual allocations in early January. For security reasons, these allocations will not be available in the public domain.
Private Finance Initiatives Grant
Specific funding will be given to cover the costs of private finance initiative projects which are currently operational and where grants are being paid in 2010-11, and for projects that become operational in 2011-12. The Home Office will continue to support projects that are currently in procurement.
National, International and Capital City Grant
The National, International and Capital City Grant will continue to recognise the unique additional duties performed by the Metropolitan police service. In 2011-12 the funding will be £200 million. It will be reduced in subsequent years on the same basis as the Police Main Grant.
Council Tax Freeze
Funding was made available in the police spending review settlement to help police authorities deliver a council tax freeze in 2011-12. Should every authority participate in the freeze, it is estimated that they will receive a total of around £75 million in each of the next four years to compensate for income that they would otherwise have raised from council tax. Funding for this was included in the police settlement, and has been set aside accordingly.
Other Funding
Police Capital
I am today also setting out capital allocations for forces over the next four years. Police capital will be at 55% of its current level by 2014-15. In 2011-12 more pressing capital priorities within the Home Office mean that it will be reduced to 40% of its level this year, however I have ensured that the police service will be compensated through an increase in capital funding in the following financial year.
I intend to allocate the majority of this funding directly to police authorities/PCCs, who will all receive the same % change in funding, as set out in table 5. I will also continue to support the National Police Air Service and maintain a capital contingency.
2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
£m | £m | £m | £m | |
Capital Grant | 85 | 125 | 115 | 115 |
National Police Air Service | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Special Grant Capital | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Total | 90 | 130 | 120 | 120 |
Olympic Safety and Security
Safety and security for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics is a priority for this Government. Safety and security planning is well advanced and on schedule.
In accordance with the commitment made by the then Minister for the Olympics in 2007, the Government will make up to £600 million available, if required, for the Olympic safety and security programme. Since 2007 the Home Office has identified significant financial savings and the Government believe that it will be possible to continue to make further savings without creating additional risk. At this stage, with almost two years before the games begin, we estimate that it should be possible to deliver the core cross-Government safety and security programme for about £475 million.
Beyond the £134 million which will have been spent by the Home Office by the end of the current financial year, the Home Office will be providing £107 million in 2011-12 and £192 million in 2012-13, primarily for the police service, to meet the Olympic safety and security costs. This funding is in addition to the core police funding detailed above and the contributions being made by other Government Departments. Home Office funding includes a very substantial financial provision for contingencies.
We assess this funding will be sufficient to meet the anticipated cost of delivering the capability and capacity that will be required to ensure a safe and secure Olympics and Paralympics. A further Olympic contingency of around £500 million is available for cross-programme issues, including a material change in circumstances relating to Olympic safety and security.
Venue security is a shared responsibility of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), as the event organiser, and the Government, as the guarantor of security for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and a further investment of about £280 million will also be made available for the specific purpose of supporting the (LOCOG) in their responsibilities to secure Olympic venues before and throughout the games.
The Olympic safety and security operation will depend heavily on the existing substantial investment which the Government have made in counter-terrorism policing and infrastructure. We are committed to providing £567 million in 2011-12 and £564 million in 2012-13 for counter-terrorism policing capabilities: much of this capacity will be devoted to the Olympics in 2012.
Police Authority | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HO Core | NPF | Welsh Top up | WAG | CLG | HO Core | NPF | Welsh Top up | WAG | CLG | |
£m | £m | |||||||||
Avon and Somerset | 120.9 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 64.3 | 112.7 | 7.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.2 |
Bedfordshire | 43.9 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.3 | 40.8 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.4 |
Cambridgeshire | 53.7 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.7 | 50.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.8 |
Cheshire | 69.5 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 53.2 | 64.3 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.2 |
City of London | 31.6 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.9 | 30.2 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3 |
Cleveland | 51.4 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 46.3 | 47.5 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 43.6 |
Cumbria | 33.1 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.1 | 30.5 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.0 |
Derbyshire | 70.2 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.8 | 65.0 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 43.2 |
Devon and Cornwall | 118.9 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 72.3 | 110.5 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 67.9 |
Dorset | 45.9 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.0 | 42.4 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 |
Durham | 47.8 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.4 | 44.3 | 3,3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 41,7 |
Dyfed-Powys | 34.3 | 1.6 | 6.5 | 17.1 | 0.0 | 32.1 | 1.6 | 6.3 | 15,7 | 0.0 |
Essex | 117.6 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6507 | 109.5 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 61.5 |
Gloucestershire | 39.1 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 22.4 | 36.2 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.1 |
Greater London Authority | 1,127.7 | 101.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 897.8 | 1,051.6 | 101.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 838.2 |
Greater Manchester | 248.5 | 17.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 220.0 | 230.2 | 17.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 206.9 |
Gwent | 48.2 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 35.1 | 0.0 | 44.7 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 33.0 | 0.0 |
Hampshire | 138.0 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 74.3 | 128.1 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 69.9 |
Hertfordshire | 79.5 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.5 | 73.9 | 5,3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 41.8 |
Humberside | 74.8 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 55.5 | 69.5 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 52.1 |
Kent | 117.9 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 81.6 | 109.5 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 76.6 |
Lancashire | 114.3 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 92.7 | 105.7 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 87.5 |
Leicestershire | 72.4 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 48.0 | 67.3 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.0 |
Lincolnshire | 42.9 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.6 | 39.8 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.1 |
Merseyside | 137.8 | 9.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 133.5 | 127.0 | 9.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 126.1 |
Norfolk | 57.7 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.1 | 53.7 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.0 |
North Wales | 49.6 | 3.3 | 6.5 | 27.0 | 0.0 | 46.2 | 3.3 | 6.5 | 24.8 | 0.0 |
North Yorkshire | 47.2 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.7 | 43.9 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.8 |
Northamptonshire | 48.6 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.8 | 45.2 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.0 |
Northumbria | 124.3 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 126.7 | 115.0 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 119.2 |
Nottinghamshire | 86.8 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 57.0 | 80.7 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 53.5 |
South Wales | 100.6 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 81.9 | 0.0 | 92.7 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 77.6 | 0.0 |
South Yorkshire | 110.8 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 94.5 | 102.7 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 88.8 |
Staffordshire | 74.2 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 48.9 | 68.6 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 46.2 |
Suffolk | 45.9 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 42.8 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.5 |
Surrey | 70.0 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.3 | 65.0 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.2 |
Sussex | 109.0 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 65.9 | 101,1 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 62.0 |
Thames Valley | 158.2 | 9.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 89.4 | 147.0 | 9.1 | 0,0 | 0.0 | 84.0 |
Warwickshire | 35,2 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.1 | 32.7 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.9 |
West Mercia | 74.1 | 5.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 52.1 | 68.6 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 49.1 |
West Midlands | 272.9 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 224.9 | 252.9 | 15.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 211.5 |
West Yorkshire | 192.7 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.9 | 179.3 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 141.2 |
Wiltshire | 41.6 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.3 | 38.7 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.8 |
Total England and Wales | 4,779.1 | 340.0 | 13.0 | 161.0 | 3,345.0 | 4,440.1 | 338.0 | 12.8 | 151.0 | 3,138.0 |
Police Authority | 2013-14 | 2014-15 |
|---|---|---|
HO1 | HO1 | |
£ m | £ m | |
Avon & Somerset | 120.1 | 118.3 |
Bedfordshire | 43.4 | 42.7 |
Cambridgeshire | 53.3 | 52.4 |
Cheshire | 68.0 | 66.5 |
City of London | 32.9 | 33.0 |
Cleveland | 50.2 | 49.1 |
Cumbria | 32.3 | 31.5 |
Derbyshire | 69.0 | 67.6 |
Devon & Cornwall | 117.4 | 115.2 |
Dorset | 44.9 | 43.9 |
Durham | 46.9 | 45.9 |
Dyfed-Powys | 31.1 | 30.5 |
Essex | 116.7 | 114.9 |
Gloucestershire | 38.4 | 37.7 |
Greater London Authority | 1,102.3 | 1,084.1 |
Greater Manchester | 244.1 | 239.0 |
Gwent | 46.0 | 44.9 |
Hampshire | 136.1 | 133.6 |
Hertfordshire | 78.5 | 77.1 |
Humberside | 73.8 | 72.4 |
Kent | 116.4 | 114.2 |
Lancashire | 111.8 | 109.2 |
Leicestershire | 71.6 | 70.3 |
Lincolnshire | 42.3 | 41.5 |
Merseyside | 133.9 | 130.5 |
Norfolk | 57.2 | 56.2 |
North Wales | 44.7 | 43.7 |
North Yorkshire | 46.6 | 45.7 |
Northamptonshire | 48.2 | 47.5 |
Northumbria | 121.7 | 119.0 |
Nottinghamshire | 85.7 | 84.2 |
South Wales | 106.9 | 105.0 |
South Yorkshire | 109.0 | 106.9 |
Staffordshire | 72.6 | 71.0 |
Suffolk | 45.6 | 44.9 |
Surrey | 69.1 | 67.8 |
Sussex | 107.4 | 105.3 |
Thames Valley | 156.2 | 153.4 |
Warwickshire | 34.7 | 34.1 |
West Mercia | 72.6 | 71.0 |
West Midlands | 268.1 | 262.6 |
West Yorkshire | 190.9 | 187.8 |
Wiltshire | 41.1 | 40.4 |
Total England and Wales | 4,699.7 | 4,612.3 |
1From 2013-14, the Neighbourhood Policing Fund will be rolled into the Police Main Grant. |
Capital Grant | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Force | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 |
£m | £m | £m | £m | |
Avon & Somerset | 1.9 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
Bedfordshire | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
Cambridgeshire | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
Cheshire | 1.2 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
City of London | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
Cleveland | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
Cumbria | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
Derbyshire | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
Devon and Cornwall | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
Dorset | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Durham | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Dyfed-Powys | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
Essex | 1.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
Gloucestershire | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
Greater Manchester | 4.3 | 6.3 | 5.8 | 5.8 |
Gwent | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
Hampshire | 2.1 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 2.9 |
Hertfordshire | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
Humberside | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
Kent | 2.0 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 |
Lancashire | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.7 |
Leicestershire | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
Lincolnshire | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Merseyside | 2.5 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 3.4 |
Metropolitan | 22.5 | 33.1 | 30.5 | 30.5 |
Norfolk | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
North Wales | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
North Yorkshire | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
Northamptonshire | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
Northumbria | 2.3 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
Nottinghamshire | 1.4 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
South Wales | 1.8 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
South Yorkshire | 2.0 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 |
Staffordshire | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
Suffolk | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
Surrey | 1.1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
Sussex | 1.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
Thames Valley | 2.7 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 3.7 |
Warwickshire | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
West Mercia | 1.4 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
West Midlands | 4.6 | 6.7 | 6.2 | 6.2 |
West Yorkshire | 3.3 | 4.9 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Wiltshire | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Total | 85.0 | 125.0 | 115.0 | 115.0 |
English Language Students (Entry Clearance)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
Under tier 4 of the points-based system, institutions are currently required to ensure their students have a prior knowledge of English at a minimum of B1 level on the common European framework of reference for languages. Competence in English language is a key indicator of a student’s ability and motivation to follow a course of study. In the consultation on the reform of the student immigration system, the Government therefore propose that minimum level for tier 4 is raised further to B2—an upper-intermediate level of competence.
I recognise these current arrangements, as well as those proposed, do not meet the special needs of the English language sector. These lower-level courses can be offered through the student visitor route. Leave under this route is limited to six months. The English language sector has represented to me that in some cases, they wish to offer courses of longer duration.
Therefore I have agreed to put in place a temporary measure that will allow English language students on a longer-duration course to be given leave to enter as student visitors for a period not exceeding 11 months.
To enter under this route for the extended period, English language students will need to obtain entry clearance at a British mission overseas in advance of travel, whether they are a visa national or non-visa national, and furnish evidence of the duration of the course. Other requirements, entitlements and restrictions will remain the same as the current student visitor visa. Students will not be entitled to work, sponsor dependants or switch into other routes including tier 4 of the points-based system. Students will have to satisfy the entry clearance officer that they genuinely intend to study, to leave the UK at the end of their studies and can support themselves during their stay. Full details of the route and how students can qualify will be published in guidance on the UK Border Agency website. Students will be able to apply from 10 January 2011.
This concession is intended to create flexibility to allow legitimate English language colleges to continue to offer opportunities to genuine students. I shall monitor closely the practical impact to ensure that it does not become a loophole, and take a decision on making it permanent in due course. English language students will continue to be able to study under tier 4 of the points-based system, as now, where they meet the requirements.
EU Transport Council
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I attended the second Transport Council of the Belgian presidency in Brussels on 2 December.
The Council discussed air cargo security. Following the recent discovery of explosive devices in air cargo, a high-level group produced a report on strengthening air cargo security, for both Council meetings on 2 December (Transport and Justice and Home Affairs). The presidency presented this report, which sets out ways to strengthen the security regime around air cargo coming into the EU.
The UK broadly welcomed the report and the associated action plan and provided the Council with some details of the recent air cargo incident. The presidency concluded orally that the Council had a “positive appreciation” of the report, and asked the Commission and member states to ensure a speedy implementation of the action plan. The Commission was asked to report back to the Council on progress made. A parallel discussion took place in the JHA Council.
The presidency updated the Council on progress with negotiations on the draft directive on cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety. The proposed directive aims to improve cross-border enforcement of certain road safety offences by facilitating exchange of data between authorities. The UK and Ireland supported a proposal to change the legal base for this proposal to Justice and Home Affairs, and emphasised that this change engaged our right to decide whether or not to opt in to the directive. We reserved our position on the substance, pending formal consideration of our stance and consultation with Parliament during the permitted three-month period. Both countries tabled minute statements to this effect.
All member states were in favour of the change of treaty base. The Commission has however made it clear that it does not support a JHA legal base. The presidency concluded that there was consensus on the text of the draft directive, but did not seek confirmation of a political agreement. They acknowledged the UK’s rights under protocol 21 to have the necessary period to consider whether or not to opt in.
The Commission presented its recent proposal to recast the 2001 first rail package, which set the initial framework for a single European rail market. The presidency gave an account of early discussions on the proposal. The discussion in the Council concluded that the publication of national rail infrastructure development strategies was a good approach. The UK broadly supported the proposal, in particular endorsing the need for adequately resourced and properly independent regulatory bodies, in order to facilitate market entry and competition. However, I highlighted the importance of effective enforcement of the existing directive if we are to see real progress on opening up rail markets across Europe to cross-border competition. Discussions will continue under the Hungarian presidency.
The presidency reported on progress in discussions on a proposal for a decision on the public regulated service (PRS) of the Galileo programme. The decision would set out controls over access to the high-accuracy positioning signal from Galileo. The UK noted the lack of an impact assessment and expressed disappointment at the lack of visibility on costs. We expressed concern about handling of security and stressed that common minimum standards needed to be defined by the GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) Security Board. Discussions will continue under the Hungarian presidency.
Following the informal meeting of EU Transport Ministers held in Antwerp in September, the Council adopted conclusions on the integration of waterborne transport into the EU logistics chain. The conclusions are acceptable to the UK.
The Council also adopted conclusions following the Commission’s communication entitled “Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020”. The conclusions state that any new EU legislation must be proportionate and supported by robust impact assessments, and the UK was able to support their adoption.
Among AOB items, the Commission gave a presentation of its recent proposal to revise the regulation which established the European Maritime Safety Agency and to bring the agency’s tasks into line with more recent legislation. The UK supported a statement by Germany, which expressed concern about any increase in EMSA’s budget and staffing.
Local Sustainable Transport Fund
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I wish to inform the House of the plans to publish next month detailed guidance on the operation of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, for which £560 million has been set aside in the four-year period to 2014-15. Coupled with the funding local authorities will receive through the Integrated Transport and Highways Maintenance Blocks, which I am announcing today, this represents almost £5 billion funding for small local transport schemes over the next four years.
The establishment of the LSTF reflects the importance the Government attach to helping build locally a strong economy and addressing at a local level the urgent challenge of climate change and the commitment made in the coalition agreement to promoting sustainable travel initiatives.
The guidance will invite local transport authorities in England (outside London) to apply for funding to support the cost of a range of sustainable travel measures. Packages might, for example, include measures that promote walking and cycling, encourage modal shift, manage effectively demands on the network, secure better traffic management, improve road safety and improve access and mobility for local communities.
The guidance will also set out the criteria against which decisions on the allocation of funding will be taken. The criteria will include meeting the core objectives of supporting economic growth and reducing carbon. Bids will also need to demonstrate value for money, deliverability and affordability of package proposals.
We have set aside the following LSTF funding over the next four financial years:
£m | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resource | 50 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 350 |
Capital | 30 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 210 |
Total | 80 | 140 | 160 | 180 | 560 |
We wish to support as many local transport authorities as possible through the fund.
This fund will also support Bikeability training in each financial year and the following projects in 2011-12 only in order to maintain momentum on sustainable travel while local authorities prepare their proposals:
£13 million for Links to Schools, Bike Club and walking to school initiatives;
£1 million for Transport Direct cycle journey planner; and
£250,000 to take forward business to business initiatives on alternatives to travel.
Authorities will be able to bid for small packages of under £5 million and larger packages of up to £50 million over the fund period, but will only be able to be successful with one bid.
The application process is being designed to be as simple and straightforward as possible with the flexibility to deal with proposals to the fund of different complexity and scale. Local authorities will also be given a choice as to when to apply to the fund in recognition that they will be at different levels of readiness to submit proposals, with two rounds of bidding; one closing in April, the other at a later date.
I am writing today to local transport authorities in England (outside London) inviting them to start preparing and developing their proposals and to consider what skills and resources they will require. Bids from local transport authorities will be particularly welcome if they can demonstrate support from, and the involvement of, voluntary and community organisations, and the private sector. The ability to lever in financial contributions from external sources will also be taken into account in assessing value for money.
Local Transport Capital Blocks Settlement
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
Following the spending review on 20 October 2010, which included the England-wide totals for future transport grants, I have today placed in the Libraries of the House details of the local transport capital settlement for individual local authorities in England.
This includes over £3 billion over the next four years for local highways maintenance. With limited resources available, it is essential that highways maintenance continues to be prioritised, reflecting the economic and social importance to local communities, the need to safeguard the largest single local public asset and the liabilities for future years that can be created from short-term cuts in maintenance.
The Department is also providing over £1.3 billion for small transport improvement schemes, reflecting the contribution these schemes make to improving road safety, stimulating local economies by reducing congestion, and delivering social justice to local communities.
Funding allocations are calculated according to needs-based formulae that are developed with local authorities. The funding is not ring-fenced, and local authorities are free to spend their allocations in accordance with their priorities. All funding will be supplied as capital grant, and not as supported borrowing. The figures provided include final allocations for 2011-12 to 2012-13, and indicative allocations for 2013-14 to 2014-15.
This announcement follows a recent consultation on local transport capital funding. A summary of responses and the Department’s proposed next steps are available on the Department’s website at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/localtransportfunding
and have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
The Department is separately setting aside £560 million over the four year period to 2014-15 for the local sustainable transport fund. I am announcing today in a separate statement to the House plans for publishing guidance on the operation of this fund.
Pension Schemes (Default Investment Options)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Today we will publish a consultation on default investment options for those people who are automatically enrolled into defined contribution pension schemes.
Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions will see millions of individuals newly saving for their retirements. Many of these people will not choose to make an active investment choice and it is therefore important that suitable default options are available to them.
To this end the Government have developed guidance on the design, governance, communication and review of default options.
This consultation provides the opportunity for the Government to work with interested and knowledgeable parties to ensure that this guidance is balanced and appropriate and that members’ interests are protected.
The guidance will be published in spring 2011.
The consultation document is available on the Department’s website at: www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations.
Independent Living Fund
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
In June 2010, following the closure of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) to new applicants for the remainder of the 2010-11 financial year, the coalition Government announced that they would work closely with the trustees of the fund to consider settling the future of the fund.
The Government are firmly committed to disability equality and the development of a personalised approach providing full choice and control for disabled people. The 2007 independent review of the ILF recommended reform to ensure long-term sustainability. We believe there is a strong and principled case for reform and for the social care support needs of all disabled people to be delivered equitably as part of local authorities’ broader independent living strategies in line with local priorities and local accountability.
The ILF is a discretionary trust and payments from the fund do not take precedence over the responsibility of the local authority to make an assessment of a user’s needs. Local authorities already have a statutory responsibility to provide social care support to its residents and as part of this responsibility, local authorities will need to consider the requirements of clients who may otherwise have received an additional ILF package.
Having reviewed the role of the Independent Living Fund, and consulted informally with disability organisations, local government representatives and colleagues in the Department of Health, working with the fund’s trustees, we have concluded that the model of the ILF as an independent discretionary trust delivering social care is financially unsustainable. The Independent Living Fund will, therefore, remain closed permanently to new applications and the trustees support this decision.
It remains the priority of the Independent Living Fund and the Government to safeguard the position of the existing recipients of the fund and we will:
In 2011, following the publication of the report by the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support, carry out a formal consultation. This will inform decisions on determining how best to continue to support existing users of the ILF in to a social care system based on the principles of personalised budgets, the findings of the commission and recognising the importance of the support that ILF users have built their lives around. We will consult fully with disabled people, particularly current users of the Independent Living Fund and their families, local authorities and other interested parties, including the devolved Administrations;
Support the ILF to continue to administer existing awards throughout this Parliament; and
Fully protect the programme budget for existing recipients of the Independent Living Fund within DWP throughout this Parliament.
House of Lords
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Disabled People
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that disabled people are involved in the decisions taken by Ministers that affect them.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, under Article 4 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we are required to consult with disabled people on all decisions and policies that affect them. The Government are fully committed to that requirement. I and my colleagues are keen to champion an approach of involving disabled people during policy development across government. We will continue to talk as widely as possible with disabled people about matters that affect them.
Baroness Wilkins
I thank the Minister for that reply. As he says, Article 4 states:
“In the development and implementation of legislation and policies … relating to persons with disabilities, States … shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”.
Article 33 requires the same involvement in the monitoring process. How did the Government discharge their obligation to consult closely and actively involve disabled people in the decision to remove mobility allowance from people living in residential care? What steps do the Government intend to take to include disabled people in the monitoring of that policy?
Lord Freud
My Lords, perhaps I may first say on behalf of the whole House how much we look forward to seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, back in her place alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins.
The issue of the mobility allowance was raised in the context of the comprehensive spending review. At that stage the proposal had not gone through a full consultation process, but one would not expect all the measures in such a huge announcement to have gone through the full process. However, the measures will go through a process of full parliamentary scrutiny before they take effect in October 2012. The DLA reform document has also been put out to consultation, on which there have already been discussions with about 50 representative organisations. Those discussions will continue.
Lord Rix
My Lords, in the comprehensive spending review the Government allocated £2 billion more for local authority social care services. Unfortunately, this money was not ring-fenced. What assurances can the Government give the House that the money will be spent by local authorities on the purpose for which it was allocated?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the Government’s strategy is to go down the path of personalisation of services, on which we clearly look to local authorities to take the lead. As the noble Lord pointed out, we have made £2 billion extra available. In practice, local authorities have much more than that available and it is up to them to make sure that the funds go to those with disabilities in the most effective and efficient way.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, further to the first reply that my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, will the Government also take into consideration disabled children in residential schools whose parents have a car on the Motability scheme and who, given the need to look after their children in the school holidays, need the higher-rate mobility allowance? I quite take my noble friend’s point that there is a public consultation on the disability living allowance—I declare an interest in that I have received the consultation, which is very welcome—but this problem must not be overlooked.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that there is a requirement for residential care homes, children’s homes and educational establishments such as special schools to meet children’s relevant needs, including their mobility needs.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, are the Government aware that there is still great unmet demand from people with learning disabilities and their families for intentional and village communities, which are also cost effective and care effective? Will the Government ensure that such demand is no longer frustrated at local level, as it has been for many years?
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly that issue hits on a key point relating to how we organise our services. This Government are putting an enormous amount of effort into localising services and then personalising them. To the extent that those processes come through by 2015, more localisation will be visible.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, the Government stated that, when the mobility component of DLA is withdrawn from people living in residential care, local authorities will have a responsibility to provide for their mobility needs. Can the noble Lord tell the House what this responsibility is and where it can be found in statute?
Lord Freud
Residential care homes have an obligation to meet residents’ mobility and other requirements, which are translated into individual care agreements with those in residential homes.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I want to ask the Minister about Supporting People, which is a vital programme that has helped around 1 million of our most vulnerable citizens each year. The programme is a qualifying service for the purposes of the disabled person’s right to control regulations to the extent that it helps people to live independently. Given the 28 per cent cut in local authority expenditure—which we will hear about officially shortly—and given the fact that Supporting People funding is no longer ring-fenced, what assurances can the Minister give disabled people that there will be effective monitoring of the programme to ensure that their rights are protected and delivered?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are protecting the Supporting People budget and are spending up to £6.5 billion until 2015, which is roughly the same as the current spend. Clearly, with the localisation agenda, it is for local authorities, particularly in their personal spending approach, to ensure that the money is spent in the most efficient way possible.
Gaza
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to alleviate the hardships suffered by people living in Gaza.
Baroness Verma
The UK has provided £27 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency this year, of which 30 per cent has been spent in Gaza to deliver essential services to the 70 per cent of Gazans who are refugees. We are also providing £2 million to support the Gazan private sector and funding UN and Palestinian Authority teams working to facilitate access for imports to Gaza. We continue to call on Israel to improve access to Gaza for aid and reconstruction materials.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. As she will know, last month I made a visit to Gaza, the details of which are declared in the register of interests. Is it not part of the tragedy of Gaza that, although some goods are now going in more freely, severe restrictions remain on the import of construction materials that are necessary to build and rebuild homes and schools? While no one disputes the security problem, do not the Government agree that there is a danger that such a policy of restriction, which harms thousands of entirely innocent people, will help to recruit a new generation of extremists?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s concerns. We recognise that ordinary Gazans are suffering—indeed, the deterioration of Gaza’s institutions and infrastructure is described by the UN as “de-development”. We continue to call on Israel to implement its 20 June announcement by allowing full exports and movement of people. Ministers have put that to Israel during their recent visits to the region and we are working with our EU partners to agree practical steps to improve access. That is having results, as Israel has agreed to limited exports from early next year. However, it is important that that translates into reality on the ground.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, is the Minister aware that despite the antagonisms between Hamas and Israel, almost 40 per cent of children sitting down with their families in Israeli hospitals are from Gaza? Is she also aware that a number of doctors from Gaza are training in Israel to go back to set up clinics there?
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord makes a very valid point. Of course, it is by dialogue and improvement in negotiating across both the occupied Palestinian territories and Israel that we will improve the lot for both sides of the argument.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the recent interagency report, Dashed Hopes: Continuation of the Gaza Blockade, that there can be no just and durable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without an end to the isolation and collective punishment of the people in Gaza?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I very much take on board what the right reverend Prelate says. We know that the situation in Gaza is a tragedy, but we do not believe that isolation of Israel through means of economic sanctions or embargos is the right approach. We will continue to press Israel robustly to make the concrete changes needed to improve the lives and futures of the people of Gaza.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an update on the progress of the talks between Israel and Turkey in Geneva in trying to resolve the crisis created by the killings of Turkish citizens attempting to break the Gaza blockade aboard the “Mavi Marmara”? What actions are our Government taking to try to help resolve the strained relationship between those two countries, particularly given the importance of the strategic relationship between those countries and our own interests in the wider scenario?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. All dialogue and all conversations are very welcome if they encourage peace.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Gaza has other very severe sources of hardship, which include: the enforcement of morality rules against women; attacks on Christians; the bombing of Christian schools; the persecution of journalists; and the killing of political opponents? All of those are due to the enforcement of the regime by Hamas. Does she further agree that perhaps the person in Gaza who suffers most is that long-term captured prisoner, Gilad Shalit?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that all those actions are deplorable. We need to ensure that, through dialogue with both sides, we work towards a peaceful settlement.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking through discussions with the countries of the Arab League about what they are able to do in terms of humanitarian relief? I am thinking particularly of Egypt, which controls the Rafah crossing, and I wonder whether it is allowing any humanitarian aid into Gaza through that crossing.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises important issues that we are continuously raising with the Egyptians, through both the Foreign Office and DfID.
Baroness Morris of Bolton
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council and vice chairman of the Britain-Palestine All-Party Group. On a recent visit to a school in Gaza with my noble friend Lord Fowler, I was struck by the irony of the seven year-old boy singing the song he had learnt for us, “If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands”. Would my noble friend agree that education is vital in holding the line against extremism? Will she confirm that DfID does all that it can to support the UNRWA schools that do so much to bring balance to the lives of children in Gaza?
Baroness Verma
My noble friend is right that education will be key to solving many of the difficulties that both these nations face. Of course, through our aid programme, that is exactly what we are trying to do to ensure that the infrastructure projects are able to work as normally as possible under the very difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, apart from the point raised by my noble friend, how is Hamas reacting to the present situation? In the Government’s view, is it helpful or unhelpful?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, ever since I came to this House in 1998, I have heard members of the Front Bench say that the Government are calling for Israel to do this, to desist from that and all the rest of it. Israel has been in a decades-long breach of international law not only on its pulverisation of Gaza but on its colonisation of the West Bank. When are we actually going to do anything?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, my noble friend knows that only through dialogue will we resolve matters. The UK is only one of many partners involved in making sure that peace is able to be brought forward.
Parliament
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that Parliament is able effectively to hold them to account.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, it is primarily for Parliament itself to determine how it can best hold the Government to account. However, I have sought to help that process in this House by setting up a Leader’s Group to consider our working practices.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I warmly welcome the establishment of the Leader’s Group, and I am sure that it will have some fruitful deliberations. Do the Government view the Cabinet manual, which we understand that they will be publishing later this week—possibly even tomorrow—as a first step towards a written constitution for this country, as was postulated in today's Daily Telegraph? How will the Cabinet manual improve government accountability in Parliament?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the Cabinet manual has yet to be published, so I will not comment on it. As to whether or not it is a precursor to a written constitution, no, I do not think so.
Lord Boston of Faversham
While I normally find myself in accord with what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, says, is it not a rather strange concept that Her Majesty's Government would wish to be called to account?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I always admire the noble Lord for his questions. However, I think that the Government have an interest in the generality of being held to account by Parliament; that is part of our support for the parliamentary process as a whole. I have to say that in this Parliament, I think that noble Lords opposite—the Official Opposition—are doing a very good job.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I welcome this Question. In the previous Administration, the Executive were far too powerful and the legislature so weak. Had it been the other way round, perhaps there would have been better scrutiny of war with Iraq. That said, does the Leader’s Group intend to look not only at the composition in terms of reform of the House but at the functions of both Houses and how they relate to each other, bearing in mind that in a fully elected House the Salisbury convention would no longer apply?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, a Leader’s Group led by my noble friend Lord Goodlad is looking at the working practices of the House. There is another committee led by the Deputy Prime Minister looking at reform of the House of Lords; that will report early in the new year. As for the previous Government, I think that after 1997 there was a move away from good parliamentary governance, and the relationship between the House of Commons—another place—and the Government changed. We have sought to put that back.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, is not parliamentary governance and accountability a total fiction at present? To have parliamentary accountability, you need, first, a Government with a clear mandate. This Government do not have a mandate. They were not elected by the people; they were elected by six people in a closed room without consultation of the electorate. Nor do they have an agreed programme. There is no constitutional coalition manifesto; we have a mysterious document called the coalition agreement. Is that not a reinvention of the constitution much to our damage?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, in almost everything he said. He does not have a long enough memory. There have not been many coalitions, but the whole point about the Government is that they are made up of whoever controls the majority in another place, and the coalition clearly does that.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, in the interests of accountability, would the Government consider attaching where appropriate measurable numerical targets to legislation—for example, numeracy and literacy targets to legislation affecting primary schools?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we in this Government have been trying to get away from targets. I am not entirely certain what point the noble Lord was trying to make, but perhaps I could look again at his question and, if I can think of a better answer, I will write to him.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, the Leader of the House was telling us how much he appreciated the Opposition being very good in this Parliament. Does he not realise that the Opposition could be much better if we had a Speaker with power who could call Members to speak?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the reason I thought the Opposition were doing so well is that out of 24 Divisions, the Government have lost six. We have been defeated in 25 per cent. That is why I think they are doing a very good job. I remember the Opposition of the 1980s and 1990s, when the Labour Party here was considerably smaller. They did a very good job then, which leads me to believe that Labour really is very good in opposition and is probably better in opposition than in government.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is there much point in Parliament trying to hold the Government to account when the Government themselves are largely controlled from Brussels?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I had a feeling that the noble Lord was heading that way. Whatever the realities of the relationship between this Parliament and Europe, what is of primary importance to this Government is that Parliament itself is in a fit state to scrutinise the Government.
Lord Elton
My Lords, my noble friend was very welcoming and supportive of the idea of parliamentary control of government, which I am sure we all welcome. Will he bear in mind that this enthusiasm is common in every incoming Opposition and cools in the first 18 months, so can he get on with it?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend, with his long experience, is almost certainly right. The basic principle of parliamentary accountability of the Executive is an important one that we should never let go lightly.
Legal Aid: Family Courts
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to assess the impact on family courts of the increased number of litigants in person who will have to represent their own cases if they no longer qualify for legal aid.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I beg leave to put the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as chair of the regulator, the Bar Standards Board.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
We are currently reviewing the existing data and research into the impact of litigants in person on the courts. This will contribute to the analysis in the final impact assessments due to be published alongside the legal aid consultation response in spring 2011.
Baroness Deech
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that existing research shows that cases involving litigants in person take longer and are less likely to settle? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, has said that mediation does not meet the case in every situation. It is also likely that more men will be able to afford lawyers and that more women will have to fend for themselves in these family law cases where the interests of children should be paramount. It is not right to leave parties legally unaided in these emotional and complex issues. Does the Minister really believe that these cuts will in the long term save costs and do no harm?
Lord McNally
My Lords, that is certainly the intention. What we are trying to do is to get a change in culture so that people in family cases do not automatically go to law. Some of the points that the noble Baroness raised are worth examining. For example, in a case where there is not a balance of resources, the courts will be able to ask the wealthier of the two parties to deposit resources, which will mean a greater equality in advice. The basic thing about our reforms is that we do not believe that family justice is best carried out by state-funded litigation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Is my noble friend aware of the concern of the family Bar that the cuts in legal aid will disproportionately affect ethnic minority lawyers with the result that, in 10 or 20 years’ time, there may be a lack of diversity in judges appointed to the Family Division?
Lord McNally
My Lords, it is difficult to assess the full impact at the moment, but it is certainly true that, in many of the firms that have been dealing with family law, ethnic minorities are better represented. However, I think that it is too early to say that the impact to which my noble friend has referred will come about.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a large majority of our fellow citizens would be willing to pay whatever taxes are required to ensure that everyone in this country, through legal aid, is equal under the law and has equal entitlement to access to justice before the courts? Should not that be a bedrock principle of a liberal society?
Lord McNally
My Lords, one of the Government’s proposals, which I think has some merit, is to attempt to move away from a culture in which the taxpayer pays for litigation, particularly in family disputes. Many studies have shown that the litigation route to settling family disputes exacerbates the dispute and causes lasting harm to all sides of the family, particularly the children.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, as a judge who tried a large number of family cases in which both sides were litigants in person, I can confirm that such cases will take much longer. Does the Minister realise that there is a hard core of people who fight over their children and who will not agree through mediation? I would be delighted to take part in consultations with the Government on what will happen.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble and learned Baroness’s long and great experience in these fields. Certainly, some cases may be lengthened by the fact that neither side is legally advised, but the intention, as I said at the beginning, is to try to move a large number of such cases away from the court system into mediation and other forms of settlement. I fully accept her point that family disputes can become so bitter and intractable that resolution is very difficult, but that still does not argue the case for the taxpayer funding both sides in that kind of dispute.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I declare an interest as a deputy High Court judge of the Family Division and chair of the All-Party Group on Domestic and Sexual Violence.
Does the Minister accept that, in cases of domestic violence, mediation is not appropriate and that the unequal nature of such relationships demands that there should be proper financial support for the litigants in those cases? Bearing that in mind, will he give an assurance that domestic violence cases will still receive appropriate public support?
Lord McNally
Domestic violence cases will get appropriate public support. In the arrangements for legal aid, a separate fund can be granted for special cases. Where legal aid falls outside the newly defined scope, I suggest that many of the areas suggested by the noble and learned Baroness will be good cases for special treatment.
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, at a convenient point after 4 pm, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will repeat a Statement on public order policing, followed immediately by my noble friend Lady Hanham, who will repeat a Statement on the local government finance settlement, followed by my noble friend Lord Marland, who will repeat a Statement on the climate change conference in Cancun.
Consolidated Fund Bill
(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
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
(c) prisoners in jails in the United Kingdom serving sentences of less than 4 years”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 35 standing in my name on the fourth Marshalled List of amendments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, perhaps there could be speed from the many people wanting to leave before the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, speaks.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McNally, whom I have known for many years and from whom I have learnt to expect nothing better. I am always grateful to him for his acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. I am glad that it is not unique on this occasion.
This amendment raises the issue of the voting rights of prisoners in relation to the referendum. We have a clear ruling from the European Court of Human Rights and an imminent announcement of a decision in relation to that from the Government. Following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on 6 October 2005, more than five years ago, many Members will know that United Kingdom’s current ban on all serving prisoners from voting in elections contravenes Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The previous Labour Government decided to carry out a two-stage consultation process on options for a change in policy. The second consultation period ended on 29 September 2009, which is now more than a year ago. In its fourth report of 2008-09, the House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights said that it was unacceptable for the Government to continue to delay on this issue. On 21 July 2009, the chair of the Joint Committee wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking further information about how the Government were going to respond to the court’s judgment. Nothing was done to change the law before the general election on 6 May 2010, although there was an attempt in your Lordships’ House to amend the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill of 2009-10 by inserting a new clause that would have removed the statutory bar by repealing Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. However, this amendment was withdrawn.
In June 2010, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe expressed “profound regret” that the ban had not been lifted in time for the 2010 general election. The Committee of Ministers said that it would draw up a resolution for action if the United Kingdom Government failed to give prisoners the right to vote in time for the elections to the Scottish Parliament, which will be on 5 May 2011 and are planned to coincide with this referendum, and to the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which will be on the same day.
On 2 November 2010, in response to an Urgent Question in the other place, Mark Harper, the Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, said that the coalition Government accepted that there was a need to change the law and that Ministers were considering how to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. As I said, I understand that a decision on this is imminent. It is expected that later this month the coalition Government will make an announcement on how they are going to respond to that judgment with regard to implementation. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could confirm that this is the case when he responds.
When I originally tabled the amendment, I specified a term of six months, which seemed at the time the appropriate period to enable us to start this discussion. However, I heard on the grapevine—I am not sure that I should always believe what I hear on it, but on this occasion it seemed fairly plausible—that the Government are going to suggest four years. If that is the case, it is sensible for this amendment to specify the same so that there will not be any confusion between voting in the referendum and voting in the elections that are to take place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland next May. If the amendment is accepted, the Bill will anticipate what the Government are going to do in relation to elections.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for raising this issue, which has been raised on the Floor of this House many times. I am also grateful to him for the way in which he explained the inordinate delay that there has been over the years, which frankly could have been avoided if the nettle had been firmly grasped. The noble Lord mentioned a letter that I wrote to him, which was consistent with what I have contributed to both consultations and, indeed, on many occasions—that one reason for removing the vote as part of a sentence is that that would enable the judge to add that penalty for a particular crime. It is interesting that most of the comments that we see in the press on this issue refer to certain types of prisoner who have committed certain types of crime being given that penalty of having the vote removed. Personally, I would have no objection to that, provided that the measure is adopted as quickly as possible, because too many elections have passed without this happening. Everything possible ought to be done to enable those prisoners who are qualified to take part—whether that is according to the crime or whether, as appears likely, the Government will put a time limit on it—in the referendum and the other elections likely to take place next year.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It is difficult to see what would happen if a judge were to be given discretion to impose the loss of the civic right of voting depending on the particular type of crime. One simply asks this question: if, for example, a prisoner were guilty of shoplifting, which would normally have a very short sentence at most, is that crime one that would make him forfeit those civic rights? If there is a form of assault, is that to be one? There would be infinite argument about how the judge should exercise that discretion. Surely it is better to have a blanket bar if there is to be a bar at all.
I have enormous admiration for my noble friend Lord Foulkes. We served for over a decade in the same team in opposition and I had great admiration for his assiduity—fertile in invention was perhaps the way that we always thought of him. However, I thought, with respect to him, that he appeared to be arguing against himself. Having suggested four years in his amendment, for the reason that he gave, he then appeared to be arguing in favour of no bar at all. I will reread what he said but for the life of me I could not see any consistency.
I confess that my predisposition is, in principle, to be in favour of a bar, but I reluctantly accept that those who have committed crimes and therefore forfeit a number of their civic rights should not also forfeit the civic right to have a vote. That puts me not in the liberal club, although perhaps my noble friend Lord Foulkes was trying to follow our party’s new line of trying to attract dissident Liberal Democrats into our fold. I will not follow that line. In spite of my predisposition, I accept the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, it has to be accepted—the sooner the better. The only question that remains is the length of sentence that there should be. There has been far too long a delay, as the noble Lord said.
I, too, have heard, perhaps on the same grapevine, that the Government will shortly make an announcement and that they favour four years, without any discretion for the judge. If that be their response, though, there is surely a case for consistency. If it be the case in respect of a general election, surely the Government should now act in the spirit of what we are told they will be announcing shortly and say that the same principle should apply to those who are currently serving sentences. If they will, and I suspect that there is the will for this in the House and in Parliament as a whole, they can ensure that whatever length of time they choose is in operation by the time of the referendum, whenever that may be held, be that 5 May or some other date.
If only for the reason of consistency—even though, like the great mass of public opinion, I suspect, I am not personally convinced of the case—I accept that we must follow the European Court of Human Rights. Pace the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, we cannot pick and choose the judgments that we follow. In following them, we should endeavour to attain consistency in the various elections that our people will be involved in.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I support the amendment. It is a timid one but it is the only one we have, and I will wholeheartedly support it. There is a paradox, is there not, about one aspect of the punishment of someone who has put themselves outside society being to keep them outside society? Surely the very heart of rehabilitation is to get a prisoner thinking once again that they relate to the society that they have offended against—to bring them back inside the “big society tent”, if you like. It seems to be a self-injury to have the rule at all, although I can perhaps understand how the law is as it is out of respect for public sentiment, however wrong that sentiment may be. With that, I will simply say that I endorse and support what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has said.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this. I have two brief points. First, I know that I shall be told that this is a ferociously anti-European thing to say, but it is emphatically not intended to be that. Am I the only person in this House, or indeed in the other House, who always feels slightly uncomfortable when a Government, of whichever party, stand up and say, “This is something we’ve absolutely got to do, whether we like it or not”? There comes a point where you question the extent to which that is compatible with a sovereign Parliament. It is always a bad argument, and I have seen this on a number of other occasions, if an elected Member of the other House has to go back to their constituents and say, “This is something we have no choice whatsoever about; this is a matter that’s been decided somewhere else”. That is a weak argument and I know that my noble friend did not deploy it; he addressed the actual merits of the case. That is just an observation.
Secondly, I am sure that there is an answer to this, but I am simply not versed enough to know it. Given that there are many other countries where I understand there is an unfettered right to vote in general elections, the practicalities of exercising that right in a meaningful way seem very difficult. A normal constituency campaign involves access to constituents and potential constituents if you are a candidate. It involves meetings, if necessary, and canvassing. I am sure that these practical questions have been asked long before I raised them in this debate, but I would like to know what the practical answers are.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Grocott, I had not intended to speak in this debate but he encouraged me to do so with his introductory remarks. I rise to do two things. First, I remind your Lordships that, far from the European Convention on Human Rights being some foreign, European imposition on our culture, it was in many ways our post-war gift to the rest of Europe. The convention was largely drafted by British jurists. The structure that was put in place to enforce those conventional rights was part of that gift, which we encouraged upon the rest of Europe. This is a very British thing to do in many ways. It has taken decades for this issue to come before the court and for the court to give its opinion and impose back upon us, as it were, an interpretation of those rules that allows prisoners the legal right to vote. It has its roots in our own jurisprudence and legal thought. We should not in any sense blame this on others or suggest that it is being imposed on us.
Secondly, I support and commend my noble friend Lord Foulkes for raising this issue here, although it will not result in amendment of the Bill or in the opportunity, at last, for us to live up to the consequences of the judgment, do what will inevitably need to be done and deal with the issue—to grasp the nettle, as another noble Lord suggested. However, it gives the coalition Government’s Front Bench an opportunity to reassure your Lordships’ House that we will not find ourselves in a situation where they give either a subset or all of this group of people a vote by decisions made through legislation in this House, and then immediately deny those persons their say in a referendum. That would be an entirely inconsistent position. I look for assurances from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that, if they intend to give prisoners or any class of prisoners the vote, the legislation will allow prisoners to express their preference in a referendum.
There are several practical considerations. For example, in the other place I represented a constituency that had a large prison in it. Working out whether those people were best served by maintaining their relationship with the Member of Parliament who represented them in their home patch or whether they were my constituents for the issues that they raised with me, exercised my mind on many an occasion. These issues have to be resolved and worked through and they are by no means straightforward.
I remember being told many decades ago by a governor of Barlinnie prison that part of the problem was that we had not appreciated that we send people to prison as punishment, not for punishment. This was at a time when the Scottish prison system was in complete turmoil; we were caging people within cells in Porterfield prison in Inverness to control their behaviour. Many people are punished further than the courts intend by being denied that right and that responsibility when they are in prison. For the bulk of our prison population, whether they lose their vote is entirely a matter of luck. Most of them are in and out in such a short period that, if there is a coincidence of an election, it is entirely a matter of luck—to do with how their case is dealt with, the time involved and the proceedings—whether they are denied a vote. It is not as if everybody who is convicted of a crime between elections is denied a vote in the next election; it is entirely a matter of random luck. The sooner we resolve the issue, the better. The opportunity that my noble friend has given us to air some of these issues has benefited this House and the debate. I commend him once again for introducing this matter.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I can be very brief, mainly because I have not so far taken any part in the issue which has been urged for so long and so very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. However, I have listened to the debate this afternoon, and it seems to me that by supporting the amendment we will be taking at least a step in complying with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which has been outstanding for so long. It may not be the best solution—I do not know whether it is or not—but, on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread, I lend my support to the amendment.
Lord Bach
My Lords, for many years the law in this country has decreed that if you lose your liberty, you lose your right to vote. However, as we have heard, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that this blanket ban on prisoners voting must be ended. My noble friend Lord Anderson is right: a large number of people in the United Kingdom do not agree with that ruling, which makes the issue a difficult one for politicians of all shapes and sizes. Nevertheless, when Labour were in government—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his place as he and I used to agree on this subject just a few months ago—we accepted that we had a legal obligation to comply with the European court ruling, and that compliance would ultimately mean giving some prisoners the vote. Mindful of the need to take account of public opinion—that is a real issue here—in responding to the European court judgment, we undertook a consultation process aimed at identifying an acceptable solution to a difficult problem.
I praise the Liberal Democrats who were always keen, when in opposition, that the Labour Government should act more speedily on this issue than was the case. However, I recall that throughout our discussion on this issue—we debated it for some time in the previous Parliament—the Conservative Party urged us to stay as we were and not to get on with it. Indeed, the right honourable and learned gentleman who is now the Attorney-General said, when in opposition, that it would be “ludicrous” if prisoners got the vote. When I used to sit where the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does today, I was always relieved to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he was on the opposition Front Bench, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, among others, against the proposal that prisoners should have the vote. Therefore, let us not have any criticism of us, as I am afraid the Lord Chancellor has been prone to do in the past week or so, saying that we should have legislated on this some time ago. I do not believe that the Conservative Party manifesto stated that prisoners should vote in the previous general election, but I am, of course, conscious that the other half or third, or whatever it is, of the coalition will respond today, and no doubt he will speak, as always, on behalf of the Government.
However, more seriously, it must be acknowledged on all sides of the House that there is a strong sense among the public—I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was getting at—that a decision may be being forced on the country against the will of the people. Indeed, reading what the Prime Minister has said about this issue, one feels that he thinks that, too. Clearly, this issue has some potential to undermine yet again public faith and participation in the political process. For that reason the Government have to respond to the European Court ruling in a way that is mindful of the views of the public and reassures them that their representatives are not simply rubber-stamping decisions made elsewhere. I hope that all noble Lords agree that it must be done in a way that is sensitive to British values and respects the position of this sovereign Parliament.
To be fair, the European Court itself recognises that fact, which is why it agreed to give the Government a degree of flexibility in how they respond to the ruling that a blanket ban on prisoners’ voting is unlawful. I believe that the concept is called a “margin of appreciation”, which has also been known to apply in other fields, but is particularly important here. In short, therefore, we would argue that the Government are not compelled by the margin of appreciation to give all prisoners the vote, but are required to enfranchise some. It is clearly up to the Government to decide who they believe should have the right to vote and to put that decision to Parliament.
It is rumoured on the grapevine that there will be an announcement before Christmas; I think that that grapevine is called the Lord Chancellor. In reply to the debate last week on the sentencing Green Paper, I think he made an announcement that there would be a parliamentary Statement around this subject before the Christmas Recess, and we look forward to hearing what it has to say.
The amendment of my noble friend proposes to give the vote to all prisoners sentenced for up to four years in jail. That seems to be going too far. While it may be possible to persuade people to accept a change, whereby prisoners convicted of comparatively low-level crimes are allowed to vote, we do not believe that the law-abiding public would easily accept a solution that ends up with people guilty of really serious offences—including violence, sexual assault or crimes against children—having a say in who represents them while they are in custody. That could be the consequence of the amendment, which would set the threshold to as high as four years.
We find deeply unattractive the idea that that a judge should have a say as to whether an individual whom he is sentencing should have the vote. The first reason why it is unattractive is because, frankly, I do not think that there is any judge in existence who would want that power. Secondly, the idea’s unattractiveness is demonstrated, for example, by the prospect of a prisoner not being allowed to vote because a judge has used his discretion in a particular way, and whether that prisoner should have a right of appeal about that aspect of the sentence.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when we debated this issue on the Floor of the House when he was a Minister, he mentioned that the decision would actually come from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which would guide the judges in this matter, and would remove the unlikelihood of inconsistencies between judges on different types of sentence?
Lord Bach
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not likely to forget our frequent discussions about this subject. However, can the noble Lord help me? Would he, under his proposal, give the defendant, who the judge has told, “No, you cannot vote”, a right of appeal in the normal way against a decision such as that?
Lord Bach
I have to say that the possibility of that kind of appeal clogging up an already busy system is not one that we would support, particularly at this stage.
We cannot support the amendment, although we are grateful to my noble friend for raising this subject—as, I am sure, the Committee is—because the issue has exercised this House a great deal over the past few years. We very much look forward to the Government coming up with their proposals in the next few weeks.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
The noble Lord says that he cannot support four years as being just too long from the point of view of public opinion. What period would he support?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson; I have known the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, even longer than he has. Where I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is that the noble Lord is a master of fertile invention—particularly when he is on the opposition Benches. What we have had today is a good debate about a matter that has yet to come before Parliament.
The amendment seeks to amend Clause 2, which sets out the franchise for voting in the referendum on the parliamentary voting system. Under Clause 2, anyone who is entitled to vote in Westminster parliamentary elections would be entitled to vote in the referendum. Members of this House entitled to vote in local and European elections will also be able to vote in the referendum, a matter we debated last Thursday.
Sentenced prisoners are currently barred from voting by Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. This bar, which has been supported by successive British Governments, has its origins in the Forfeiture Act 1870. However, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights found that the United Kingdom’s prohibition on all sentenced prisoners voting breached Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to free and fair elections. I was pleased by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, because it is important to remind people when we are debating our responses to decisions of the European court what its origins were.
I was recently at a meeting where the daughter of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe was present. It was worthwhile for the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to remind us of the major contribution that Sir David and other British lawyers made to a convention that was seen as a response to the horrors and excesses of the untrammelled tyranny that Europe had just experienced. Of course it is important that we look at the decisions of the court in the light of our own experiences and customs, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his reminder.
As Mr Mark Harper, the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, made clear in the other place on 2 November, the Government accept that there is a need to change the law. Ministers are currently considering how to implement the judgment and, when the Government have made a decision, their proposals will be announced to Parliament in the usual way. There will then no doubt be a full debate on the issues, giving Parliament the opportunity to discuss the issues reflected in this debate.
Lord Bach
As I understand it—I may be wrong—the Lord Chancellor, the right honourable Secretary of State for Justice, said last week in answer to questions on the sentencing Green Paper, when this topic came up, that a decision would be made by the Government and announced publicly by the Christmas Recess. Can the Minister confirm that?
Lord McNally
I cannot confirm it because I do not know. If the Lord Chancellor said that he must know about the timetable. However, I am not in a position today to confirm or otherwise whether such a decision is imminent. When it is, it will be announced to Parliament and I am sure that the usual channels in both Houses will find time for a debate, which will be, I suspect, very much along the lines of today’s debate.
Lord McAvoy
As well as Parliament having a say, can the Minister indicate what measures, if any, are being taken to engage public opinion on the length of the term recommended?
Lord McNally
That is a very good example of why it will be necessary to have a full debate in both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that Members in the other place want to go back to their constituencies and consult their constituents before taking part in such a debate. When they do, I hope that both they and Members of this House will bear in mind the message of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that what we are discussing is not a heinous directive from Europe, but respect for the European Court of Human Rights, of which we were key architects when it was set up.
Lord Wills
What consideration has the Minister given to deliberative mechanisms such as citizen jurors for engaging public opinion in the way that my noble friend Lord McAvoy has just suggested should be done?
Lord McNally
My Lords, that is not a question for today. We should wait to hear the Government’s decision and then go through the normal parliamentary processes and consultations. That will take place all in good time. It would not be appropriate for me to make commitments at this Dispatch Box about either the timing of, or consultation around, another Bill altogether. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that his best support has come from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who thinks that this is half a loaf, and from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who thinks that it is going too far. I suggest that this is not the basis for pressing an amendment. The Government accept that they are legally obliged to lift the blanket ban on prisoner voting in UK parliamentary elections. However, accepting this amendment and allowing a category of prisoners to vote in the referendum would pre-empt Parliament and prevent it following the proper course of debating prisoner voting in both Houses when the Government have come forward when their proposal. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
Will the Minister at least give the Committee an assurance that when the Government come forward with their proposals for reform in this area, they will bring forward an amendment to the Bill that is consistent with the general approach that they propose, so that we do not find, when this referendum takes place—next May or whenever—that prisoners whom the Government accept should have the right to vote are denied it?
Lord McNally
No, my Lords, I cannot make that commitment. The legislation is specific to this referendum. When the Government have a Statement to make on prisoner voting, there will be time to discuss this and many other matters.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Electoral Commission has been able to confirm that such an amendment would be practical if it were approved. It seems that it would involve a change to the franchise and a change to the electoral register process, as well as consideration about how campaigning could take place and how voting mechanisms could be established. I am in favour of such changes being made in future, where appropriate, but it seems that it would be very difficult to do this in time for a vote on 5 May next year.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, is it correct that the Bill proceeds on the basis that those that have a franchise in general elections would have a franchise under the referendum Bill, and that if the legislation covering general elections is altered in the mean time, this would apply automatically to the referendum if it comes after that amendment has taken place?
Lord McNally
I suspect that there is indisputable logic in what my noble and learned friend says.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, the House is entitled to be puzzled by the inability of the Minister to say whether an announcement will be made before Christmas. Either the Lord Chancellor said that it would be made or he did not: which is the case?
Lord McNally
If the Lord Chancellor said it, he must have been speculating.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Taking into account the very wise advice from the Minister’s noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I think that the Committee is entitled to ask the noble Lord for an assurance that the Government will promote legislation according to a timetable that does not leave this country in the ridiculous position of agreeing to allow prisoners the vote when the referendum is imminent but denying them the vote in the referendum.
Lord McNally
My Lords, if there were a general election next January, prisoners would not get the vote even if the Government had announced their intentions in December. The two things are separate. The Government will announce their intentions on prisoner voting and it will be handled in the proper way with a Statement in both Houses. As I said, the usual channels will find an opportunity for a full debate and in due course legislation will probably be brought forward. However, that legislation is separate from the legislation currently before the House, which is why—
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, perhaps by the time the noble Lord reaches the end of his sentence, he can clarify one point for me, because what he is saying is becoming increasingly complex. As I understand it, the Government are rescuing this issue from the long grass, into which it was put for many years while people considered the implications of the European Court of Human Rights judgment. The noble Lord seems to be suggesting that, now that it has been rescued from the long grass, the intention is to embark on a process of Statements, consultation, debates and legislation, which will mean that it goes back into the long grass for very many years. Is that the case?
Lord McNally
Not at all, my Lords; it is called parliamentary democracy. There are enough experts on those Benches, including the noble Lord, to know that the process that I described is exactly what happens when there is a major change such as this—it will require legislation and parliamentary time. However, I really do not think that there should be any talk on those Benches about long grass and delays, given the five years that they spent on two consultation processes, which, as my noble friend said from a sedentary position, is another way of saying “prevarication”. We will come forward with specific proposals—not in this Bill but at the proper time. In the mean time, I again urge the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Is it intended that there will be a Bill in this Session of Parliament or are we talking about putting this off until 2012 and beyond?
Lord McNally
I have absolutely no idea. I cannot, in the Committee stage of one Bill, start committing the Government to parliamentary time for another Bill. One would almost think that the Benches opposite were trying desperately to get past four o’clock, whereas I know that they are probing me and they continue to do so.
Lord McNally
I withdraw that remark as I can see how upset the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is about my aspersion.
Lord Rooker
Does the noble Lord, Lord McNally, agree that the answer to the question, “How long is the grass?”, is, “Can you see the giraffe”?
Lord McNally
I had not noticed the noble Lord come in. I was so relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was not here that I had forgotten about the noble Lord.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, at the risk of sounding immodest, I think that this has turned out to be a very worthwhile debate, if only for the last exchanges. I do not mean the fact that my noble friend Lord Rooker crept in through the long grass and was not seen by the noble Lord, Lord McNally; I am referring to the question whether, when the Lord Chancellor said that there would be an announcement by the end of the year, this referred to a government Statement or to the product of what was earlier described as fertile imagination. However, this has been an interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, there has been an inordinate delay. From these latest exchanges, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will realise that, if there is a huge further delay, there will be deep concern. My noble friend Lord Anderson said that I was arguing against my own amendment, but he, having argued against lifting the ban, went on to accept it. At least I managed to persuade him.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
I hope that my noble friend will allow me to clarify my position. I said that my predisposition is to be against lifting the ban but that, because I realise that a change has to be made under our obligations to the European Court of Human Rights, with some reluctance I accept that the ban must be lifted in one way or another.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Exactly. I rest my case.
That brings me to my noble friend Lord Browne, who not only represented a prison in his constituency but who as an advocate represented many prisoners—all of whom were innocent. He gave an erudite explanation and reminded us that the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the European Union but a product of the Council of Europe—a much wider grouping, and with United Kingdom involvement. He hit on an argument that I wished I had thought of, which is that the blanket ban is exceptionally random. It depends on when the prisoner is in prison. If they are not in prison when there is an election, they do not lose the right, but they lose it if they are in prison when there is an election. That is probably the strongest argument of all, which my noble friend Lord Browne put in a gentle and impressive way.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that my amendment was timid, while my noble friend Lord Bach said that it went too far, so it seems to me to be just about right. There were some questions about its practicality. I do not think that there would be difficulty in giving prisoners the vote; the postal vote provision would enable them to vote.
Lord McAvoy
On the question of practicality and following what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, will my noble friend say what kind of canvassing technique he would use?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Of course we can ensure that those in prison get all the available literature. Somebody said to me—I give them the credit—that we would be more likely to get the votes of people who were in there for assault; the Tories would get the tax dodgers; and the Liberal Democrats would get those in for perjury. That is absolutely the last thing that I would suggest. Heaven forbid.
There were some strong arguments in favour of the amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, did not say that he was only half in favour; he said that he was wholly in favour. A number of people have come round, even reluctantly, to say that they are in favour of it. However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pleaded with me. He got on his knees and asked whether, for the benefit of the House, and to enable the Government to introduce legislation—I hope soon—to cover the referendum and/or elections, I would withdraw the amendment. Because of the eloquence of his plea, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Disorder: Policing
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the appalling violence that took place during last week’s protests outside Parliament.
I want first to express my gratitude to those police officers and commanders who put themselves in harm’s way. They showed great bravery and professionalism in the face of violence and provocation. It was this bravery that enabled this House to engage unhindered in democratic debate. I know that the whole House will want to send them our thanks. I also want to thank Sir Paul Stephenson, who led the Metropolitan Police Service through a difficult operation and who serves London as Commissioner with distinction.
Honourable Members may find it useful if I recap last week’s events. On Thursday, 3,000 people assembled at the University of London Union to march through central London. By the time the crowd reached Parliament Square, police estimate the number of demonstrators had grown to 15,000.
The police maintained a barrier system outside the Palace of Westminster which allowed pedestrian access and the business of the House to continue at all times. Concerted attempts were made to breach the barrier lines. Protestors threw bottles, stones, paint, golf balls and flares and attacked police with metal fencing.
A cordon was placed around Parliament Square, but throughout those who remained peaceful and wished to leave via Whitehall were able to do so. A large number of protesters remained, many of whom committed acts of violent disorder, damaging historic statues in Parliament Square, breaking windows and starting fires. Sporadic disorder also took place in parts of the West End. It is quite clear that these acts were not perpetrated by a small minority but by a significant number of trouble makers.
Some students behaved disgracefully. But the police also assess that the protests were infiltrated by organised groups of hardcore activists and street gangs bent on violence. Evidence from the other recent protests shows that many of those causing violence were organised thugs, as well as students. It is highly likely that this was also the case last week.
I want to be absolutely clear: the blame for the violence lies squarely and solely with those who carried it out. The idea that some have advanced that police tactics were to blame when people came armed with sticks, flares, fireworks, stones and snooker balls is as ridiculous as it is unfair.
We have a culture of policing in this country that is based on popular consent and trust between the police and the public. That must continue.
Thursday’s police operation involved 2,800 officers. More than 30 officers were injured, of whom six required hospital treatment. All six have now been discharged from hospital. Forty-three protesters were injured.
The IPCC has already begun an independent investigation into the incident which left one protester seriously injured. Honourable and right honourable Members will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this incident while the IPCC investigation is ongoing.
The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that 35 people have been arrested so far. I expect this number to rise significantly as the criminal investigation continues. I can inform the House that there has been a good public response to the police’s request for information on 14 key perpetrators of violence published on Sunday. The Met will continue to publish pictures of other key individuals in the week ahead.
I also want to inform the House about the attack on the royal car. The House will be aware that on their way to an engagement in central London, the car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall was attacked by several protesters. There has been much speculation about the Duchess being struck through the window of the car. I understand that there was some contact made.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has ordered an urgent review of the royalty protection arrangements in place on the night. I can tell the House that the review is due to report by Friday 17 December. Honourable Members will understand that for security reasons, the public details of the report may be limited. I will await the findings of the review before deciding what, if any, further action is needed. The Prince and the Duchess have already expressed their gratitude to the police. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning all the acts of violence that took place last week, and I call on the organisers of the protest unequivocally to condemn violence as well.
The Government are determined to protect the right to peaceful protest, but violence is absolutely unacceptable, and the perpetrators of that violence must be brought to justice”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we share the gratitude expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the police at all levels who were involved with the policing of the demonstration outside Parliament last week. A number of officers were injured in simply seeking to do their duty.
Nothing justifies the violence and the criminal damage, much of which bears the hallmark of being planned and premeditated by a small minority who used the demonstration as a cover to carry out their own, far from peaceful, agenda. If major demonstrations become associated with mindless violence and vandalism, that is an attack on democracy, as it will deter decent-minded people who simply wish, with fellow-minded citizens, to express their view peacefully and publicly in that way, from doing so in future. There is also the risk that the violence detracts from the message.
However, while unreservedly condemning the violence by a small minority, we share the anger and dismay of the many thousands of students who demonstrated peacefully over the decision by the Government to increase tuition fees so dramatically on the basis of a phoney argument that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy.
As we know, there have been allegations of violence made against the police, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission is now involved in an independent investigation. One hopes that the matter will be investigated fully and as speedily as possible.
A further issue was the appalling incident involving the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall who, as the Leader of the House said, were travelling by car to an engagement in central London. The investigation being carried out by the police should establish the facts, but that was a worrying and disturbing incident and must surely lead to a review of procedures.
We understand that a number of those suspected of being involved in the violence and vandalism have been arrested, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave the number. Can he tell us how many, if any, have been charged? The perpetrators, whoever they may be, should be brought to justice.
There was a previous demonstration last month at which there appears to have been an underestimate of the number who would be taking part. Once again, a small minority used a peaceful demonstration for their own violent ends. Was the Home Secretary satisfied beforehand, in the light of what had happened at the earlier demonstration, that the intelligence about the demonstration last week appeared adequate and that whatever could realistically be done had been done to minimise the prospect of a repeat of the previous violence and vandalism, and of threats to key people, such as members of the Royal Family, and to key buildings?
The resources needed to police the demonstration last week must have been considerable. Can the Leader of the House give us some idea of the figure? Bearing in mind that cuts in the police budget are looming, can he give us an assurance that, despite that, the police will never be left in a situation where they feel that they do not have the resources available adequately to police major demonstrations in future? Can he also give an assurance that the budget for the policing of the Olympic Games will provide the police with the necessary resources to address major incidents of the magnitude and difficulty that we saw outside Parliament last week?
There has also been speculation about the use of water cannon by the police in future major demonstrations and protests. Will the Minister say whether the Government agree with the view expressed by the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, that the use of water cannon would not be proportionate to the violence at recent protests?
Finally, I return to the actions of the police last week. They were there to enable people to exercise their democratic right to demonstrate peacefully. They were not there to provoke violence or to carry out acts of violence. The police do get provoked by a small minority who have that objective in mind and it must require the exercise of considerable restraint by police officers when they are attacked, and particularly when they see colleagues being attacked and injured—colleagues who are only seeking to do their duty. Inevitably the police will at times have difficulty in such a situation in being sure who are the perpetrators of violence and who are not. Where allegations are made against the police, they should of course be investigated, but we should also be grateful for the work the police did in controlling a very difficult situation last week. We should be conscious at all times of the pressures, the violence and the provocation they faced and of the restraint they showed.
Lord Strathclyde
I thank the noble Lord for the broad support and welcome—and, indeed, for the unreserved condemnation of those who protested with violence on their minds on Thursday. I agree with him that the violence looked as if it was planned and premeditated. I also think he is right that it was an attack on democracy and that it will put off those who are genuinely interested in peacefully demonstrating their views if each of these demonstrations is taken over by those who are violent.
I did not quite follow the noble Lord’s argument on tuition fees. I also remind him that it was his party that created the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, which we have broadly accepted and which we will be debating in this House tomorrow.
The noble Lord asked how many students have been charged. I was able to announce that 35 have been arrested but I have no figures yet on how many have been charged—or, indeed, on what the charges could be. Some of them could potentially be for major criminal acts.
On the question of intelligence gained from earlier demonstrations, what I can say is that the police study each demonstration with care and learn lessons from each of them. The tactics of the demonstrators have clearly changed. The police prepare for that, but sometimes that is not enough to avoid those who are hell-bent on violence when, at the same time, the police’s main aim, and indeed the Government’s aim, is to support the right to peaceful protest. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, Thursday’s violent disorder was not just protest; it was wanton destruction and is not acceptable.
As far as funding is concerned, the Government are committed to ensuring that the police have sufficient resources to protect Parliament, the Royal Family and communities from concerted violent disorder such as we saw on Thursday.
The noble Lord asked about the use of water cannon, a matter which has been raised in the press and has caught the eye of some. Water cannon are a potential option for use in public order scenarios, and while it is right that we look at the whole range of options, we need to consider their impact on the British model of policing and whether they are operationally needed. I do not think that anybody wants to see water cannon used on the streets of Britain. We have a different culture of policing in Britain, one that is based on popular consent and trust between police and public. As I said, a range of measures is available to the police, and I do not believe that water cannon are needed.
The noble Lord finished by praising the police and by pointing out that we should all be grateful to them for the work that they do, and that enormous pressures were brought to bear on them and on their methods. Clearly the police need to learn lessons from this, as do the parliamentary authorities. However, we all owe the police a great sense of gratitude.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I have two questions for my noble friend. First, I understand that Westminster Underground station and the road outside Parliament were closed. Surely it is not right that people should be prevented from arriving here as well as from leaving here.
Secondly, I had a tiny hope that good might come out of very bad and that the people who are tented around Parliament Square might have been overrun. However, to my great gloom this morning, there they are still. How did they manage it?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on my noble friend’s first question, I think we all regret that Members of either House could not arrive at Parliament and leave easily on Thursday afternoon. However, pedestrian access was maintained at all times.
On my noble friend’s second question, she may well say that good could have come out of bad. However, the Government, more strategically, are looking at ways of improving the Parliament Square situation, and I hope that an announcement will be made shortly.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, may I express my sympathy for the difficulties in which the police found themselves, and my admiration for the way in which, by and large, they handled the event? I have two questions. First, the Statement says that those who wished to leave the area of containment and,
“to leave via Whitehall were able to do so”,
but a lot of people in the media have commented that they could not leave. Is there any doubt that the demonstrators who wanted to go down Whitehall to get away from the area of containment could do so?
Secondly, I find what happened to the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall slightly puzzling. Those of us who were Ministers in Northern Ireland had the benefit of close protection officers who phoned ahead at all times and who would never have got me into that difficulty, and I fail to see why those of us, like me, who were Ministers were better protected than the Royal Family. Something seems to have gone badly wrong.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on the first point, about being able to leave the area of containment, my understanding is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said: that those who wanted to leave, and to do so peacefully, were given the opportunity to do so through Whitehall. Furthermore, I gather that many thousands of individuals chose to take that route.
On the second question, the noble Lord is quite right; something went badly wrong. That is why there is to be a security review. It is not my place to pre-empt or second-guess that review, but I am sure that it will take into account everything that the noble Lord said about his experiences in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, mention has been made of the number of officers involved. First, does the Leader of the House have any information on the numbers of officers who were brought in from forces outside London? Secondly, he will recall that, at the time of the G20 protests, there was a lot of concern that some officers were not showing their numbers clearly on their uniforms and therefore could not be identified. I understand that comment has been made that, although the number of officers was not large, some officers again could not be identified properly because their numbers were not displayed. Does he have any comment to make on that?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, as I said in the Statement, 2,800 officers were in and around central London on Thursday. I do not have the figures on how many of those originated from forces outside London but if I can find out I shall let the noble Baroness know. As far as ID numbers are concerned, she is entirely correct in her understanding that these should be uncovered so that individual police officers can be identified by members of the general public or anyone else. They should not be covered up, and there are standing instructions to make sure that those numbers are not hidden from sight.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I join those who have expressed horror at the ease with which a relatively small number of aggressive anarchists were able to hijack what otherwise was a properly constituted and utterly justified demonstration. Perhaps I may invite the Minister to bear in mind the wise and statesmanlike words of the late Lord Callaghan. As the House will remember, at the time of the Grosvenor Square demonstrations in the late 1960s, he said that whenever you are faced with a situation like this, it is best, on the whole, irrespective of cost, to have a surfeit of officers in place, because the more force you have, the less violence you have to use.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, Lord Callaghan had wise things to say from time to time, and I am sure that that was one of them. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to a relatively small number. That was our assessment on some of the earlier demonstrations, but we have increasingly taken the view that that is not so much the case—that this was a much larger number of individuals who were looking for trouble, and looking to make trouble and to use violence as a form of making their views heard.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, will my noble friend Lord Strathclyde comment on the statement made by the Minister last Thursday that the order ensuring Peers and MPs’ entry to Parliament has now been dropped? Is he aware that a top constitutional expert in this House has assured me this morning that Peers have not suspended that order, so presumably they still have such rights? Does he agree that if demonstrators and accompanying anarchists are aware that they are able to halt even a part of the work of Parliament, we have reached a dangerous situation indeed?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct to say that nothing should be done outside this building which stops either of the Houses from being able to continue their work, and I am glad to say that nothing last Thursday or on any of the previous demonstrations allowed that to happen. But obviously there can be occasions when so many people have gathered outside that it is difficult to keep every entrance and exit on the estate open.
On the question of the sessional orders, they are of course in place, but my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire wisely explained their effect and raised some doubts in the mind of the House as to their efficacy. This morning I held a discussion, and with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition, the Convenor, my noble friend Lord McNally and the Lord Speaker, we have asked the Clerk of the Parliaments and the acting Black Rod to report to me and the Lord Speaker on two matters. First, they will report on the effect of the current sessional order passed in the Lords and whether it remains useful, particularly as the equivalent order is no longer passed by another place at the start of each Session and, secondly, how the input of the House authorities into police operations around Parliament works specifically to seek to ensure access for Members and staff. I hope that my noble friend and the rest of the House will take that as a serious attempt to clarify what the situation is in this House so that Peers approaching police lines with their passes will be given the access they are due so as to continue their work.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, and it would therefore probably be inappropriate for me to ask any questions about the detailed policing arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, raised the issue of the tented community opposite the Houses of Parliament and I would also like to ask about Parliament Square. I believe that the arrangements for who is in charge of what in Parliament Square are immensely complicated, but my understanding is that the grassed area in particular is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, and I assume therefore that the fences surrounding the grassed area are the mayor’s responsibility as well. It was those fences which were broken down and used as weapons against the police. Given that for previous demonstrations the statues in the square were boarded up—particularly the statue of Sir Winston Churchill—I was surprised that that was not done on this occasion. What representations have the Government made to the Mayor of London about his stewardship of Parliament Square under such circumstances?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I think that responsibility for Parliament Square was handed over to the GLA when it was set up, and therefore to the Mayor of London, so I can confirm that there is a confusing and sometimes disjointed ownership of different parts of the square. The grass is the responsibility of the mayor and the GLA, while the pavements are the responsibility of Westminster City Council. I can also confirm that the fences were therefore the responsibility of the GLA. The noble Lord might well ask why other precautions were not taken to protect the statues or to firm up the fences, but these are precisely the questions that not only the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police but also his commanders on the ground will be posing. No doubt we will learn lessons from that.
In answering the noble Lord, I have an opportunity to give a fuller response to the question put by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who asked about police forces outside London. I understand that no police officers from other forces were deployed on mutual aid arrangements on Thursday.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
My Lords, what discussions are taking place with the organisers of these demonstrations, in particular the student unions, to discuss the most helpful ways in which they can dissociate and separate themselves from the violent elements who are clearly infiltrating their ranks on these demonstrations?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord is entirely correct to point out that there is an absolute responsibility on the student union, the organisers of these marches and the police to have a dialogue in order to decide on a route and on roles of behaviour. As I said in repeating the Statement, the march started off with 3,000 individuals, but by the time it got to Parliament Square it had grown to 15,000 and had created a sense of its own instability. I am sure that the police and many others will be making representations to the National Union of Students, other organisers and, indeed, colleges and institutions of higher education to see what they can do to try and help control the violence.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My Lords, on a practical point, does my noble friend agree that it would be extremely helpful if noble Lords who want to get here to register their votes but who do not want their arrival to coincide with the most difficult periods of these protests could obtain information closer to the time about when a gathering is going to start elsewhere so that they can try to arrive before it becomes too congested outside?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend has made a good suggestion. Obviously, with modern technology and communications it is sometimes easier to let Peers know what is happening on the ground but sometimes these things flare up very quickly. In a way, that is part of the point of the tactics that the demonstrators use. It is not always possible to predict exactly when things will happen. Once noble Lords are inside the House, the Annunciator very clearly lets Peers and other users of this House know which Gates are open and which are closed. However, it is a useful suggestion that my noble friend makes.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made a good point. I do not like the word “kettling” either. I am not entirely certain either where it came from or exactly what it means but the word that the police and the Government use is “containment”. It is a tried-and-tested method of trying to contain those who are indulging in public disorder and disobedience. Part of the process is designed to allow people to cool off and, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, there was an exit to encourage those who wished to leave peacefully to do so. Yet it is often difficult to anticipate what is happening on the ground. The police have a difficult job to do and various means at their disposal to try to deal with the crowd as effectively as possible. Sometimes it does not go according to plan.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I want to make two brief points. First, on the containment or kettling that has just been mentioned, since this is a matter for police operations, would it be appropriate to ask the Independent Police Complaints Commission, when it looks at the incident, to examine whether kettling—or containment—is the right policy for a large demonstration? My second point, which has not been raised, is: how do we protect the statues around Parliament Square and in Trafalgar Square? It is a shame that there are those who deface the statues of some of those people who gave us the democracy on the basis of which they are protesting.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on my noble friend’s first point I am sure that the IPCC will want to examine all aspects of this demonstration and to test the tactics that the police used on that day. While so many of those are of course operational matters for the commissioners, I am sure that it will look at that. On protecting the statues, it is difficult for me, standing at this Dispatch Box, to disagree with my noble friend but I dare say that the police cannot instruct that every single statue in central London be boarded up every time there is a demonstration. Yet something clearly went wrong on Thursday and it is for the police commissioner, the IPCC and the police, in all their internal reviews, to take a view on what happened and, I hope, to make sure that it does not happen again. Let me re-emphasise that if those demonstrators who came along had come for genuinely peaceful reasons, none of this would have been required. The blame for the violence lies entirely with those who came to central London to perpetrate it.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I continue to declare an interest as someone who was formerly elected deputy president of the National Union of Students. First, does my noble friend know whether the police have any estimate of the number of non-students taking part in the events? Secondly, on the basis of the degree of organisation shown by those who were not students, does he agree that “anarchist” is perhaps becoming a contradiction in terms?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there was a nice joke at the end there about anarchy and organisation. I note my noble friend’s interest. I am sure that when he was vice-president of the NUS, he would not have organised a demonstration such as this.
As for the direct question about how many non-students were in the crowd, I do not have that estimate, but it is clear that there were those present who were not only interested in violence but displayed thuggish behaviour, came from gangs, were well organised and splintered away. We shall have to wait for the review to see what those figures might be.
Local Government: Finance
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles.
“The spending review set out how the Government would tackle the catastrophic levels of public debt by delivering necessary reductions in public spending to accelerate deficit reduction and put the public finances back on a sustainable footing. This has involved difficult, but essential and responsible, decisions. Every part of the public sector needs to do its bit to help reduce the highest deficit in the United Kingdom’s peacetime history and rapidly rising national debt that this Government have inherited.
Last year, the Government borrowed one pound in every four that they spent. That was entirely unsustainable and risked our economic credibility. In contrast, our plan to eliminate the current structural deficit over five years has won the backing of the IMF, kept our credit rating steady and held interest rates down. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest forecast confirms that we were right to take these steps. Its message is that Britain’s economic recovery is now on track.
I have sought to achieve a fair and sustainable settlement for local government by listening to what the local government community has asked for. This will be a progressive settlement and fair between different parts of the country. First, we have focused resources on the most vulnerable communities with significant social challenges. These are often the areas that are most reliant on government grant, so equal grant reductions would leave the poorest places worst off. We have insulated them by giving more weight to the levels of need within different areas and less weight to per capita distributions. We have also grouped councils into four bands, reflecting their dependence on central government. More dependent places will therefore see proportionally lower falls than more self-sufficient places.
Secondly, we have listened to concerns about the front-loading of the reductions. The Local Government Association asked me to focus on local government’s total spending power. That includes not just grants but also income from council tax and the National Health Service funding to support social care and benefit health. It said that reductions in spending power should be limited to 8 per cent. So far as possible, I have given the Local Government Association what it asked for. I have made sure that no authority will face more than an 8.9 per cent reduction in spending power in either 2011-12 or 2012-13. In fact, the average reduction in 2011-12 is 4.4 per cent. To fund this, I have transferred an extra £30 million of my department’s budget to local government for 2011-12. I am also providing a grant of £85 million in 2011-12 and £14 million in 2012-13 to fund councils that would otherwise have seen sharper falls.
The spending review also announced that the Government will protect the public from excessive council tax rises. We have set aside £650 million so every council can freeze council tax next year without hitting local services. We will provide councils that freeze council tax with the equivalent of a 2.5 per cent increase in funding instead. This will provide real help to hard-working families and people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners. The Government also want to ensure that council tax payers are protected against any authorities that reject the offer and impose excessive council tax rises. We will introduce a power for residents to veto excessive council tax increases through a referendum. In the mean time, the Government can take capping action against councils that propose excessive rises.
When the House debates the final local government finance report next year, I will set out the capping principles. I will also shortly publish details of the figures that will be used to compare authorities’ budgets between years, should capping be necessary. The previous Government had planned to cap the police authorities of Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire after they set excessive increases in 2010-11. Subject to challenge, we will ensure that, should they decide not to freeze, neither can impose an increase of more than 2.5 per cent in 2011-12.
This settlement also supports the Government’s commitments to adult social care, providing councils with sufficient resources to protect people’s access to care and deliver improved quality and outcomes. This includes £650 million of National Health Service funding in 2011-12 to support social care services, promoting integrated working between primary care trusts and local authorities, and benefiting the health system. The settlement directs more formula grant to authorities that deliver social care.
Despite all the action we have taken, I recognise that local government still faces significant challenges. The vast majority of councils have been making sensible plans to address these. To support them I am restoring real power to councils—ending Whitehall interference and cutting red tape and the burdens of inspection and regulation. The localism Bill, published later today, will deliver a new democratic settlement to councils, overturning decades of central government control. For too long, councils have been barred from using their initiative and creativity to improve services. The limited power of well-being acted as an obstacle to cost savings, such as mutual insurance companies. Today’s Bill will fundamentally change councils’ freedom to act in the interest of their local communities through a new general power of competence. This will give councils the legal reassurance and confidence they need to innovate, drive down costs and deliver more efficient services.
I am also giving councils much greater control over their budgets. With very few exceptions, we have ended grant ring-fencing so that councils can decide for themselves how their money should be spent. We will also allow them to borrow against future business rates receipts. Councils now have the freedom and responsibility to concentrate on what residents want: protecting front-line services. To support them, we have set aside £200 million to help councils modernise and reduce back-office costs. Councils can protect front-line services by sharing services and back-office functions, improving procurement to get more for less, bringing escalating senior pay under control, and using transparency to cut waste.
Proactive councils are already taking the opportunity radically to rethink and transform their services. There are also substantial incentives available for councils to invest in longer-term projects. These include the new homes bonus and £1.4 billion for the regional growth fund over three years—a fund which goes well beyond the working neighbourhoods fund. There will now be a statutory consultation on the settlement for 2011-12 and I look forward to hearing representations from councils.
Finally, this is a transitional settlement, using an inherited system. That is why we have set out details only of the next two years to strike a balance between the need to help councils plan and the need to reform the system. This system, based on redistributing business rates, makes councils heavily reliant on handouts from central government. Some depend on us for up to 75 per cent of their spending power. It is part of the trend that has led to some areas of the country becoming almost completely dependent on the public sector. It makes planning difficult, weakens local accountability, stifles local innovation and there is no incentive for councils to invest in their local economy since they will see most of the proceeds disappear. That is why I have set up a review of business rates, with the intention that in future local government will be able to keep more of what it collects. Ultimately, those councils which invest and support the local economy will be better able to finance themselves. The local government resource review will begin in the new year. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement with every apparent evidence of conviction. This Statement, like most ministerial Statements these days, began with evidence that the Government have succumbed to a new medical condition—deficit attention disorder. There is, of course, a deficit, but the Government have misdiagnosed the cause, which was not government spending—until December 2008, they had pledged to equal it—and they have prescribed the wrong treatment: they have prescribed too much of it too quickly and it is too toxic.
In interviews and Statements, the Secretary of State seems to pretend that cuts of unprecedented magnitude can be achieved relatively painlessly. He cites, for example, the use of reserves. If this were true, he should perhaps have a word with the Mayor of London, who is sitting on, to use the Secretary of State’s phrase, £1.5 billion of reserves—about 15 per cent of the total—or, indeed, with the leader of the council of which the noble Baroness was herself a distinguished leader some time ago, Kensington and Chelsea, which has the second highest reserves of any other authority, at £100 million. It is not true that these reserves are available. Most of them are earmarked and cannot be used except for prescribed purposes, as I pointed out in a debate last week. The amount of unallocated reserves is a mere £3 billion out of a £68 billion spend.
The Secretary of State has some other ideas—for example, that councils should jointly employ a chief executive or a finance director. These are facile and ridiculous suggestions. Of course, sharing services is important and it is taking place. Procurement needs to be shared across local government and shared services and joint procurement could, indeed, be extended across the public sector, but local government has demonstrated significant improvements over the past few years.
The Statement makes it clear that there is to be a council tax freeze, but there is no freeze for council or social housing tenants, who face an increase of 6.8 per cent next year, nor is there a freeze for those people who will lose 10 per cent of their council tax benefit— £450 million is being taken from those people, despite the fact that £1.8 billion of council tax benefit goes unclaimed. The freeze lasts for two years at a cost, I think, of £1.3 billion. That leaves councils ultimately with a reduced tax base, which will have to be made good, but what will happen then? In any case, this comes from money that could be used to protect services now.
The Statement makes no reference to the issue raised here and in another place about the capitalisation of redundancy and severance payments, which will be a significant burden on many local authorities. In a debate last week, I asked the noble Baroness how these payments could be made without affecting services if capitalisation was limited to £200 million nationally. I do not know whether she has briefing on that.
The Statement is also silent about capital, where the reduction is 45 per cent and has potentially significant implications not just for councils and their services but for the private sector and jobs within it, particularly, though not exclusively, in the construction industry.
There have been interesting comments in the run-up to this Statement from a variety of sources. A distinguished academic, Professor Tony Travers, in advance of the Statement, called it the harshest settlement since 1945, if not ever. He said that it was apocalyptic in the first year. Some movement has been made at the last minute to reduce the front-loading, which is welcome. It is, however, pretty limited. It may be not “Apocalypse Now” but “Apocalypse Not Just Yet”, foreshadowing serious difficulties for many councils.
In the very limited time that was available to my right honourable friend Caroline Flint and me to see the Statement, which we received only an hour ago, and to glance—it was impossible to do more—at the many tables appended to it, I applied my mind to the situation in the north-east of England, to which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will refer. A quick calculation produced a figure of £215 million of cuts in the next year, after the modest softening of the front-loading. However, in addition, there are the cuts that have already been sustained. This raises serious questions about what will happen. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether she and the Government agree with Tony Travers’s description of this as the harshest settlement of the post-war period.
Can the Minister also say what impact the settlement will have on the voluntary sector? The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I returned home to a letter from the Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service, in which I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president. It had met the city council and had been apprised of the fact that the budget for supporting voluntary organisations—stemming in part from the working neighbourhoods fund—is to be reduced from some £10 million to £2.5 million. That is, in other words, a 75 per cent reduction for the Government’s proclaimed partners in the big society—partners with which the city council, under different administrations, has for many years been pleased to work. Is there an estimate of the impact on the voluntary sector of the reductions?
How do the Government and the Minister react to Birmingham’s proposals to cut £70 million from its budget for carers, notwithstanding the provision made for supporting social care through money from the National Health Service, albeit that that programme would have to be agreed with the NHS and may represent continuing expenditure?
Does the noble Baroness agree with her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, who said:
“These cuts will hurt. We know this means that there could be fewer libraries, more potholes going unrepaired … and youth clubs closing”?
Surely the tide of reductions in service across the country will be extremely significant.
Finally, can the Minister confirm the statement made by the Prime Minister earlier this year which clearly indicated that the cuts being contemplated under the spending review would not be restored, even when the economy improved? Does that not reveal the real nature of the Government’s agenda?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. I cannot say that it was much different from what I would have expected, particularly from someone from the north-east who therefore knows how to call a spade a spade.
No one is denying that this is a very tough settlement and, as we discussed briefly last Thursday, any Government were going to have to make substantial reductions in budgets across government because of the deficit situation. I do not think that either side, even the Government who caused it, has said that there was no deficit. There was always going to have to be a way of dealing with it. The noble Lord opposite says that we have chosen the wrong way of doing it. There may be 50 ways of dealing with the situation and some, if not all, will affect some, if not all, of the services which are provided to the community and which defend our country, including social services. There are some ways in which you can cut it and some ways in which you cannot; we have decided to cut our cloth in this way and we are dealing with the situation in what we believe is an appropriate manner.
I shall try to go through the noble Lord’s comments in order. He suggests that we have made particular play on the use of reserves. In the consultations that have taken place on the settlement, it is true that the Local Government Association was extremely concerned about front-loading and its impact. Indeed, it was its own suggestion that this should be based on a spending formula. That would mean that not only the government grant but also reserves, council tax and other grants would be taken into account. Where it has been estimated that councils have reserves that can be used, clearly there will be a reduction in the amount of grant. As the noble Lord said, some reserves are earmarked and some are not. However, it is anticipated that those who have reserves ought to be able to employ some of them as well.
The noble Lord made some play on the changes to services that it is suggested should come about, such as the sharing of services, the sharing of chief executives and the sharing of human resources—in other words, changes to the organisation of councils. Huge sums may not be saved initially but there is no doubt that useful savings are to be made through councils sharing such services. As the noble Lord indicated, some councils have started to do that and others are looking to see how they should do it. My council, to which the noble Lord referred, is one of the pioneers in doing so. The sums saved will not be insignificant—they will make an impact—and, I am afraid, they are the future way forward.
On the capitalisation of redundancy payments, yes, there will be a contribution of £200 million towards it. Councils will be able to ask for capitalisation and, if the amount that they require is not covered by the amount of their grant, there will be other ways, I am afraid, of finding the money.
Tony Travers said that this is the harshest settlement since 1945. I do not know whether it is, but it is a difficult settlement for local government and we understand that. We understand, too, that different parts of the country will fare slightly less well than others. The north-east comes into that category, as the figures show.
The Government very much support the voluntary sector and its work in the community. We believe that the voluntary sector has real attributes and we hope that local government will not target it with excessive reductions, as it will need to co-operate with the voluntary sector in the future. These cuts will hurt and will not be easy—no one will pretend otherwise—but I am sure that the noble Lord will tweak us about that in the future, if not today.
The Earl of Listowel
I warmly welcome what the Minister says about encouraging local authorities to share back-office functions and services and to join together in reducing procurement costs. That is challenging and I hope that the Government may assist local authorities as far as possible. Does the Minister recognise that, if youth services are cut and the number of youth clubs is reduced, that may severely impair Her Majesty’s Government’s determination to reduce prison numbers? The devil certainly makes work for idle young hands. As research evidence clearly shows, it is hugely costly to lock up young people and, once they have been locked up, 70 per cent will return within two years. Can she offer any comfort as regards youth services? Are the Government considering models of good practice in the area to give to local authorities?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, youth clubs are invaluable and are run by the voluntary sector. Some of the other aspects that noble Lords have raised will come out of Home Office funding, not from local government. Nobody would disagree with a word that the noble Earl says. One wants to prevent people from going into prison because, once they are in, we all know that that just leads to further problems. The aspects that he raises are not really for the local government settlement.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I declare an interest as the other half of the “Likely Lads” from Newcastle City Council, on which I am a councillor. I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement from the other place. There has been some listening to local government and, indeed, the settlement is, I think, a little better at first glance than what we had feared. I declare an interest also as vice-president of the Local Government Association. On the issue of front-loading, it wanted a limit on loss of spending power of 8 per cent, and the Secretary of State has agreed on 8.9 per cent.
The word “progressive” was used. I have three questions on which I should like a response. First, is this not a progressive settlement in the sense that there has not now been a reallocation of grant from poorer to richer councils? Secondly, reference was made to the grant of £650 million to keep council tax increases at zero in the next financial year, but there is a question about that sum being built into the baseline for many years to come. If council tax is raised by 2.5 per cent, it is always in the baseline for the future. However, if the Government give the equivalent of 2.5 per cent, will that stay in the baseline? That matters. Thirdly, for further clarity on the capitalisation limit and the cost of redundancy, it is probable that the capitalisation limit will not prove sufficient. If it is not, councils will be required to reduce revenue and spending in the next financial year, which will in turn produce further cuts and redundancies. My noble friend referred to other ways in which that might be done; I was wondering what those other ways were.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked three clear questions. Is it a progressive settlement and reallocation? I think that we will take it year by year. This is a two-year settlement; whether it progresses on, I do not know. Whether it progresses in terms of how the grant is dealt with, we will have to wait and see. The £650 million is the repayment for 2.5 per cent of council tax if it is frozen. The question of whether that will be carried on next year will have to be decided. If it is, that will determine whether it is part and parcel of the baseline. As the noble Lord knows, capitalisation is treated as revenue by the Treasury, so whatever is spent goes back on to the revenue expectation. If that proves not to be sufficient, it will be a matter for each local authority to deal with.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
Will the Minister confirm that areas of deprivation have lost out from more than just today’s settlement, because other grants such as the working neighbourhoods grant went directly to the most deprived and vulnerable people? What will the Government do to make sure that some of those communities do not sink further away from being able to turn themselves around? That is what that money was used for. Where is the money coming from that is being used to dampen the worst excesses of the settlement? Which other areas in the rest of the department are losing in order to make sure that the dampening effect can be exerted on the settlement?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we should be clear that the working neighbourhoods grant was just a three-year fund. There was no expectation—and no money was put aside—for it to continue for longer than three years. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is the situation. The previous Government could have decided to continue it, but they did not make that decision; they left it as a three-year grant.
The noble Baroness asked where the other money will come from. We have set up a £1.4 billion regional growth fund, which will be administered by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. Councils and local enterprise partnerships will be able to bid for money from that fund, which will be available in particular for private sector-led growth. The expectation is that local councils will work closely with the private sector, not only in local enterprise partnerships but in general, so they will be able to lean on that sector for additional assets.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness encourage local authorities not to target voluntary organisations because of the work that they do to enhance the concept of the big society. Many of them were excited by the idea that the work that they do in communities would be increased. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned, many of them are finding already that their grants are being reduced and that the money that the Government say they have set aside for a transition is totally inaccessible. What will the Government do to ensure that groups that provide things such as visiting services to the elderly and mentoring services to the young—volunteer bureaux of all sorts—will be maintained so they can play their part?
I have a second brief question. How will the Government ensure the maintenance of quality in care services when local authorities are trying to drive down pay levels and numbers of staff, in particular in areas where there are extremely vulnerable residents? I would be grateful to know this.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have already indicated this Government’s strong support for the voluntary sector and their belief that the sector has a major role to play in the future. Indeed, the noble Baroness will see that in the Localism Bill, which has just been published, a big emphasis is placed on the need for local authorities to work with voluntary organisations and, indeed, for voluntary organisations and community associations to have a greater say in how things are run in conjunction with, or independently from, the local government sector. Therefore, there is no disagreement between us about that or about the value of the voluntary sector. The noble Baroness is right: there is a transitional fund of £100 million to help voluntary organisations. I think that the volunteer centres will fall into that, and that will help them to withstand some of the reductions in grant.
I was asked about the care of the elderly. The work that is done will be very carefully monitored; we had some discussion about this on Thursday. It has to be made clear that the quality of the care is extremely important. It is not currently brilliant across the country, and we are very aware that efforts need to be made to ensure that it is universally good.
Lord Bates
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the party opposite had planned cuts of £52 billion to tackle the deficit? If they, as we have done, had ring-fenced the National Health Service and schools budgets, then it was always going to be a tough settlement, whoever was in power. Is it not also the case that this Government are reducing top-down bureaucracy through the comprehensive spending and performance reviews, freeing up councils from ring-fencing and giving them the potential to earn greater sums through business rates and the new homes bonus?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question and I agree entirely with what he has said. It is correct that, with the removal of ring-fencing—I am sorry that the party opposite finds this so hilarious—councils will have access to a greater tranche, if not the entire tranche, of money regarding which they can make their own decisions. They have their own priorities in using the money. Except for the schools grant and the grant from the health service, there is no limitation on how they spend that money, and that will be of great benefit as they go forward. When the noble Lord opposite was the leader of a council, I was also the leader of a council and I am sure that he, like me, would have given his eye teeth to get his hands on the entire budget.
Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, as local government funds the voluntary sector—what the Government may want to call the big society—to the tune of £4.5 billion, the kinds of cuts that she has announced this afternoon cannot do anything but make the big society smaller?
Baroness Hanham
I do not agree with that. I think that we all have an aspiration to see the big society. We all want to see communities working with each other; we want to see charitable and voluntary organisations working better and doing more; and we want to see neighbourhoods and communities getting together to help each other. Therefore, I do not accept what the noble Lord says. I think that this philosophy will work with a reduction in resources because it will gain in momentum.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, did the Minister notice that the Government were accused by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, of suffering from a serious medical condition called “deficit obsession disorder”? Has she also noticed that a new disease is now prevalent on the Benches opposite? As my noble friend pointed out, the previous Government, when in government, had planned to make substantial reductions. However, now that they are in opposition, they have a serious medical condition called “ignore the deficit disorder”. I listened carefully to the noble Lord and did not hear a single suggestion as to any reduction that could be made. Everybody knows that this has to be a very tough settlement. It is not the end of local government as we know it.
A thousand years ago I was Minister for local government. I sense that over the years the constraints on local government and how it has to vie between different expenditures have grown and grown with greater Treasury control. The best hope and a big help for local government going into this difficult time is maximum flexibility so that it can use its funds in ways that make most sense within its own area. I hope that that will be possible within this settlement.
Baroness Hanham
I thank my noble friend for that. He will also recall that thousands of years ago I knew him when he was Minister for local government. I am not quite sure what that says about either of us.
I accept what my noble friend says. First, the Opposition have not offered anything by way of a useful contribution to how this deficit will be dealt with. We have had considerable carping but no ideas have been offered as to what they would have done instead to deal with the deficit that they caused. Of course, the flexibility needed to deal with budgets, policy and organisation is absolutely essential. That will come directly out of the Localism Bill and how we look forward to local government working in the future.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, I deprecate the very last minute at which the data came forward. It is a bit like the late arrival of the Localism Bill; it shows a Government not quite in control of their agenda.
We reject the assertion that these are necessary reductions in public expenditure, just repeated by the noble Lord. Of course, the deficit must be dealt with and, of course, we, as an opposition, have set out credible means of dealing with it. One example is that we would not be spending £2 billion to £3 billion on unnecessary top-down reorganisation of the National Health Service. Even if we were to accept the programme of overall expenditure set out by the Government—which we do not—how do they justify local government having such a savage component to deal with? It is worse than for any other department. What is the justification for that?
The noble Baroness spoke of the focus on the most vulnerable, and I understand that the Government have come up with this revenue spending power comparison—looking at like for like in the current year and next year. I understand that it includes council tax potential and grants. Incidentally, I have a question for the noble Baroness along the way. When is a transfer from central government a grant and when is it a handout—an unfortunate term? To get back to the comparison on revenue spending power between authorities, taken with the assertion that we are focusing on the most deprived, why is it, when comparing the current year with next year, on the Government’s own figures, that Hackney loses 8.9 per cent, or £33 million, and Kensington and Chelsea loses 5.5 per cent, or £11 million? How is it that Tower Hamlets loses 8.9 per cent, or £34 million, but Barnet loses 2.6 per cent at just £7.7 million? How can Hartlepool lose 8.9 per cent, or something like £10 million, and Rutland 2.2 per cent? How does the noble Baroness justify that within the parameters of the settlement?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, first, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, the former Minister, that I sat on that Front Bench all the way through the previous Government and I always complained about the lack of time that one was given for dealing with a Statement. Never ever did I receive a Statement more than about 40 minutes before I was due to answer it. So there will be no lessons from across there with that complaint.
The necessary reductions come about because of the deficit. I cannot keep on saying that—we must all deal with the deficit and deal with it we will. We will reduce the deficit more quickly than the party opposite ever indicated it would do.
As regards the reductions in grant for Tower Hamlets, Kensington and Chelsea or wherever, their spending power, which is how the Local Government Association wanted to present it, means that reserves and council tax are taken into account. The reductions of 8.9 per cent will depend on how much they can contribute to that, how much council tax they get, how much revenue can come from elsewhere and how much comes from government. The reductions would have been higher all round if extra money had not been made available for the transitional period. However, now no council will lose more than 8.9 per cent. It has been done on a very fair and measured formula to ensure that people do not have big swings within their council tax settlements across the country. They should not be too great.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the next Statement not yet having started in the other place, I beg to move that we adjourn during pleasure for 10 minutes.
Climate Change: Cancun
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the outcome of the United Nations climate change conference in Cancun. The Statement is as follows.
“The House will remember the disappointment of last year’s conference in Copenhagen, and in particular its failure to agree a comprehensive and legally binding global treaty to supplement or replace the Kyoto protocol.
Expectations for the Cancun conference were not high. After Copenhagen, it seemed as if the very principle of multilateralism itself was on trial. Our objectives, therefore, were modest. We aimed to demonstrate that the United Nations process was back on track. We also hoped to put in place some of the building blocks for an eventual global statement and to rebuild momentum.
I am delighted to say that our expectations were not just met, but exceeded. The conference agreed a series of linked decisions under both its tracks: the Kyoto protocol; and the framework for reaching a new and more comprehensive agreement. Emissions reduction pledges made under the Copenhagen accord by both developed and developing countries provided a valuable starting point and have been brought into the UN climate convention framework. We can now assess the overall policy pledges against the requirements of science.
These decisions provide a solid foundation for further work. For the first time, there is an international commitment to,
‘deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions’,
to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. This includes processes for adopting targets for peaking emissions as soon as possible, and substantially reducing them by 2050.
The conference also adopted decisions to develop systems for measuring, reporting and verifying emission reductions and actions in line with countries’ commitments. This is essential to confidence in each other’s actions. Developing countries will get access to low-carbon technology and help with adaptation to climate change. Market-based mechanisms will be considered to deliver effective reductions in emissions at least cost.
Forestry was a key area. The conference agreed the framework for REDD plus—reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation—through which developing countries will be paid for keeping trees standing rather than logging them. The conference also made progress on rules for accounting for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto protocol, an issue that was too difficult to be settled at Kyoto and has remained problematic ever since.
The conference also agreed the establishment of a green climate fund to support policies and activities in developing countries. The fund will be governed by a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, and its finances will be managed by the World Bank. A transitional committee will be established to design the institutions and operations of the fund, and we aim to see that make rapid progress. The conference endorsed the commitment made by developed countries at Copenhagen to mobilise at least $100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.
The conference did not settle the future of the Kyoto protocol, nor did it adopt a new and more comprehensive treaty incorporating all countries. Neither outcome was realistically possible this year. Nevertheless, the agreements reached at Cancun represent a significant step forward, particularly given that it seemed possible, even as late as Thursday, that the conference would break up over precisely that issue. In the end, every country represented there, with the exception of Bolivia, felt able to support the outcomes.
There remains much to do in the run-up to the 2011 climate conference in Durban. Given the outcome of Cancun, however, we can be far more confident than seemed possible just a few weeks ago.
I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the Government of Mexico, who were responsible for hosting and chairing the conference. The diplomatic skill, political courage and dogged determination of Foreign Minister Espinosa and her team were responsible in very large part for its success. I was happy to be able to support her in co-chairing some of the negotiating groups which addressed the key issues.
I also wish to pay tribute to the British team of negotiators. Even though our delegation was one of the smallest of those of the G8 countries, its members played a key role in many of the detailed negotiations, often leading for the EU. The climate diplomacy carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the year leading up to the conference clearly helped to lay the groundwork for a successful conclusion.
Tackling climate change should transcend party politics. Britain has built a strong reputation internationally as a forward-looking country, and I want to thank my predecessor for his work in helping to achieve this. I was also pleased to be able to include in the UK delegation representatives of the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments.
In conclusion, the coalition Government are determined to tackle the accelerating threat of climate change. We intend to demonstrate how a successful and prosperous low-carbon economy can be developed in the UK and EU, providing employment, exports and energy security and reducing emissions. The Energy Bill published last week and the consultation paper on electricity market reform later this week are key components. So, too, is the adoption of a more ambitious target for reducing EU carbon emissions, and in that context I welcome the Spanish Government’s recent declaration of support for a 30 per cent reduction by 2020. We are pressing for an ambitious package of measures to be agreed by EU leaders in February next year to create the infrastructure and incentives for a faster move to a low-carbon economy within Europe.
On the international front, we will build on this momentum at Cancun. There is much still to be achieved, but we can now look forward with renewed optimism to the Durban conference next year. As the representative of one NGO said:
“Cancun may have saved the process but it did not yet save the climate”.
That is true, but in saving the process, it represents a triumph for the spirit of international co-operation in tackling an international threat. I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming that”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, we on this side welcome today’s Oral Statement on the outcome of the climate change conference in Cancun. Although I understand that there was some interest in having a Written Statement, we agree that it is appropriate to have an Oral Statement on such a critical issue, and for your Lordships' House to have the opportunity to comment and ask questions. So, on this point, I am grateful to the Minister and his ministerial colleagues for bringing this before the House today.
There is, as the Minister rightly said, a lot of cynicism about the likely outcome of the Cancun conference, but the talks did not break down, as many had feared, and we should welcome the progress that has been made. We join the Minister in congratulating the Mexican Government on creating an environment conducive to discussion and agreement which enabled the Governments of the world to come together to try to agree a common statement.
So, what has been announced as an achievement at Cancun? Leaders of the international community have now agreed to a form of words which the Minister has outlined—a commitment to deep cuts in global greenhouse emissions and to hold any increase in the global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius. There is a long-term plan for reducing emissions by 2050. The establishment of a green climate fund to assist developing nations, although still lacking in some detail, is to be welcomed. It recognises the different starting points and challenges faced by developing nations, and the ways that we can act responsibly to support them to tackle climate change.
We also note the Government's commitments, made in an international arena, to act on deforestation. This clearly overrides the Secretary of State's earlier announcement that the Government intend to sell 15 per cent of our forest estate over the spending review period—to be made easier through the Government's proposals in the Public Bodies Bill, which will remove the protections for forestry land sales. I take comfort from the Government's international commitments which mean that they will now be amenable to amendments on this part of the Bill, or that we may perhaps have the benefit of seeing the Government table their own amendments in the new year.
We all support progress made at international level to mitigate the impacts of climate change. We hope that the statement of intent made in Cancun will build on the provisions made in Copenhagen last year, but we also have to recognise that we have to do so much more to ensure that it paves the way for more ambitious aims in South Africa next year. At some stage we have to fully realise our ambitions. Your Lordships will know the importance that we place on this issue, and the commitment shown by the last Government and the last Prime Minister, as the Minister has acknowledged. I congratulate those who have managed to ensure that there is meaning to this agreement, but I also share the disappointment of many that it does not go nearly far enough. This is an area where the Government need to step up and take a lead internationally.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, the Secretary of State has already suggested that the European emissions reduction targets should be increased to 30 per cent by 2020. He recently issued a statement with Germany and France pressing for this change. The Committee on Climate Change reported just last week in support of this aim. Can the Minister tell the House if this is the extent of EU support and what steps he and the Government are taking in Europe on this issue? The climate fund to assist developing nations is a welcome step, but we need to have assurances that funding will be in place. Can the Minister give us further details on how finance will be secured and how it will be allocated? I know the Minister is aware of my concern that we have agreed a framework but have yet to fill in the details. What action will the Government take, leading into the South African conference, to ensure that we have those details and can reach agreement?
We have agreements, but we need to make sure that those promised actions are taken or those agreements will not be a foundation for change. Developing countries need this life-saving finance, because their citizens cannot wait. Finally, we need to see leadership from Britain and Europe over the next 12 months before the countries meet again in South Africa. The Government have our full support in seeking meaningful international agreements.
Lord Marland
I thank the noble Baroness for her charitable remarks. It is gratifying to see such harmony among our Benches on this subject. She is quite right that we have an awful lot to do. This is the starting block. As I said earlier, there was not great expectation that Cancun would achieve anything. It has achieved broad agreement from 193 countries, which is no mean feat. I pay my own compliments to the Secretary of State, Christopher Huhne, and to Gregory Barker, the Minister for Climate Change, both of whom played a very active role in getting agreement. The Secretary of State was asked by the Mexican Government to lead on brokering compromises, and it was no mean achievement.
As for the noble Baroness’s specific questions, the 30 per cent target is absolutely right. The Secretary of State made a statement on that matter. As I said earlier in the Statement, the Spanish have now agreed to support that and there is widespread agreement building within Europe to support that very ambitious target.
As for the green climate fund, it is early days. The advisory group on finance met and set up a range of options on where the money could come from. It can come from government budgets, an emissions auction process or from the private sector. The combination of those three will be very beneficial to creating this fund. There is clearly a lot more detailed work to put into that, but there is a commitment to work on it in the run-up to Durban.
I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s questions. I thank her for her generous statements. I do not intend to answer on the subject of the Forestry Commission, as it is not within my remit, but I thank her for the question anyway.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I think that the contrast between this year and last year has been absolutely excellent, and I am sure most of the House would echo that, but may I press the Minister on one or two areas? I should like to have a little more detail on verification, which many of us believe is one of the most important areas that was discussed. Has China in particular now agreed that verification procedures are not just permissible but something that it will encourage, and that they will be part of any future regime and will no longer be resisted?
On REDD and deforestation in general, we are all aware of the still huge rate of deforestation. It might not be quite as great as it was in the past few years, but it is still there. Will the Minister indicate when this regime will come in and when deforestation will start to decelerate in a very major way, given that these forests will not be replaced? Once they are gone, they are gone.
Lastly, I always understood that these UN agreements had to be unanimous for them to work. Will the Minister explain why Bolivia stood against this agreement, and how that leads the agreement? The great lesson to me is to keep one’s expectations low and then maybe enlightenment will come somehow and things will be delivered. Whether this will happen for Durban next year is, of course, the next question, but I add my congratulations to the ministerial team and to the Mexican Government on the excellent outcome.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I have always kept my expectations low throughout my life; it is a very good starting point for anything. Look where I am now—noble Lords might ask where.
My noble friend quite rightly asked three very valuable questions. I will, if I may, deal with forestry and deforestation first. The agreement was to map out the extent of forestry at the moment so that we had a baseline from which to start discussions in Durban and the period running up to it. It set a formula and a place to start from.
Secondly, even though I was not there, I understand that Bolivia did not agree to the target because its commitments and targets are much more aggressive. I understand that it is looking for no more than a 1 degree-Celsius increase in emissions, and I think it felt that it had a more aggressive timetable.
Thirdly, the verification system is a commitment from all 193 countries that subscribed to verification—so China is included in this—to set a framework and a platform over the four-year period and be transparent about the standards that they are setting in their own countries. The plan is to be able to verify every four years.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, will the Minister accept congratulations on the Government’s input into this conference and on the way in which both the previous Government and this Government have refused to be discouraged by the outcome at Copenhagen? I think that that was admirable.
On verification, does the Minister not agree that if there is to be a legally binding agreement, which is, I think, the objective of many, it will be sustainable only if there is a proper international verification process? Will he say whether the European Union could take a lead in the months ahead in shaping up the sort of international verification process that will be necessary if business and the electorates are to have any confidence in this?
Secondly, will the Minister comment on the fact that the UN now seems to have broken out of the tyranny of consensus that enabled a very small number of spoilers very nearly to wreck the proceedings at Copenhagen, and that that lesson needs to be learnt and carried forward so that in future we do not allow a very small number of countries with possibly quite different interests to block the interests of the large majority?
Lord Marland
A legally binding agreement is very difficult to achieve, as we have seen from Copenhagen and Cancun. Do we, in reality, need a legally binding agreement? Are we not better just having an agreement under which we transparently announce the requirements for verification and for reporting, and for all those sorts of issues? If they are transparent, people can see what progress is being made. Of course, we would all like a legally binding agreement, but it is rather a big ask among the 193 countries, with their different laws.
One of the very valuable things about Cancun was how well team Europe did at the table, as opposed to at Copenhagen where it was viewed to have been marginalised. The European team’s endeavour was much greater at Cancun. As I said earlier, our own Secretary of State and officials who now lead team Europe were very much at the forefront of negotiations, and I know that they are determined to press for a tight strategy for these processes to come to fruition rather than just for general talking.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, I join my noble friend in his satisfaction with an outcome that binds no country to anything at all. In that event, however, does he not agree that the position of the United Kingdom, which, alone in the world, has bound itself legally to a massive decarbonisation agreement at huge cost and by a specific date, is utterly incomprehensible, not to say quixotic?
Lord Marland
As I think the noble Baroness said, there are a few cynics in the House, although they might claim to be realists. I believe that the fundamental Conservative principle is that we put the taxpayer first, as the noble Lord so excellently did when I worshipped him as the great reforming Chancellor. However, he also knows that Britain is a great country because it has shown leadership, and this is what we are doing; we are putting Britain at the forefront of this by showing leadership.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the outcome at Cancun, but I particularly welcome the Government’s approach to engaging properly with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government in advance of, and during, the summit. That is the right way for the Government of the United Kingdom to handle these matters. However, I have two questions for the Minister. First, given the way in which the major developed countries of the world have withdrawn from the commitments made at Gleneagles—another summit, on global poverty—how will it be possible to ensure that those who need to make a contribution to the global fund will carry through that commitment and ensure that those resources are available?
Secondly, will the Government of the United Kingdom ensure that their international development funding and policies work coherently with the approach that was agreed last week and the way in which that will be implemented following Durban next year?
Lord Marland
I, too, pay tribute to the input from the National Assemblies for the great work that they have done in getting to this point and in helping with these negotiations.
On the green fund, it is clear that countries must honour their commitments. It is fundamental that, in the build-up to establishing this fund, feet are held to the fire as to the exact contribution that countries will make. However, 193 out of 194 countries signing up to something and the transparent way in which it will be done will be a very good starting point.
Our own Government have committed £1.5 billion as fast-track funding between 2010 and 2012. Our ongoing commitment is part of a £2.9 billion commitment over a five-year period—we will certainly not go back on that commitment—of which £300 million will be allocated to the deforestation issue.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, the Statement acknowledges that levels of emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise, despite all the conferences, meetings and decisions to date. When do the Government realistically expect the rate in the rise of carbon dioxide to begin to decrease?
Lord Marland
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that. Unfortunately, I do not have my charts in front of me, but I would be happy to provide him with some of the analysis to answer that question. I thank the Church of England for the example that it has set through step change in driving the church towards nil carbon emissions in the near future. Again, that is leading by example.
Lord Prescott
I attended the Kyoto conference and those at Cancun and Copenhagen. The atmosphere and organisation was fundamentally different, for which we offer our congratulations to the Mexican Government. However, the Minister may recall that in a debate in this House on climate change I put forward my concerns that the Prime Minister had said that he wanted a legal agreement at Cancun. I did not think that that was possible and announced the five or six principles that I thought were important to finding agreement based on a voluntary agreement and not the legal framework. I must say that the Government have achieved that and, perhaps for the first time in my life, I offer a little congratulation to the Government and the Secretary of State, Mr Huhne, to whom I explained my plan on the aeroplane.
However, I am a little concerned about the Statement when it talks about ambition and cuts of 30 per cent et cetera in carbon. Ambition can be the defeat of the good. I worry about the Durban conference and that we may make the mistake that we made at Copenhagen; namely, that we get far too ambitious in our demands. Therefore, for the South African conference, I fear that 12 months will not be sufficient to deal with all these detailed negotiations that took four years after Kyoto. Will the Minister consider and express within the European Union the view that we are thinking of stopping the clock on the 2012 date set for Kyoto in order that South Africa and Durban does not appear to be a failure as occurred at Copenhagen?
Lord Marland
No one has done more for these conferences than the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. In fact, the Secretary of State has told me of the pleasant fireside chat that he had with the noble Lord in Cancun. I do not think that “fireside” is the right word—perhaps it should be “poolside”. The noble Lord is absolutely right to send a note of caution. He has been at the forefront of negotiations for a long time. He has understood that this has to be slowly, slowly, despite the fact that we want to go quickly. However, I go back to what I said. We must set high standards for ourselves if others are to follow. I do not think that he would disagree with that.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, while acknowledging that getting so many nations to agree—
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on their Statement. As someone who had the honour of representing the Government at the first earth summit in Rio in 1992, I well recollect how difficult these conferences can be. Now that the momentum lost at Copenhagen has to some extent been resumed as a result of the efforts which my noble friend has described, will he tell us a little more about what our Government, together with our partners in the European Union, intend to do between now and the Durban conference in order to maintain that momentum?
Lord Marland
Again, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howard who was instrumental in persuading the Americans to come on board in Rio in 1992 and has great experience of these matters. As he rightly knows—he would have learnt this at Rio—and as we have heard since, it is our determination, working with the EU, to show real leadership in this and to press hard to turn what is a loose but generally agreeable statement into something practical. We should not set high expectations for ourselves to be ratified in legal language by Durban, but ensure that the transparency issues, which are critical to this agreement, the production and announcement of the transparency and how the targets being set by each country are established, are held up to public attention.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, in view of the critical importance of rain forests in the general effort to achieve the objectives that the Governments have set themselves, will my noble friend say a little more about REDD-plus? Given all these good intentions and a widespread understanding about the importance of rain forests, their destruction still continues at a considerable rate. Little effort seems to be made to slow down the production of soya beans, palm oil and cattle ranching. When will we get effective, tangible action on the ground?
Lord Marland
It is absolutely fundamental that the Brazilians and the Congo Government associated themselves with this agreement. Those two countries have a massive forest issue. It is not possible for me to give fixed dates, but, for once, we have an agreement that something will be done. We are going to establish a map to show where the forests lie, which we hope will form the boundaries for no-go areas for deforestation.
Lord Soley
My Lords, although this is a moment on which we can congratulate the Government and the other Governments concerned with this, I would—
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we have plenty of time. I suggest that we hear the noble Lord, Lord Soley, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Lord Soley
I am very grateful. I rarely insist, but I was right this time. Although it is right that we congratulate Governments at this time, it is important to remember why we are more optimistic now about our ability to deal with this problem than we were 10 or 20 years ago. It is because not just Governments, but industries, public and private organisations, as well as individuals, are now much more seized of the seriousness of this. All are playing a major part in trying to drive down emissions. We should encourage that and perhaps give more credit to those industries, organisations and individuals who are making a big effort now in a way that was not happening before.
Lord Marland
I totally agree with the noble Lord. The encouraging thing about Cancun is that it reverses the trend and brings real momentum back into the process and the understanding that we have to reduce our emissions as a result of climate change.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I should like to raise two matters. First, there are varying estimates as to the number of people who attended the conference. As far as I can see, there were between 10,000 and 25,000. It would be useful if the Minister could give us the number. Secondly, I thought I heard him say that the cost of the operation of helping underdeveloped countries would be $100 billion. If that is correct, what proportion of that figure will be met by the United Kingdom?
Lord Marland
I cannot respond to the question of how many people were in Cancun. I am afraid that I am not the arbiter. All I can tell the noble Lord is that in order to reflect the current economic circumstances, our department sent 70 people to Copenhagen and 46 to Cancun. The noble Lord is right about the $100 billion fund. That ambitious target has been set for the green climate fund. As yet the apportionment of that, or the contributions to it, has not been ratified. As I said earlier, the Advisory Group on Finance has met and has developed a pathway of where that figure can be resolved.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
(c) persons who have attained the age of 16 on the date of the referendum”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this amendment would allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the referendum due to take place in 2011. Only a minority of 18 year-olds voted in 2010 and it must be a major aim of us all to increase their turnout so that they have a real input into decisions that will affect the whole of their lives. Indeed, although he is not in his place, I was just talking to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, who mentioned that, during the referendum held in 1975 to ask whether we should stay in Europe, his wife had asked their 11 year-old son how she should vote on the ground that it was his future that she was voting on rather than her own. As it happens, she is still very much with us, but she took her son’s guidance, since it was about his future. That, I think, was a wise move.
For the Labour Party, I fear that our manifesto promised only to put the issue of voting at 16 to a free vote rather than giving it the full commitment that I think it deserves. However, Liberal Democrat manifestos not just this year but also in 2001 and 2005 have been clearly in favour of giving 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote, so I look forward to support from those Benches today. The Electoral Reform Society has long argued for this—the society is, needless to say, following the Bill’s progress with interest. Perhaps less surprisingly, the UK Youth Parliament also supports the Votes at 16 campaign, as does the 2006 Joseph Rowntree Power inquiry, which recommended that not only the age of voting but the age for candidacy should be brought down to 16. They cannot all be wrong. Our citizens can leave school, get married, join the Armed Forces and, indeed, have the great luxury of paying tax at the age of 16, so they do indeed have taxation without representation.
Because of the coalition’s decision to go the full five years before the next election, there will be many more new voters at that general election than when elections are held closer together. The question of the system to be used will therefore play a key part in the preparation for the 2015 general election. It will be the first general election for thousands of our fellow citizens—those young people born between 1992 and 1997. This is a generation of vastly different expectations and experience, with different hopes and aspirations from our own. Indeed, I am three and a half times the age of an 18 year-old and as far away from a 16 year-old as the period from the start of the 20th century to the end of Second World War hostilities. It is no good looking back to our own, long-distant youth to think what might have motivated us to vote in the first election after we had turned 18, although probably for most Members of this House the age was 21. For me, it was somewhere between the two. Alas, I missed out on getting the key of the door, or the first ballot paper, when I turned 18 because at that point the voting age was 21; by the time I had turned 21, the voting age had dropped to 18, so the great day had passed me by. Nevertheless, I remember clearly the significance of my first vote. I was 20 years and three months when I got the right to vote and twenty and a half when I cast that first vote, so I did not wait too long.
For today’s young generation there has been a growth of interest in public policy, if not, I fear, in party activity. Young people were fully involved in the Make Poverty History campaign. They have taken up the green agenda faster than many of us. Last week, school students told us to preserve their sports facilities and classes. Today, they are telling us to continue with the education maintenance allowance. This week, we also see youngsters thinking of the following generations of students by involving themselves in the tuition fee debate. We have a choice over such activity and interest. We can encourage young people to channel their concern about public policy into voting and democratic behaviour or we can leave them frustrated on the streets. My choice is to involve them. Building on their current interest could be a turning point in their future role in the big society, of which elections are an important part.
The great opportunity of the referendum is that it is not about the usual issues on which young people’s parents vote. It is not for the existing MP or for a change of MP. It is not for one of the traditional parties, which may not resonate much with them. It is a new question for a new generation and very possibly the beginning of a new politics. The referendum will decide how those who are aged 18 in 2015 will cast their vote, so why not let them, as 16 and 17 year-olds in 2011, cast their vote in the referendum on how the vote for the general election will be conducted in 2015? I beg to move.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend Lady Hayter. Let me begin by perhaps anticipating the Minister’s response. Despite his commitment to his party as part of the coalition, he will say that it is not possible to do this in the Bill, that the Electoral Commission would not approve and that these young people would not be able to vote in the referendum anyway because the Bill will not allow time for that. He said much the same about the right to vote for prisoners. My reason for rising to speak is to say that this argument is based on a fallacy and that this Bill ought to be something much wider. It ought to be about constituency and voting reform generally, but it is not. It was put together in order to preserve the coalition. That is what it is about. It is concerned with enhancing the coalition’s chances of staying in government for a bit longer. I have to say that that is not good enough.
If the Minister thinks that I am the only person who is saying that the coalition Government are not allowing time for the Bill—they ought to allow time, so that we could consider the wider issue of votes at 16, which is his party’s policy, or indeed votes for prisoners, which is also his party’s policy—let me quote from a letter sent to me and to others by one of his honourable friends in the House of Commons, Andrew Turner, the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight. He says the following in relation to a different part of the Bill:
“Debate in the Commons was so curtailed that I was unable to speak on this subject during Committee Stage and only for five minutes during Report Stage”.
In a sense, that sums up the problem. There is a case for votes at 16, although I will touch on that only briefly, since my noble friend summed up my position in her remarks, just as there is a case for votes for prisoners following the European Court of Human Rights ruling. However, there is no room in this Bill for doing things easily unless—this is the point—the Government accept that the legislation ought to be about reform and not just about preserving the coalition’s position.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with why votes at the age of 16 are important. For many years I have felt that, if you can serve in the Armed Forces, you ought to be able to vote. Also, as my noble friend pointed out, if you pay taxes, you ought to be able to vote. However, the important point concerns the Armed Forces. Secondly, it should be understood that many young people start to get interested in politics at this age. However, if they are not allowed to express that interest, if anything they are put off later. It is no accident that in this Chamber either last Friday or in a previous Youth Parliament, I cannot remember which, the young people voted in favour of votes at 16. I might add something that will encourage Members on both sides: they also voted by a majority of between 60 and 64 for a largely appointed House as opposed to an elected House. There are all those wise young people out there, wanting to vote and to keep an appointed House because they recognise some of the strengths of that. The arguments in favour were interesting because the young people were wise enough to support the concept of, at least, a largely appointed House.
I suppose that we all think of our own backgrounds. My noble friend was remembering where she was for her first election, albeit with some uncertainty. I remember mine clearly. It was in 1955. When I had campaigned in the previous election, I was belted round the ear by someone with a rolled-up poster who told me that I was too young to be thinking about such things. All that did was to reinforce my view that I ought to think about it a bit harder, if only to deal with people who belted you round the ear with a rolled-up poster. There is a genuine interest. Certainly, I was very interested in what was happening internationally. We had come out of the Second World War, which had influenced me very much, as it had so many of us who were born, as I was, just before it. If you grow up under the shadow of dictatorship, you know the importance of democracy. That argument was profoundly important to me. It always has been and still is.
I should not need to exercise these arguments with the Minister, because his party supports this policy and I believe that I am right in saying that he does. The only thing standing in the way is this attempt to get through a Bill that is about the survival of the coalition, not the reform of the parliamentary system. The Government really need to do better on this. It is just not good enough to duck this issue in the way that he ducked the issue of votes for prisoners.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lady Hayter. I came to this issue rather sceptically but changed my mind when I was chairing the Power inquiry, as we took evidence from around the country and heard from young people and their teachers. One thing that this House should have in mind is the alarming way in which we in this country are losing the habit of voting. What we are finding is that young people, if they do not establish a habit of voting, do not turn to it. People would say to us, “Well, they soon start voting once they start having children of their own or a mortgage, or when they start paying tax”—often, they were Members of Parliament. Yet the reality is that, if the habit is not established before, very often people do not end up voting at all.
Teachers were telling us that already, in schools, there is talk before age 16 about why the vote is so important and about the history of the vote. Then there is a gap, where a substantial number of our young are still not staying on at school to 18, so when they leave school there is a period of non-participation in the public arena. They do not vote, so they never establish the habit of voting. We should move from knowing about voting at school—understanding its history and its importance in our firmament and why it is at the heart of our democracy that people should vote—to harnessing that while people are still young and interested. That is vital.
Hearing from young people who were clearly interested in how their country worked and in the issues of the day, yet then hearing from teachers about the terrible loss of interest between the ages of 16 and 18—sometimes, it is as long as four years before these young people get the chance to vote—was a lesson that convinced me that people lose the habit of voting. We should take this opportunity to reform the system as soon as we can. I know that many people, certainly among the Liberal Democrats, share this view. We should be harnessing that interest in politics before it is lost. Now is a good time to do it, when we are in the process of engaging in some reform of our electoral system.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kennedy referred to instilling the habit of voting. My fear is that the subject of this referendum will instil the habit of not voting. I certainly do not detect any overwhelming interest from the younger generation in the alternative vote or in any other technical form of voting in this country. If they do not vote on the first occasion when they are given the opportunity to do so, the danger is that they will form a habit of not voting. That is the real problem.
The genesis of this whole thing is the Faustian pact between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Liberals have this magnificent obsession with structures. It is not an obsession that a great number of people in this country share but they consider it the unfinished business of Lloyd George. They were prepared to do anything to change the voting system, while allowing the Conservative Party to have free rein in all its attacks on our welfare system.
I cannot imagine young people for a moment being interested in going to this vote. From over 30 years as a Member of Parliament in the other place, trying desperately to get people to vote in difficult parts of the constituency—we sometimes had, alas, a very sad turnout—I cannot imagine even a tiny proportion of those individuals bothering to vote and, if they do not, I certainly see no serious interest or enthusiasm among younger people. That is my starting point.
However, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayter. She led me along a silken path with her felicitous words until I was almost persuaded; alas, not quite. I have form in this, because many years ago I promoted a Private Member’s Bill in the other place to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18. I was before my time, as it were, because it was before that view became a consensus. Sadly, the Bill was talked out, but there was a very logical case to move from 21 to 18 at that point because, about then, the legal age of majority had been changed—I believe that it was by a royal commission—and it was wholly consistent with that that the voting age should also be reduced from 21 to 18.
Lord Rooker
I should like to bring my noble friend Lord Anderson around to supporting my noble friend Lady Hayter because, while I am sceptical as well, this is not about votes at 16. It is about allowing the people who will be 18 at the end of a fixed-term Parliament to vote for the voting system that will be used then. If it were not for the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which gives this some intellectual credence—and it is the same gang bringing in that Bill—we would not be asking the people who we know will be 18 at the end of this Parliament to choose the voting system. This is not about votes at 16, so my noble friend can support my other noble friend if this matter is pushed.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
I look on my noble friend’s intervention with considerable respect, as I do all the matters that he raises. Clearly, he raises an important point. The essence of what I was saying is that, whereas from 21 to 18 there was a logical stopping point, I see no such point in going from 18 to 16. Indeed, I ask rhetorically where it will stop. The real reformers—the people trying desperately to be radical—will ask, “Why stop at 16?”. It may not perhaps go down to babes and sucklings but next they will suggest, incrementally, “Well, having had 16, why not 15 because we want to encourage people to take part in politics?”. They will ask, “After all, this is a newly politicised generation; did we not see schoolchildren on the streets last week?”. Yes, but I am not sure whether those schoolchildren—we are now, I think, meant to call them school students—were or are likely to be worried about alternative votes, or a voting system of STV, or whatever it is.
Lord Soley
Would my noble friend bear in mind that at age 16 you can serve in the Armed Forces and you pay taxes? That is a good dividing line.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
That is one factor. One could say, for example, why not 17? That is the age at which one can be on the front line in our armed services. One can make a plausible, or semi-plausible, case for reducing the age from 18 to 17, then to 16, but although there are pointers at each little watering place and stopping point along the way, in my judgment there is no sufficient reason to say that one should stop at 16.
I have heard the argument in favour. Of course there are some points to be made for it, but in my judgment it would be wrong in general and, in response to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, certainly wrong to have the change on a matter that is, frankly, of little or no interest to the younger generation—the nature of the voting system. It would be a bad precedent and, if it is to be justified at all, a bad starting point for the younger generation.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I support the amendment. I want to say two things. The thrust of my main argument is that, without doubt, 16 year-olds have a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the world to have a valid opinion on this referendum and to be able to make a valid decision about it. Moreover, a 16 year-old today has a level of sophistication significantly greater than 18 year-olds of even 20, but certainly 30, years ago. You have only to see the parliamentary youth debates on TV to witness a standard of debate unthinkable in teenagers of a previous era. If 16 year-old students and younger can demonstrate on the streets and know what they are demonstrating about, which they do, then they are certainly able to participate in this referendum.
My second point concerns public indifference to politics, and specifically to Parliament. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. While the voting age remains at 18, it is all too easy for schools to slide out of providing education about Parliament. However, if 16 year-olds were able to vote in this referendum then not only would the teachers become enthusiastic about a reality that took place while their pupils were still at school, but the students themselves would feel they had a real stake in their Parliament and would demand the education on voting systems and on Parliament to go with it.
The referendum is a highly appropriate moment to test out voting at 16. It is a specific issue, though one of paramount importance, and, crucially, it is about Parliament. The voting age was correctly lowered in 1969 from 21 to 18. Now it is time to put our trust in 16 and 17 year-olds as well.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, in contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, I have found that young people are very interested in the way in which we elect our Members of Parliament and feel as cheated as many other members of the electorate about the way that the system works. I was with 120 sixth-formers on behalf of the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme on Friday, and I assure the noble Lord that they are extremely interested in this issue and indeed many others. I agree with the noble Earl that many of them would like to express an opinion.
The issue today is the one addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws: what is the appropriate time to make this change? How can we do it? How soon can we do it? Can we do it before May? There are two major problems about the otherwise very persuasive case that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has put before us. The first, I am afraid, involves the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He is my good friend in these matters; he so often provides me with ammunition. Those who might be voting in a referendum on 5 May 2011 will not just be the 16 and 17 year-olds who will become 18 before 2015—they will also include the 14 and 15 year-olds. The logic of the case that is being put from the other side is that if we are trying to identify those who will have a vote by 2015, we have to include those who are 14 and 15. That is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made just a few minutes ago.
Lord Grocott
I must caution the noble Lord, if that does not sound too presumptuous, against assuming that the Bill, which has not even arrived here, to extend the parliamentary period to five years—I think that that would be about one and a quarter years longer than the average Parliament since the war, in an attempt to increase substantially the length of this coalition—is as good as an Act of Parliament. We simply cannot have this debate on the total assumption that a Bill that has not yet arrived has become law.
Lord Tyler
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to change the whole basis on which others on his side of the House have been arguing. The case was made a few minutes ago that those who are going to vote in May 2015 will be 15 or 16 next year. They could also be 14. That is the simple point that I am making—no more than that.
There is another practical problem. It is almost inevitable, I believe, that the referendum will take place on the same day as some other elections—others may take a different view on which other elections. It would be ridiculous to have a completely different electorate for two different purposes, with the referendum in one ballot box—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
What an opportunity I have been given. Is the noble Lord not aware that there are already two completely different franchises for this election, as some people on this side have been arguing? How hard is he going to struggle to find ways of explaining why he is not prepared to stand up for something that he spoke about from this side of the House again and again? Is that duplicity?
Lord Tyler
No, it is not. That is an absurd point. I am simply talking about putting in place a major change in the electorate, changing the whole qualification for voting in parliamentary elections between now and 5 May. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that that is a reform that I supported and that I hope that the Government will get around to. Incidentally, her own Government, I am sad to say, did nothing to move in this direction. I hope that our Government will make progress on it before the general election in 2015 but it would be totally irrational to attempt to do it before 5 May, and that is my last word on the subject.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Before the noble Lord sits down, the deftness of his footwork in response to my noble friend was good enough to ensure that those who are putting together the next “Strictly Come Dancing” competition should approach him. Not only did he change horses between the point that he was making, the intervention and his response to it, he moved to a different racecourse altogether. The point that he was making, as I am sure that the record of this debate will show, was that it is entirely inconsistent and confusing to have two separate electorates approaching the same polling station for both a referendum and the contemporary election. That is exactly what he was defending, time and again, from those Benches, if not from that exact spot, as we were making that very point to him.
The amendment does not propose to fundamentally change the electorate for future elections. It proposes to change the electorate for the referendum. That is exactly what the noble Lord has been supporting up until now in relation to Peers, with a distinction between those who can vote, perhaps in local government elections, and those who are citizens of the EU or whatever and cannot vote. We will have an opportunity to address that issue. Will he address why he has now been persuaded by our argument and is now parroting it back to us? What will the consequences of that be for his future voting intentions towards the Bill in Committee?
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I am just making a simple point. I want to change the qualification for voting in parliamentary elections. If it is possible to do that between now and 5 May, and I very much doubt it, there is of course a case for it to be part of the qualification of voting on the referendum that, as is in the Bill, you are already qualified to vote in the parliamentary election. That is my simple point. I was taking up the very proper challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that for those who want to vote in general parliamentary elections we should make this change and reduce the age to 16. I accept that. I do not believe that we can do that in practical terms before 5 May, and I was making a simple point about the confusion that could arise if we were to attempt to do it just for the referendum and not for any other purpose. That is all.
Lord Monson
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made her argument extremely well but are she and her supporters aware that, 50-odd years ago, only two groups of people in the world could vote at the age of 18? The first comprised citizens of the Soviet Union, where you could vote at 18 provided you voted for the Communist Party. The second group consisted of white South Africans, who made up about 20 per cent of the population of that country. In most other parts of the world the voting age was 21 but there were at least four exceptions. These four exceptions were countries that are generally regarded by progressive opinion as highly praiseworthy, with superb welfare states and high standards of literacy, healthcare, education and so on. They were the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, where the minimum voting ages ranged from 23 to 25. That is not a preclusive argument against lowering the voting age but it is certainly something to reflect on.
Baroness Kingsmill
I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter. My reason for this is that 16 year-olds today are a very mature bunch of people. They have been well educated, on the whole, and many of them have studied current affairs to a far greater degree than I did when I was at school. We encourage our 16 year-olds to take responsibility; we wish them to behave well and to pursue active citizenship. I can think of no better way of doing so than exercising the vote responsibly. It is patronising in the extreme to think that 16 year-olds are not interested in how our Government are run. Most 16 year-olds I know are extremely interested in this area, as were most of my children’s friends when they were 16. Some of the frustrations that we see on the streets today may well have arisen from the fact that people have not had the opportunity to be active citizens or to exercise the vote. This is, therefore, a wholly worthy amendment and one that I support.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
In opening the debate on active citizenship from these Benches two weeks ago, I made clear my view that votes at 16 would be timely. I do not resile from that one little bit. I served in the mid-1960s on the Latey committee on the age of majority, which reduced the age of majority for certain civil purposes to 18. A year later I also served on the Speaker’s Conference on electoral law, which recommended that the age of voting should be not 18 but 20. None the less, Parliament rejected that advice and the following year voted for votes at 18. So, I have a track record of involvement in this debate.
However, it appears that what we are talking about in this amendment is not giving people votes at 16 but giving them the right to participate in a one-off referendum. That raises somewhat different issues. It is also clear that, throughout the debate in Committee, there has been lengthy opposition to and debates on amendments, which—if the process goes on in this manner—will have the effect, whether it is desired or not, of postponing the referendum. As many people as possible should take part in the referendum, so that we have a clear indication of what the public view is. Whatever side of the argument we may be on, to have the maximum turnout for the referendum is highly desirable. If we are to achieve that maximum turnout, it makes sense to hold the referendum on a day when people are turning out for other polls. That is why I favour the proposal of the coalition Government to hold the referendum on the day of the Scottish election and the local elections, when roughly 85 per cent of the electorate will at least be able to turn out. That seems a very strong argument for not holding up this process. Consequently, we should view somewhat askance an amendment that could result in denying people that opportunity, or at least the likelihood of there being a substantial turnout.
The second issue that causes me to hesitate about having 16 year-olds voting in the late spring—as is implicit in the Government’s attitude—is that it seems improbable that many of them would be on the register in time for that. Even if the decision were taken by this House to change the provisions and allow them to vote, it would have to go back for approval to another place. Consequently, we could expect substantial delays. Practically, their being on the register—which they would need to be if their votes were to be validated—is very improbable.
Lord Rooker
There is an easy solution to that. I think it is the case—I do not have children but I was at the DSS—that when you are 16 you are issued with your national insurance number. You are known about on the system. It would be easy for the DWP to know where all 16 year-olds are because it would be about to issue their national insurance numbers. That argument, with respect, is not a valid one.
Could the noble Lord also address the London issue? He skated over that when talking about the second election. The greatest density of voters in this country is in the 100-odd constituencies in London—the capital of the country, where there is no other election next May. The damage to possible turnout because there is not another election could be catastrophic. The 15 per cent who will not be voting are not evenly spread over the country. Has the noble Lord thought about that?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I take the noble Member’s point. However, the concentration of the media—the London-centred media—makes it highly likely that London is the least likely part of the country to be unaware of what is happening, or not to have been stimulated by the press, including television and radio, into recognising the importance of the issue. I envisage that being the proper possibility in other parts of the country, where other elections are happening. It is conceivable in Scotland, for example, that the voting system for Westminster will not be regarded as the first priority; rather, the structure of the Scottish Parliament and which Government will take their place in Scotland will. So, I do not altogether go along with the noble Lord.
The suggestion that national insurance numbers could be used would be unlikely to lead to an outcome that carried much conviction.
Lord Rooker
Forgive me but that was not my point. The noble Lord was saying that we could not get 16 year-olds on to the register in time. The fact is that they are on a register now. It would be very easy to transfer them to the electoral register. It is known in government, electronically, where they are because they are about to be issued with an NI number. I am not suggesting that the NI number is used for voting but it would be very easy to put them on to the electoral register.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I would be interested to hear the views of the Electoral Commission on that. I do not regard myself as an expert on these matters but I doubt it is quite as easy as that, given that the timing for the Bill becoming law is decreasingly clear.
My final point may not carry so much weight but I believe that our 16 year-olds are increasingly very interested in politics, which is why I want to see a change in the voting age. However, I do not believe that in a few months’ time they are likely to be able to discriminate between different electoral systems when they have not been thinking about voting. It is highly improbable that even their teachers would be in a position to give them guidance on the virtues and merits of different electoral systems. We have heard arguments being put forward on the Benches opposite and conflicts between the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others about the merits of the supplementary vote as opposed to the alternative vote, or various kinds of alternative vote. Without prior discussion or only the most minimal educational input on this issue, it is extremely improbable that 16 year-olds would add greatly to the authority of the decision to be taken next May, if that is the date decided upon. Therefore, for the three reasons that I have given, I would prefer to see the system of voting change and for subsequent referenda to follow the electoral register.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I would like to ask the noble Lord a very simple question. Can he tell your Lordships’ House which members of the public he thinks have been thinking about these issues with the necessary intensity to make the decision he has just proposed needs to be made?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
A large number of people who have voted in previous elections feel that their vote did not count and that the relevant constituency remained dominated, come hell or high water, by the party which had been there for over a generation. I am bound to say that those people are likely to look at alternatives with a passion and concern not shared by a new voter, who may simply be mystified by what could appear to be a very academic debate. Consequently, I do not think that the noble Lord’s intervention has much substance.
Lord Desai
My Lords, it never fails to surprise me that when people want to resist an advance in the franchise all the same objections are made. They say, “These people do not know how to vote. They are not interested in politics; they are just not good enough”. That happened in 1832 and it has been happening steadily ever since, every time a reform is suggested, especially when people believe sincerely in the reform but do not want to implement it, as is the case with noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They say, “Ah, but there are administrative difficulties. We are entirely for it in principle, but it is so difficult to transfer a number from one computer to another that we cannot do this”. It is almost a universal law that every time any advance in the franchise is proposed, the establishment is against it on the ground that people who are about to get the franchise are too ignorant and too stupid to deserve it.
In proposing this amendment, my noble friend has done a very nice thing. Given that we are talking about a referendum, we are not so worried about which constituency people are registered to on the electoral register. The constituency does not matter; this is a nationwide election. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said in his imaginative intervention, once you have your national insurance number, people know that you are 16 and then you are eligible to vote. One could even experiment with e-voting given that we are not electing Members to represent constituencies but asking the nation a question: “Are you for AV, or not?”. We should not be so conceited as to presume that students, or their teachers, do not understand the issues surrounding AV. They can all read and write and people have been reading about this stuff for ages.
I remember that in the 1960s the only party which publicly supported voting at 18 was the Monster Raving Loony Party, and it was far ahead of the electorate in that respect. These really radical reforms always come from the outside, as it were. For some strange reason the Government want to hold the referendum on 5 May 2011; perhaps it should be held in 2012, but they want it on 5 May. However, they should not let that one little thing be an obstacle to achieving a good reform. If we can achieve this reform, it will make a tremendous difference. As regards the point about today’s 14 year-olds being eligible to vote by 2015, that is a great idea. We could easily amend the noble Baroness’s amendment to say that anybody who is likely to be 18 by 2015 should be eligible to vote in the referendum.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, this amendment concerns the age at which one should be eligible to vote in the referendum. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, convincingly to separate out the arguments for allowing people to vote at 16 on the referendum and lowering the voting age for other elections. Indeed, in the speech in which she so ably moved this amendment, my noble friend Lady Hayter engaged with those wider considerations, as did my noble friends Lord Soley and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
My observation of young people’s views on what the voting age should be is a little at odds with the experience of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Like many Members of Parliament, I used regularly to have meetings with sixth formers in my two former constituencies. They were very different constituencies situated in different parts of the country with very different socioeconomic make-ups. I expected my youthful constituents to be enthusiastic about lowering the voting age but I found that that was not commonly the case. I used to go to their schools to talk to them about the role of a Member of Parliament, the way Parliament works and broader constitutional issues, and very often the question of whether the voting age should be lowered came up. While my young constituents were well informed, sophisticated in their interest and in no sense apathetic about politics, Parliament and their future role as citizens, I was struck that commonly they did not think it was appropriate to lower the voting age. Many points of view and a range of arguments were put forward, but commonly they felt that it was not right to lower the voting age and that they were not ready for that. You can take a horse to water but you cannot necessarily make it drink.
We have noted at a series of elections that the lowest turnouts are among those entitled to vote for the first time, which worries us all. That should not necessarily be interpreted as disaffection from politics, but it is a matter of concern that those in the youngest age group eligible to vote are not conspicuously prone to exercise that right. If we lowered the voting age, I worry that that trend might intensify and become extended. Therefore, there is a case for caution. I would be interested to know whether my noble friend Lady Hayter thinks that my observation is correct and that there is not a great demand among young people for the right to vote at a younger age than 18, whether on a referendum or in other elections.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, since there has so far been silence from these Benches, I want to offer my noble friend on the Front Bench a modest bit of encouragement before he replies. I might frighten him by saying that I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in that I did not get my first vote until I was 22. I am not going to tell noble Lords how I cast it, except to say that it was consistent with my being a supporter of the coalition. I am more or less agnostic on whether the voting age should be reduced further, although I am bound to say that the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Howarth, have made some powerful points on the sceptical side.
The key point I want to make to my noble friend is that, whatever my view might turn out to be were we to have a properly considered and consulted-on proposal brought before us, I do not think that an amendment in your Lordships’ House to this Bill at this time would be an appropriate way to bring about a reduction in the voting age. So if my noble friend wishes to resist the amendment, whether in the terms forecast by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, or in any other, he will have my support.
Baroness McDonagh
I see the issue in a rather different way. It is part and parcel of our long march to democracy. I take as a starting point the situation 537 years ago, with the enfranchisement of some men on a property basis. We talk of the Great Reform Act 1832, where we enfranchised only some 14 per cent of men. The great reforming Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, represented a rotten borough that was bought for him on his birthday at the age of 21. It was only in 1918 that we allowed all men over 21 to vote, due to our embarrassment from the First World War, when people fought and died but were not allowed to vote.
The first voices on the enfranchisement of women were heard in the mid-1800s. Disraeli wrote the novel Sybil and began to talk about votes for women. It was not until 1885 that the women’s suffragette movement started. However, it was not until 1928 that all women were able to vote on the same basis as men. I suppose that my sisters in this House have to think ourselves lucky that we were not French, because it was not until 1945 that women in France could vote.
We set ourselves up as a paragon of democracy that the rest of the world can look to. When we look back, we have actually taken quite a long time to come here. It was only in the last century that we started to look at age. It was only some 40 years ago, in 1969, that all 18 year-olds were allowed to vote. I look around the Chamber and I do not wish to be disparaging to anyone, but that happened probably within all our lifetimes.
Various noble Lords have talked about why 16 year- olds should be brought into the franchise because they can, for example, leave school, work full-time, pay tax, serve in the Armed Forces, and so on. However, we are at a unique point in our history dealing with serious issues that affect only this age group, including, for example, tuition fees. This issue is a huge departure and is not about a contribution to student fees, which were brought in by the previous Labour Government, but is about a Government who are wholly standing back from contributing to teaching in universities. We are in a wholly different situation which relates to an issue that will be faced uniquely by this age group. That has never happened before.
Look at today’s announcement on the education maintenance allowance. We hear a lot from the Government about how everything they do is progressive. Even though outside bodies always fail to agree, the Government say they want to be fair and to help those who find it hardest. Getting rid of the education maintenance allowance will hit the poorest members of our society. Issues such as these are unique to that age group. We have a choice as to whether we bring people into democracy and let them have a say about the big issues of the day.
The Electoral Commission has carried out much research in this area. It shows how 15 to 17 year-olds are much more interested and likely to vote than their older contemporaries. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said he was 22 before he voted. If the voting age remains at 18, someone’s first vote is likely to be cast when they are between the ages of 18 and 24, rather than near their 18th birthday, depending on when there is an election. It looks like members of that age group are more likely to vote. I personally feel—and research bears this out—that if you vote in your first election when you are young, you gain a habit of voting and vote throughout your life. I think that the whole House would want to join me in agreeing with that.
Another social impact is that when young people are 18, they are now much more likely to move away from home to university than they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago. They are not given the same parental guidance that perhaps we were at that age when we were taken to the polling station to vote. Something struck me for the first time on polling day in the 1997 general election—and I have been active in politics since 1978. It came home to me that that was the first election, after the previous four general elections, when more than 50 per cent of first-time voters voted. I was very pleased to be out of Millbank Tower for the first day in many months. When I was knocking on doors and talking to young voters in the streets, I discovered that it was not older people who needed help getting to polling stations, but first-time voters, who asked, “Where do I go? How do I vote?”. I was struck by the number of people who were not sure of the practicalities, whether they had to pass a test, or whether they should vote electronically. A younger person will be given more parental guidance and be told that voting is a right of passage as they grow older.
For those reasons, allowing 16 to 18 year-olds to vote for the first time in this referendum will be a positive good.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I have been persuaded to make only two brief points, encouraged by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I am always slightly nervous about suggesting that I am an agnostic on a subject, but as he has given me courage, I shall begin by saying that my instinct on this is one of agnosticism. I am not sure whether I have been helped or hindered by listening to the debate and hearing what I thought were two weak arguments—one on each side of the debate.
For those who favour votes at 16, I found the argument that there was an intense interest in different forms of electoral systems among 16 and 17 year-olds very unconvincing. I acknowledge that there is tremendous interest in issues such as those to which my noble friend referred—student fees and the like, and, over the years, in bigger issues such as war and peace—but, please, not in different electoral systems. If such interest exists, it is in a parallel universe to the one that I have inhabited. I have found hardly any adults who are interested in different electoral systems, let alone people aged 16 and 17. I used to think that I understood electoral systems but, having listened to nearly all of the debates so far in the Committee stage of the Bill, I have become more confused as the debates have gone on. I did not realise that there were three types of alternative vote systems and I certainly could not answer in two sentences how the d’Hondt system operates. I find it an unconvincing argument that there is a clamour for votes at 16 and 17 on electoral systems.
However, I find it equally unconvincing to challenge the right of people to vote at 16 and 17 on the basis that they are not yet well enough informed. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Desai that it is a dangerous path to tread to say that there should be a test of someone’s knowledge, ability and awareness before giving them the right to vote; it should be a universal right. We all acknowledge that there has to be a dividing line somewhere on the grounds of age—at least I assume we all acknowledge that—but excluding someone simply on the ground that they do not understand the issues is a weak argument. I have been frank with the House and explained that I do not fully understand the d’Hondt system and yet I shall be voting with enthusiasm when the referendum takes place. So, faced with two weak arguments, one on each side of the debate, what does an agnostic do?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, the effect of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter would be that the voting age for the referendum would be lowered to 16. Two bases are put forward to support the amendment: first, that those who vote at between 16 and 18 in the referendum will be voting on the voting system that they will be using in a general election and therefore they should be allowed to contribute to choosing it; and, secondly and separately, that 16 is the right age for people to be able to vote in a general election and therefore they should be able to vote in the referendum. I do not regard the first basis as a strong argument. If we as a nation conclude that 18 is the right age to vote in a general election, 18 is also the right age to participate in the referendum.
In those circumstances, two issues are raised by the amendment: first, should the voting age be 18, which should be addressed as a matter of principle; and, secondly, if the House were to conclude that 18 is the right voting age, are there practical reasons why people should not be entitled to vote in the referendum because, for example, it is too late, too complicated or too confusing?
Let me address those two critical issues. First, should the voting age be 18 or 16? The Labour Party position is that there should be a free vote in relation to this. In my view—this is a personal view; I am not expressing the view of the Labour Party—the voting age should be 16 for the following four reasons. First, we allow people of 16 to do things that are only consistent with being an adult—joining the Army, marriage, paying taxes. In those circumstances it is quite difficult to see a basis on which not to allow them to vote. A possible basis could be that we think 16 year-olds are not mature enough to vote whereas 18 year-olds are. However, I do not think there is much evidence in relation to that. Secondly, as a matter of history, we have always taken a time to recognise that younger people than previously are capable of doing things. My noble friend Lady McDonagh made the point that in 1918, when we allowed women the vote for the first time, we said that they had to be 30 before they could vote. That was not a view about how mature or otherwise women were; it was society’s attitude to people. I suggest that the position now—just as it was in 1969, when Parliament rejected the view of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, who is no longer in his place, that the age should be 20—is that society is much more trusting of people than it was before.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, as ever it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, not least because his speeches never fail to give the feel of how he tries to persuade the House. To give an example, he said in his summing up that 200 Members of Parliament voted in favour of votes at 16. That is an impressive statistic, but actually 196 voted in favour, on 18 October, while 346 voted against. Occasionally, in his wonderful summings up, the noble and learned Lord leaves out the odd fact that the House might like to have and I think that knowing that 346 Members voted against might help this side of the House.
I do not object to the debate, as I found it absolutely fascinating. The span of it, on the Benches opposite, illustrated why the amendment should not be pressed. The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Howarth, were against, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Soley, were for, while the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was agnostic. That is the kind of spread and I can see why the Labour Party wants a free vote. It is a very interesting issue to debate.
Lord McNally
These shafts of wit will throw me one of these days. In the mean time, I address the problem with this proposal. I am surrounded by parliamentarians of great expertise, who know that there are two kinds of Bill. There are the Christmas trees, which people hang things on—I have hung many a thing on a Christmas tree Bill and had great pleasure doing so—but then there are the clear, simple Bills, whose beauty and simplicity are their major strengths. As has been said on this side of the House since this debate began—it seems like years ago, but apparently it was only four parliamentary days ago, as we gallop into Clause 2—this Bill is about fair votes on fair boundaries. All the other things are interesting and will undoubtedly continue to be debated as this Government carry forward their constitutional reform agenda.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is constantly asking to see the big picture. Tomorrow I am speaking to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Legal and Constitutional Affairs, when I will give the constitutional big picture, or big vision, from this Government. I hope that the noble Lord will come along. In the mean time, what we are trying to do is to keep this Bill clear and simple in its objectives.
Lord Soley
I invite the noble Lord to remember his Christmas tree. There are only two things hanging on it—one is the Liberal Party and the other is the Conservative Party. It would be better if he just admitted it and then we would all know where we were coming from.
Lord McNally
That Christmas tree lifts the spirits and lights these gloomy days.
The amendment seeks to amend Clause 2 to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to participate in the referendum. As I have said before, the amendment is similar in intent to one tabled in the Commons, which was lost by 196 votes to 346. Then as now, the Government’s position on the franchise and in all other aspects relating to how the referendum is run is that we should follow the arrangements for parliamentary elections unless a particular circumstance is presented by the referendum that would require us to adopt a different approach. There is no requirement here to depart from the standard approach to the voting age of 18 that applies in those elections. The Government have no current plans to lower the voting age. I recognise that there are different views on whether the voting age in this country should be lowered to 16, but if we are to have a debate about reducing the voting age it needs to be had in relation to elections more generally. The passage of this Bill is not the right platform on which to discuss that issue.
There is a wider debate to be had about the voting age more generally and we need to consider the arguments for and against. I recommend that, when there is a Bill to bring the voting age down to 16, tonight’s Hansard should be required reading for anybody persuaded in that Bill. My noble friend Lord Newton, to whom I can almost say “Welcome home”, is right—this Bill is not the right forum for that debate. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
If this is not the right Bill, could the Minister deal with the practical issues to which I referred, as that would influence me in relation to whether it was the right Bill? He has not dealt with any of the arguments; he has just said, “Wrong place, close it down”. But it would be of interest to the House to hear the practical objections to putting this measure in.
Lord McNally
On the practical objections, I could almost refer to the opening three or four lines of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, when he summed up my arguments perfectly. We are determined that this Bill will not be a Christmas tree. It is a simple Bill in its objectives of fair votes on fair boundaries. That is what we are aiming to achieve.
One interesting thing was that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised the issue of using the national insurance database to register all 16 year-olds. Almost as an example of how this Government are thinking about the broader issues involved, we are running data-matching pilots next year and we will be looking at how we can use the wider government database to get more people on the register. As the Minister responsible for data protection, I would like to see some of the implications of that. That is why some of these things cannot be rushed.
Baroness McDonagh
I thank the Minister for giving way. I wanted to give one point of information. To date, all voters in the UK are registered from the point when they are 16 years and three months. Would the Minister agree that that is why it is important to retain household registration and not move to individual registration? As I am on my feet, I shall ask a second question. Given that the noble Lord thinks that it is not right for this Bill to reduce the voting age to 16, does he have any intention to bring forward another Bill?
Lord McNally
As Lord Peart used to say, “Not next week”. I am not looking forward as far as that. On the question of the 16 year-olds, according to this amendment we would also need to identify all those who are now 15 but who will be 16 on 5 May. Registration officers have no power to do that and it would be a real practical burden to do it in such a short timescale. I could not quite work out whether the noble Baroness was backing off individual registration. This Government are certainly not doing that.
Lord Soley
The noble Lord misquoted me. I certainly did not say that this was the wrong sort of Bill for the proposal; I said that he would say that the Electoral Commission would have difficulties with it. I would like to know—as, I suspect, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer would like to know—whether that is true or not. Secondly, I said that it would be difficult to deliver this proposal in such a way that the votes could be put into effect. Those were the two things that I said and that was what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was asking about.
Lord McNally
It would be difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, indicated, the implications of the amendment go far beyond normal electoral registration and far beyond what it would be proper to debate in a House of Lords amendment. My noble friend Lord Newton wisely guided me on that. I will keep bobbing up and down as long as other noble Lords do, but I emphasise our determination to keep the Bill simple and clean. I feel a tingle between my shoulder blades and will sit down.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord referred a few minutes ago to data protection issues arising over the transfer of information from departments for the purposes of registration. Is he suggesting that the Department for Work and Pensions has reservations about the transfer? The issue was raised during the passage of the Bill when the matter of electoral registration was discussed. Is there a problem looming with data transfer?
Lord McNally
As I said, the issues are not simple, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who served in that department, knows. We are running pilot projects; there is no great mystery.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank noble Lords, including the noble Earl, for their support for this amendment. As a new Member, I was amused by the description of this as a simple Bill—I am dreading the next ones—and by the idea of a Christmas tree. My noble friend Lord Soley said that there were two things on the Christmas tree. I now picture the Minister as the fairy on top. The image will remain with me.
The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is not in his place, but I think that at one point he suggested that this was an attempt to delay the referendum. It is absolutely not that. I am particularly interested in a high turnout for the referendum and in catching the interest of our young people. The more that they are involved in the arguments, the higher the turnout will be. I have tabled another amendment to set a threshold. I hope that those noble Lords who also want a high turnout will support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, said that he had already voted for two parties. If in the local elections he would like to go for a third, I can suggest one that would be very attractive. He said that this was not the right vehicle. I had not thought about that argument, but my noble friend Lord Soley was right: the Bill is about reform of the parliamentary voting system and there is almost nothing more important than who has the vote in that system. Whether the voting age should be 16 is a key issue, even for those whom I may not have persuaded. I was asked whether there was a demand for this. I cite the Youth Parliament and the research of the Power inquiry, which suggest that there is. I was horrified by my noble friend Lady McDonagh saying that it was 40 years since the voting age was lowered to 18. I would have guessed that it was about 20; that says something about one’s age. It is time to look at this issue again.
Basically, those of us who put our names to the amendment won the argument. There is general support for voting at 16. The objections that were thrown up were practical ones rather than issues of principle. The practical objections could be overcome if there was a desire to do so. As my noble friend Lord Desai said, this is not a constituency-based vote but a national one—although I may challenge that in future. The real issue is that nearly everyone supports the idea of voting at 16. I would hate to embarrass my former friends on this side, the Liberal Democrats, by forcing a vote, because it would be difficult for them to vote against what I know they believe in. Therefore, I will not test the opinion of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Population Growth
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for the United Kingdom of future world population growth.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am pleased to have the chance to raise this important topic. I do so with some trepidation, because it is an issue on which one can be misconstrued, misreported, misquoted and misunderstood. To avoid this, I will begin by saying what the debate is not about. This is not a debate about immigration under another name; it is not a debate about relative population sizes, and whether there are more white people or black people; it is not about the relative sizes of faiths, and whether there are more Christians, Jews or Muslims; it is not about the relative sizes of social classes, and whether there are more rich people or poor people; and finally, it is not about preaching or personal example, because I will put on the record straight away that I have four children. It is about the staggering absolute increase in world and UK population—hour by hour, week by week and year by year—and what this may mean for us, for our children and for our grandchildren. It is the elephant in the room of all our efforts, first, to relieve abject poverty; secondly, to offer people a decent standard of living; thirdly, to provide everybody with a reasonable chance of self-realisation and of fulfilling their talents, dreams and aspirations; and, finally, to avoid a possible final degradation of our world.
What is the size of the problem? The growth in world population peaked at 2.2 per cent in 1962-63. It is now between 1.1 and 1.2 per cent. That may seem a small number, but in absolute terms it meant that in 2009 the world's population increased by 74.6 million. This equates to an increase of 204,000 people per day. In the short hour of this debate, the world population will go up by 8,500. Is this not a declining figure? It is—a bit. Projections suggest that by 2050, the annual increase will have slowed to about 40 million—that is, 4,500 people per hour. I invite noble Lords to consider what even that reduced figure will mean for the need for housing, health, education, employment, resource use and the CO2 footprint. Because of this annual increase—whether it be 74.6 million or 40 million—the world's population will have increased in 2050 from 6.8 billion today to 9.2 billion then. That is a staggering increase of 35 per cent, or 2.4 billion people.
Some may be inclined to dismiss this as somebody else’s problem—other countries, other continents. However, not only would that be short-sighted, as I shall show in a minute, it would also not be true, for we in the United Kingdom also have a microcosm of the world’s population issue. In 1840, the population of the United Kingdom was about 10 million. In 2009, it was 62 million and is increasing by just under 400,000 a year—that is 45 per hour, or 45 during this debate.
Some may say that this is an immigration problem. Again, this would be short-sighted and, again, it would not be completely true. In 2008-09, of the 393,000 increase in the UK’s population, 217,000, or 55 per cent, came from a surplus of births over deaths. Immigration accounted for only 45 per cent, or 176,000. What makes this figure particularly alarming is that the figures for 10 years ago—2001-02—show that the net excess of births over deaths then was only 62,000 compared with 217,000 today, so there is a real non-immigration issue for the UK and its population.
But, people will argue, the real problem is overseas—particularly in Africa—and that is true. Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Sudan all have fast-growing populations. The argument goes: should we be concerned about the growth of population in these overseas countries? Some may say that there is a case for a moral duty—for us to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves—and I personally regard this as a powerful argument.
However, even for those who adopt a more laissez-faire, sauve qui peut approach, there are compelling arguments to be concerned. Impoverished people are desperate people, and desperate people do desperate things—for themselves and for their families. I am a member of the House of Lords EU Sub-Committee F, which is concerned with home affairs. Last year, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Jopling, we looked at the operation of FRONTEX, the European border agency. The evidence that we received about the lengths to which people will go to reach Europe was truly alarming. Time does not permit me to go into detail but one example will suffice. It is clear that boatloads of refugees are prepared, once they reach the territorial waters of a European country, to sink their boat and risk drowning as a means of ensuring that they reach Europe and are not returned to their country of origin. As population rises, so will the number of people trying these desperate remedies.
Finally, there are those who argue that we need more young people to fund the pension provision and lifestyle of a population with a higher proportion of older people—a sort of gigantic Ponzi population scheme. Such people forget about the inexorable implications of compound growth. It has been calculated that such an approach will require the population of the United Kingdom to reach between 125 million and 150 million by the end of the century.
In recent years, there has developed the concept of “carrying capacity”. Carrying capacity, at its most basic, is about survival—how much food and water the population of the world needs to survive. One estimate is that in 1999 humanity’s demand exceeded the planet’s biocapacity to supply by more than 20 per cent. This excess is not immediately disastrous because biocapacity stocks can be run down or liquidated by things such as overfishing and deforestation, and indeed by filling up sinks—over-emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. Further, nation by nation there can also be imbalances with countries exceeding the average carrying capacity, balanced by others which do not. However, for the world as a whole there is no such easy outcome, because we have as yet no possibility of interplanetary trade.
So much for the problems; what would I like the Government to do? First, I should like them to agree that population growth is an issue both abroad and at home, and that the taboo on even discussing this issue needs to be ended. We need, as someone has said, to “detoxify the brand”, for the people of this country are entitled to know about the seriousness of this challenge and its implications for them. Secondly, I should like the Government to disavow the idea that we need population growth to support our society. That way madness lies. Thirdly, we need to redouble our efforts to give women all over the world the power to control their fertility. That is why I believe that ring-fencing the foreign aid budget was such an important policy decision and likely to help to bring incalculable benefits at every level.
None of this will be easy. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a complicated, uncertain, messy issue hedged about with traps. Those of us who cut our political teeth in the 1970s remember the example of Keith Joseph, whose political career was effectively ended by a speech on this subject. As Matthew Parris put it in a recent article:
“Joseph’s intentions, if not his words, were right. All the world over, a new generation of political leaders must return to this. Look beyond insulating your roof. Look beyond recycling your tins. Look beyond buying a charity goat for a Kenyan village for Christmas. It’s population, stupid”.
Lord Rea
My Lords, I think that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for raising this Question and for his thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. The fact that 11 speakers have put their names down for this one-hour slot gives an indication of the importance of the issue.
I am going to talk mainly about population and economic migration but, on the way, I should like to flag up briefly the way in which rapid population growth will affect not only this country but the rest of the world through its impact on the environment by accelerating resource depletion and climate change. We are already faced with a time bomb since, although the output of greenhouse gases per head in the developing world is low at present—about one-20th of ours per head—this will inevitably increase with rising standards of living. China is already providing us with an example.
I should declare an interest in that I am a long-standing member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. In January 2007, we published a report, Return of the Population Growth Factor, Its Impact upon the Millennium Development Goals. This was a distillation of a series of parliamentary hearings of experts in the fields of population and demography. Its conclusions, in brief, were that each of the first seven MDGs was adversely affected by population growth when it exceeded the rate of economic development. This applied particularly to sub-Saharan Africa, where population growth rates are the highest in the world and economic development the slowest. With regard to MDG 1, which is to,
“eradicate extreme poverty and hunger”,
the report says on page 21 under the heading “Running to stand still”:
“In sub-Saharan Africa, GDP per capita has been falling at nearly one percent a year, and those living in poverty … rose modestly from 44.6% to 46.4% between 1990 and 2001”.
Annual economic growth is expected to be 1.6 per cent between 2006 and 2015 but,
“due to the countervailing effect of rapid population growth, the World Bank predicts that by 2015, 340 million people in Africa will be living in extreme poverty, compared with 318 million in 2001”—
an increase of 22 million. The pressure to seek a better life in another country comes not so much from overcrowding and population growth per se but from lack of employment and poverty—in other words, “the economy, stupid”. Initially, employment is sought in the rapidly increasing slum cities of the developing world, but when this is not forthcoming the most enterprising citizens seek it elsewhere—perhaps in the El Dorado of the prosperous north and west. As the noble Lord said, the populations of some of those countries are in decline with a shortage of young people, so inward migration may not always be a bad thing.
Of course, there are reasons other than poverty for migration—conflict and political persecution are two. In the past, this country has benefited greatly from migrants from Europe fleeing political persecution. The largest number of immigrants, as the noble Lord pointed out, are seeking their way out of poverty.
There are two approaches to the problem, which are equally important. We must make more efforts to boost the economies of the developing world and diminish poverty. This in itself will result in fertility rates coming down. We all accept that that is a gargantuan task and inevitably slow. In the mean time, much can be done to assist mothers to have fewer children. The two most important are to aim to boost female education and to ensure that contraceptive supplies are made available to the 220 million women who wish to use them but at present cannot obtain them. There is no time to develop these themes. Suffice it to say that DfID is well aware of the needs of the developing world in reproductive health and family planning—not least because our group makes sure that they are aware. DfID devotes a greater proportion of its budget to it than most other countries. I am sure that the noble Baroness in her answer will take the opportunity to describe DfID’s work in this field.
Baroness Northover
I remind noble Lords that this is a tight time-limited debate, and when you hit four minutes you have already exceeded your time.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for securing the debate this evening on what is truly a world development issue.
Rapidly growing populations in unstable states or regions represent increased possibilities for volatility, civilian unrest and even full-blown conflict. Our Prime Minister stated that,
“we are mad if we do not put money into mending broken states”.—[Official Report, Commons. 19/10/10; col. 516.]
Instability costs the country money, especially when it occurs in areas where there is already significant UK engagement or interest, such as in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Timely implementation of preventive measures is important so that a combination of rapid population growth and unstable environments do not result in unrest or conflict, undoing the progress made to date by the UK’s aid investments and, in the long run, costing our country more.
A number of academics argue that when populations increase, some societies overuse resources, leading to environmental degradation and social collapse. Jared Diamond and others have made this case about the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the deaths of more than 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The Great Lakes region is extremely resource-rich, with vast copper, oil and diamond reserves as well as water and, crucially, land. However, some of the region’s countries—most notably Rwanda and Burundi—have extremely fast-growing populations for what are themselves very small countries. The land resources in each of these are becoming increasingly scarce. As pressure over resources increases in Rwanda, it is important for donors to look towards equitable economic growth in what is already a fragile and conflict-burdened region. Our Secretary of State for DfID has repeatedly affirmed his belief that wealth creation, jobs and livelihoods above all will help poor people to lift themselves out of poverty.
Tangible poverty reduction at grass-roots level will help strengthen social cohesion and internal stability in Rwanda. There is evident and laudable growth in Rwanda today, and the Government have ambitious plans for Rwanda to become a middle-income country. Due to high levels of domestic political commitment and with international support, Rwanda has made progress towards the millennium development goals, particularly in health and primary education. However, growing inequality risks undermining efforts towards poverty reduction and human development. The majority of Rwandans continue to live in poverty, especially in the rural areas where people struggle to make a living from agriculture. The United Kingdom should promote more by increasing pro-poor investment in agriculture and other rural sectors. This should include policies to promote the growth of micro-enterprises and the pursuit of economic growth strategies beyond the capital, Kigali. More donor funding is needed for civil society budget transparency work and participatory government policy-making and planning.
Another case study is in Burundi, which in 2007 had a population of some 8 million. In the four years from 2004 to 2008 the population increased from 7.4 million to 8.2 million—a 10.8 per cent increase. The economy in Burundi witnessed a contraction in growth in 2009, from 4.3 per cent in 2008 to 3.3 per cent. These are the pressures that exist in these countries.
However, there are some very good examples of grass-roots interventions which have given local people access to the means of production and, therefore, to economic self-sustainability. For example, in 2005 Burundi identified mass deforestation as a problem created by the local Burundian population and as a primary cause of a change in the microclimate. They themselves introduced a planting programme of well over 5 million trees which not only had to be effective in addressing the original problem but had to provide food security and create work. So it is not all bad news. Things can be done.
Baroness Flather
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this subject, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for introducing it. I think that we can no longer call this a toxic subject. I have always been involved in the issues of population and family planning, because I come from India, where you cannot avoid worrying about population increase. Until even 10 years ago, population was not a subject that people talked about as we are doing today. Even three or four years ago we were not quite so open about the issue. It is one of the most important issues that we have not tackled or considered and, as has been said, we really do need to think about it.
I should just like to say a few words about the history of Britain’s contribution to family planning. DfID has had some very strange Secretaries of State. Clare Short, for example, dropped family planning completely when she was Secretary of State. Hilary Benn took it up again, and since then DfID has been in a very good phase. It has given £20 million per year under a five-year grant to the UNFPA. Bilateral aid has also increased from £55 million under a three-year programme to £80 million and then, this year, to £110 million. That is for family planning and commodities, which is not bad for this country. I am very pleased to say that Andrew Mitchell’s heart is in the right place on population issues.
I commend DfID for another thing: this year it had a policy paper on abortion and now our Government and DfID accept it. It is an extremely important thing that women have access to safe abortion because so many of them die from botched attempts. And if women cannot feed their children, their children will die, or they themselves will die. That is simply not acceptable.
What is missing in all the words that have been said this evening is the position of women. Women make up half of the world’s population but in the poor countries they have no status and no ability to look after their own affairs. They cannot do anything or say anything because they have no power. We must help them gain some of the power, which we can do by helping them to earn money rather than through education. For 45 years people have been talking about educating women, but how do you educate each woman in a poor country? Let us start by giving them an opportunity to earn money. When they can do so, they will send their children to school and the next generation will be educated. That is the only way that education can come to poorer countries.
I was a little surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, brought up the situation in the UK. The situation here is also worrying. I was not going to talk about it this evening but, now that he has mentioned it, I feel that I can as well. Some of the minority communities have very large families and the health of these women always deeply concerns me. I do not care how many children people have but I care about the fact that women here suffer from the same health problems as they do in their countries of origin. When the cap comes in I do not know how they will manage.
Lord Rotherwick
My Lords, as a farmer, I take this opportunity to make a few remarks about food security. As the world population continues to increase, the reality is that global agricultural production will be hard pressed to keep up with the ever-rising global demand for food.
The world population is anticipated to rise to 9 billion by 2050. The anticipated patterns of economic development, particularly in large parts of the developing world, should cause us to ask serious questions about our national resilience, our dependence on food imports, and what we should be doing to ensure that our agricultural sector can deliver what we will need.
In the year leading up to June 2010, the forecast estimated cereal stocks had fallen from 73 days of consumption to 67 days. We should be asking the question about food security and putting in place the policies that will provide satisfactory answers. Meanwhile, in recent years our national dependence on food imports has increased by about 8 per cent. We have seen a widening trade gap in food, feed and drink; a reduction in our national self-sufficiency in indigenous food to below 59 per cent—the lowest figure in 42 years; and a reduction in the number of dairy cows, beef cows, pigs, sheep and poultry. The area of land for producing fresh vegetables has fallen, including a 15 per cent reduction in the area of land for producing potatoes in the 10 years leading up to 2008. The land for producing fresh fruit and cereals has also fallen.
The global growing levels of wealth and patterns of changing demand will require the UK to make sure that its agricultural sector is configured to compete: and that needs to include consideration of the impact of the common agricultural policy. This needs to look to the future and not to the past, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on these matters.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I have always been an enthusiastic student of history. One of the people whose name often comes up when we look at economic history is Mr Malthus, with his Malthusian concerns on population growth and the ultimate issues around poverty coming from population rise. It is rather ironic that during Victorian times it was quite the opposite of that. In fact, he has so far been proved to be wrong as population growth and world wealth, although badly distributed, have acted together.
However, it is interesting that we are having this debate on the same day as hearing a Statement on next year’s hoped-for treaty on climate change being debated in Cancun. In bringing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to the fore, an area not mentioned in that Statement—and I suspect mentioned openly hardly at all in the conference—was population growth. The subject is, on the whole, difficult to talk about on a national or international level. However, in terms of carbon emissions it is a major concern because carbon and climate are functions of economic growth, which is also a function of population. Carbon footprint is a measure we often think about in terms of individuals as well as of nations. Population growth must therefore be taken into account in climate change. In that area, world population growth is a major issue that needs to be factored in to those negotiations.
It is perhaps ironic that the nation at which we point our fingers as regards its carbon emissions, targets and the way in which its emissions have grown, is China. With its one-child policy, China has had the highest profile population control measure. Since its introduction in the late 1970s, it is estimated to have lowered world population growth by some quarter of a billion. As China becomes less centralised and more democratic—or more assertive in individual rights over a long term—I am sure that that policy will disappear and perhaps exacerbate this problem. I certainly hope that it will disappear because it is as much one’s human right to have children as it is the right of women in particular not to have them.
The point I really want to make is that I am a fundamental believer in those old maxims that population growth will be solved when we solve worldwide the status of women, have economic developments in low carbon in developing countries and a much more equal economic system that will overcome some of the problems that we looked at in the sub-committee discussing Frontex and the limits to which people will go.
In conclusion, I want to congratulate both this Government and the previous Government on ringfencing and ensuring that DfID and development expenditure are a national priority. That often comes as a criticism, whether from the tabloid press or from a more populist wing in this country, when it is one of the most selfish but best policies that any Government of this country can have.
Viscount Craigavon
My Lords, I should like to be positive, but not complacent, on the potential of this subject of world population. I am led to do so by the remarkable conversion of this Government, and in particular the person of the Minister, Mr Andrew Mitchell, to the fundamental importance of the matter that we are today discussing. I realise that this occurred well before the current coalition took office, but the addition of the Liberal Democrats should add impetus on this subject.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, will no doubt tell us, DfID will shortly be coming up with the results of a major review of departmental priorities. It is hoped that that could be the occasion to consolidate the importance of reproductive health in DfID programmes. It could also be the occasion to enlarge and properly define the scope of bilateral family planning projects.
I also hope that, following the lead of DfID, it might also be the occasion for many British and international NGOs and charities at last to recognise that family planning and the size of population is a relevant and cost-effective consideration. As a departmental Minister, Mr Stephen O’Brien, said to us on World Population Day in July,
“We must start to close the unmet need for modern contraceptives—and DfID is ready to do more in this area—the coalition Government has made a positive start”.
To add to the above, it is also the case that the European Commission has produced a Green Paper consulting on its overseas development aid and asking for responses next year. It is subtitled “The future of EU budget response to third countries”. Again, for those of us who have been critical of how some of that aid is used, that could be a useful starting point for serious reform. It is also to be hoped that DfID could use its influence with our EU colleagues to raise the profile and effectiveness of reproductive health in helping to meet MDGs.
I shall come down to some of the detail that I have just outlined. I believe that our country has recently had a good record on reproductive health and related MDGs in terms of our contributions. However, because of the way that we define what we do, particularly bilaterally, we do not necessarily come out well in comparative statistics. I hope that as part of our re-emphasis on this field, we can be more transparent in accounting for and defining what we give.
For some time now, the considerable resources understandably devoted to HIV/AIDS prevention have tended to be at the expense of family planning. Sometimes that is the reason that the two endeavours overlap in their aims, but the importance of autonomous support for family planning must not be forgotten.
There is a tendency in the European Commission Green Paper on development aid, which is now out to consultation, to avoid using particular words, as was mentioned earlier. Reading that document, one begins to realise that there must be horsetrading among so many nations to get any agreement on priorities on such diverse subjects. In this case, focusing on MDGs provides some sort of common, binding aim, but there is reluctance seriously to consider or talk about one aspect of recorded MDGs. That is the contribution that reproductive health can make to many other related MDGs. I hope that we can all grasp the opportunities that will present themselves in the coming year.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I rather like these short debates, particularly when the charming mother hen on the Front Bench tells me not to crow for too long. I was always told to do everything in threes: Tripos, Church, law and Parliament and Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In this case, it is land, air and sea.
I will adopt a slightly different approach. I regard human beings as an asset, not a liability, and I regard a population as an opportunity, not something to fear. For example, as was mentioned just now, we have two great economies in fast growth in the world: India and China, who, together, have 37 per cent of the world's population and large amounts of high productivity. How and why? It is a question of what you get people to do and how you turn them into a benefit.
I turn to my favourite subject: the Commonwealth, which, as your Lordships know, accounts for 25 per cent of the world population. If we look at our bailiwicks, our overseas and dependent territories, we cover a large part of the globe. We have to ask: why did we ever develop a Commonwealth or an empire? It was because of the added value that we could create in various countries. Most of that added value was, surprisingly enough, related to the resources of the land—its minerals and raw materials. As we look at that development, we find to our amazement that, suddenly, the world is saying that we are overpopulated. We may look back at large chunks of Africa, where I have worked—in particular, somewhere such as the Sudan, which was to be the bread basket of the Middle East, where any amount of grain could be grown to feed the populations. As you look at a map from space, or whatever, you will find that the productivity of all those countries is roughly the same. The weather pattern may have changed, but the opportunity to produce food, which people need, is very significant.
I have even thought that in the past, when people were short of labour, the slave trade took place; now, when they are short of labour, migration takes place. That is what has been happening in this country. We need to look at the opportunities that can be created in those Commonwealth countries for the regeneration of food and products that we have long forgotten about.
Lord Patel
My Lords, population growth and its consequences is a question that crops up in daily conversations but is a subject that people find difficult to discuss. It quickly leads to polarised positions and finger-pointing as to who is having too many babies and why. To many people of the world, children are a security for support in old age.
In a recent report of a debate on the subject, “Crisis and recovery: ethics, economics and justice”, participants included two highly respected members of your Lordships' House: the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the economist, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. The panel also included Larry Elliott, economics editor of the Guardian, and Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith. The question of population growth arose. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was deeply worried because he felt that although education, particularly of women, reduces fertility rates, it was too slow for population growth to be controlled in this century. The Archbishop was equally concerned. He agreed that population growth was “a timebomb” but he was worried that state attempts to control it had been abhorrent to concepts of human rights. He was “deeply perplexed”. As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, feared a Malthusian population crash or a series of such crashes, resulting in bringing the population of the world down to 3 billion to 4 billion in a century.
The pessimism and confusion expressed leaves one feeling gloomy, particularly for our children and grandchildren. The population of the world is projected to reach 9 to 10 billion by 2040, by which time the UK population is estimated to be around 66 million to 70 million. Both figures are unsustainable. The impact, particularly on the environment, will be punishing and catastrophic.
What is the solution? Who will save the world and the United Kingdom? The facts have been staring us in the face for decades. Two things emerge as being important for controlling population growth. A drop in fertility rates in many parts of the world has always been linked to gender empowerment and female education. State attempts impinge on human rights, yet failure to address the problem could cause a global population crash. Gender empowerment holds the key. The answer to the question, “Who will save the world from the scourge of poverty, environmental disaster, disease and strife?” is women. Women will save the world if they have freedom of education, freedom of choice in family planning and if we eradicate gender bias. I hope that the efforts of DfID will focus on that and that its aid will produce the empowerment of women.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on bringing this problem to the attention of the House. I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Population Development and Reproductive Health.
The increase in the world population is putting huge strain on the world's resources of land and water, and is leading to conflict and migration from impoverished areas. With global communication now so easily available, a struggling family in Bangladesh or Afghanistan, for example, will know that they can have a better life in the UK if they can possibly get here and be able to send money back home to poor relatives abroad.
The paradox is that we in the West and in this country must shoulder a large proportion of the blame for the impoverishment of developing countries and subsequent migration, because of our wasteful and wanton use of the world’s precious resources. We may have small families here, but our consumption has led to climate change causing desertification in sub-Saharan Africa that is driving people from their homes and the people of Bangladesh are living on less and less land as the regular floods there become more and more severe.
There are two things that we must do quickly. The first is to cut down our consumption and recognise the urgency and seriousness of climate change. I hope the news from Cancun means that the West has at least accepted responsibility. The second, equally important, action is to ensure that every woman in the world is able to have access to contraception and to limit the size of her family. Children in smaller families are more likely to receive education and to improve their own lives as well as that of their country. Between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of women in the poorest countries of the world cannot access any birth control, even though they want to. We must deal with this as a matter of urgency. As has been mentioned, the present Government have recognised this need and promised to make maternal health and family planning, in particular, a top priority for international development.
Now we need to overcome the difficulties of distribution and commodity availability and answer the needs of women all over the world. It is interesting that you can get Coca-Cola wherever you go in this world, however tiny the village in Africa, but it is terribly difficult to get contraceptive supplies. Bangladesh has reduced its average family size from over six children per family to 2.7 by ensuring that all women have access to family planning. That has been done without coercion and is to be applauded.
In conclusion—and I thank noble Lords for letting me speak—limiting the number of people in the world is crucial to our survival but, above all, we must reduce our consumption at home.
Lord Brett
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in being grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for bringing this debate before us. It seems to me that there are two truths that arise from it: the truth that the noble Lord started with—that this should not be a taboo subject—and that it requires full debate. This debate is too short, and four minutes too short a time for anyone to develop any part of the argument.
In the developed world, education, contraceptive use, maternal and baby health, increased development and subsequent income improvement have all played a major part. That is probably why I am the eldest of six children, the father of four children and the grandfather of two children. In the developing world, we see the same needs, and they see the same needs for the things that we have enjoyed, which is why the ODA remains important and why I join others in congratulating this Government on continuing the endeavour and ensuring that we get to 0.7 per cent of gross national income.
Noble Lords have referred to the added burdens that now exist in a way they did not exist in the past: the impact of climate change on developing countries, the HIV/AIDS pandemic and conflict between states and within states. Part of the flow that comes is international migration. That provides challenges and opportunities and guarantees that the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is worthy of a much longer debate.
Although the official ODA is important, so are the efforts of those in the diaspora from the developing world who are now part of the developed world who seek to assist their own countries, communities and families. I will resist adding to the plethora of statistics that are inevitably an essential part of these debates, but I will emphasise one point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, about the importance of remittances. They are a vital form of financial support. They provide better health and education for the family and are an aspect of the development of small businesses in so many countries. They are three times the size of official ODA aid. They amounted to some $325 billion in 2010 and were 1.9 per cent of GDP for all developing countries taken as a whole in 2009. In the small and lower-income countries, they form 5.4 per cent of GDP.
In a world in which billions of dollars can travel across the world in a microsecond, we should be able to produce a system that will reduce the cost and difficulty of people transferring small amounts of money. If you are living on a dollar a day or less, £10 in the United Kingdom is a week’s wages or more once it is transferred to the recipient. At the moment, it is difficult and costly to do that, and we should be able to make an impact on that as we are part of the most developed world of banking, even if bankers are not very popular at the moment. A fall in the cost of transfers of some 5 per cent would free an extra $15 billion a year for increased development.
I could go on, but time will not allow me to do so. I will also not pepper the Minister with a series of questions, which is what normally happens at this time. I do not think that anyone disagrees with the aim, although we probably have different ideas about how we go forward. My questions to the Minister are simply these. What is the Government’s long-term thinking in this area? Post the MDG period and 2015, where will we go and how will we take this forward? Finally, does she support my view and that of many others that we need a full debate on all aspects of this? The great expertise around this House could assist the Government in a joint endeavour that I believe we all support.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for securing this important debate, and I congratulate all noble Lords on some excellent contributions. Time will not allow me to respond to all noble Lords tonight, but I hope, through my contribution, to be able to provide answers to some of the questions. I undertake to write to noble Lords in answer to the remainder.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson is right that some people describe global population growth as too difficult or too sensitive a subject to tackle or even to talk about. Many shy away from discussing it in case they are accused of wanting to remove free choice from individuals or to force individuals to have fewer children. We think that the time is right to bring the debate out into the open and for us to engage in a debate that looks at the bare facts.
The world’s population is projected to increase to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all this growth—99 per cent of it—will occur in developing countries. Most sub-Saharan African countries will see continuing and rapid growth for several decades. Some countries’ populations are likely to double; the population of Ethiopia is projected to increase from its current 82 million to 173 million by 2050. Some may even triple; some may even quadruple. Let me make it absolutely clear: the coalition Government do not support programmes that coerce people to have fewer children, but we are proud to revitalise efforts to give women the choices that they crave: to choose whether, when and how many children they have.
Some 215 million couples who want to delay or avoid a pregnancy currently lack access to effective methods of contraception, and we believe it is high time that their needs are met. The largest generation of adolescents in history is entering its reproductive years. With the demand growing for basic services such as water, sanitation, education and health, we will need to address this very soon. Not only basic services will feel the strain of rapid population growth; natural resources such as water, fuel, wood and land for growing will all come under increasing pressure. The poor, who are the most reliant on the natural environment for their basic survival, will feel the greatest impact.
Some noble Lords talked about climate change, which of course poses an additional threat and cost to the world’s most vulnerable people and their countries. Without efforts to adapt to the adverse impacts of a change in climate, even more livelihoods and lives will be lost. We need to work with low-income countries to help them to plan their future in a carbon-constrained world and to identify where low-carbon development can support economic growth and poverty reduction. Investments in low-carbon development can have significant benefits for all, but particularly for women. Increasing access to renewable energy has health benefits, including reducing local air pollution, reducing expenditure on kerosene, and reducing the time spent collecting firewood.
Improved energy supplies can also help rural incomes and provide new jobs, especially in sectors in which women are traditionally employed, such as agroprocessing. By supporting gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment and education, we can help couples and individuals to reduce the high occurrence of fertility, and improving water, sanitation, health and education services can increase people’s confidence that their children will survive into adulthood.
The unmet need figure of 215 million couples is really very important. The United Nations medium population projection to 2050 of 9.2 billion is firmly based on the assumption that the unmet need gap is closed and that people are given the services that they demand. If we do not work harder and renew our emphasis on reproductive and maternal health outcomes and do not invest in better and more accessible family planning, the higher UN projection of around 11 billion people becomes more likely.
The coalition Government will announce plans for improving reproductive, maternal and newborn health in developing countries in the next few weeks. We will invest in family planning because it is what women say they need; because it saves the lives of women and children; because it can help us reach the millennium development goals; and because it offers value for money. We will double our efforts for women’s health to save the lives of 50,000 women and to enable at least 10 million more to use modern methods of family planning.
I am delighted that the coalition Government are already playing their full part. This year DfID funded the procurement of 40 per cent of Uganda’s national requirement for contraceptives, condoms and long-term family planning methods, such as injections and implants. Currently, 41 per cent of women in Uganda who want to use family planning cannot do so. DfID’s support will help to avoid 250,000 unintended pregnancies, which would otherwise result in 75,000 abortions and 750 maternal deaths. A broader programme with the United Nations Population Fund is under design. It will address more of the cultural and social barriers to accessing family planning services.
As to the implications for the UK, the population of the UK was 61.8 million in mid-2009, an increase of 2.7 million when compared with mid-2001. That increase of course has been partly due to migration to the UK. Controlled migration benefits the UK economically and culturally, but recent levels are unsustainable in terms of population growth and the consequent pressure on key public services, such as schools, the health service, transport, housing and welfare, as well as the impact on community cohesion. This causes understandable concern. By focusing on reducing net migration, we aim to make a significant impact on population growth.
The Office for National Statistics projects that the UK will reach a population of 70 million by mid-2029. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in the other place three weeks ago, that is why we are taking comprehensive action to tighten our immigration systems. We are introducing a new permanent limit on non-EU economic migrants. We will refocus student visas to create a more selective system and to stop abuse. We are cracking down on sham marriages and will consult on extending the probationary period of settlement for spouses beyond the current two years. At the moment, it is easy to move from temporary residence to permanent settlement and we will end that link.
These changes to the work route and some of the settlement changes will be introduced from April 2011. We will move forward on other changes soon after. These proposals do not mean bolting our borders shut. We want an immigration system that has in place properly controlled migration. There is no doubt that we benefit from the brightest and the best coming to the UK. Of course we need to offer protection to those who fear persecution or serious harm. It has to be measured against the backdrop of the questions posed today.
Noble Lords raised one or two points about the presence of women in discussions. They will know that, in the summer, at the G8 summit in Canada, our Prime Minister noted that this Government will reorientate their aid budget to put women at the centre and the front of our development efforts. All noble Lords are absolutely right: unless women are at the heart of policy development, it would be extremely difficult to address the serious issue of population growth.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that this debate is not long enough to discuss the fundamental difficulties that we face. It is crucial to have much longer debates so that we can iron out some of the great difficulties that we as a nation face and that the globe faces collectively. A note should be made for the usual channels of the need to ensure that we address all these issues. If I have failed to satisfy noble Lords, I undertake to write to them.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:38 - Division on Amendment 39A - Ayes: 96 / Noes: 38 - Amendment 39A agreed.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
(c) citizens of other countries which are members of the European Union, resident in the United Kingdom”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I was going to say that it is a good job that the Government Whips Office is not in charge of snow clearing, but I thought it might not go down well with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, so I will certainly not say anything.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
Someone from Edinburgh is starting to make jokes about snow clearing.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lord is absolutely right because the Minister who had to resign did not come from Edinburgh; he was from the north-east. He used to drive Alex Salmond because he was his chauffeur, which is how he got the job as a Minister. If noble Lords want a hint, that is not the best way to choose a transport Minister, by the way. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with Amendment 36A.
I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in his place. In the previous debate the noble Lord was deeply concerned about confusion. He did not want those 16 and 17 year-olds to turn up at polling stations and be confused or cause confusion because they would not be able to vote in anything other than the referendum. I could see his deep and intense worry about confusion. That is why this amendment is very helpful to the coalition Government.
As I said on a previous amendment, one of the problems with the Bill is that it is going to result in confusion not only in campaigning, but in this context also in confusion at the polling station because we will have two separate franchises. One will be the local government franchise which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, knows only too well, is used for the Scottish Parliament, and the parliamentary franchise, with one alteration at the moment, which will be used for the referendum. How do we deal with the confusion at polling stations? I suggested in an earlier amendment that we should not have the elections on the same day. We discussed that at length, but it was not accepted by the Government. I went on to examine the variations in the franchises to see whether something could be done to bring them together so that we would have one franchise. That would be much simpler for polling officers.
Noble Lords will recall from previous debates and by looking at the Bill in detail that in some cases polling officers can opt for two registers, in which case as the different franchises come in they will have to be checked and then ticked off on one or the other of the registers, or they can opt for a single register for the two franchises, in which case they would have to mark on the register which ballot papers the elector receives. They will be given one ballot paper for the referendum, or two ballot papers for the election, or three ballot papers for the election and the referendum. I can already see the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, realising how confusing it is going to be and imagining himself sitting as a polling officer and carrying that out. It would be much easier if we conflated the franchises so that they were just one. Although there are other arguments in favour of it, that was the basis for this amendment.
If we look at the variations, first, overseas voters are able to vote in the parliamentary elections—in other words, they would be able to vote in the referendum—but not in the local government election. However, I do not imagine that there will be many people coming from overseas seeking to vote and if there are, they are more likely to have postal votes. I would not have thought that they would actually turn up at the polling stations. The overseas voters, who are not able to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections, should be of no great concern to us as far as the conduct at the polling station is concerned.
The second category, with which noble Lords will find they have a complete understanding, is Peers. Peers are not able to vote in the parliamentary elections so they would not be able to vote in the referendum. Yet the Government, in their wisdom, have included a special arrangement for us Peers to vote, exceptionally, in this referendum. That is included in another amendment, so Peers are dealt with.
Those who remain are citizens of European Union countries,
“resident in the United Kingdom”.
They all vote in the Scottish Parliament elections, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will also know. We get Poles, French and Germans who are living and working in Scotland—and paying UK taxes—and who will turn up and vote in the Scottish Parliament elections. Yet they would not be able to vote in the referendum unless my amendment is agreed today. If we do that, it will deal with the third category which means that we will then have a combined register, by conflating the two franchises, and that things will be much easier for the polling officers.
There is another logical part to it. We were talking about the 16 year-olds and how they were paying taxes at 16. These European citizens who are living in Scotland, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom and who are resident and working here will also be paying taxes in the United Kingdom. They will be paying income tax if they are working, council tax for the house that they live in, corporation tax if they have set up a company and value added tax in the shops when they buy things. In a previous debate it was said that there should be no taxation without representation, and yet all these European citizens are paying tax and are able to vote in the local government elections, in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections and in the European elections but not in the Westminster elections, and now not in the referendum.
Lord McAvoy
My noble friend is advocating that European Union citizens who are resident here should vote in referendums in the United Kingdom. Can he tell me of any reciprocal arrangements where UK citizens can vote in any referendum being held in another EU country?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Yes, I can. Ireland is a good example of a country in the European Union.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
But we always have reciprocal arrangements with Ireland.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Indeed, but that is just one example; I was asked for only one example and I gave it to my noble friend. I knew what he was getting at but I was not going to fall into that trap. Maybe he would like to come back.
Lord McAvoy
Can my noble friend name two EU countries that allow UK citizens to vote in their referendums?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I would need notice of that question.
I understand the import of what my noble friend says, but this has to start somewhere. We are a pioneering country—why should we not start with this? Okay, it is a pro-European kind of amendment, and I know that not all my noble friends are as enthusiastic about the European Union as I am, but it is a good way to start.
The mother of two of my grandchildren is French; I must declare an interest in relation to that. She has now moved to Scotland. To all intents and purposes she is a citizen of Scotland and the UK, although she retains her French citizenship. There must be so many people like that. Think of the Poles who came over. Some of them fought for us in the Second World War—there are not many of them left—but some are still not British citizens. There are other Poles who have come over and, while some have gone back, some of them have now made their homes in the United Kingdom. Some came over to work in the mines in Ayrshire and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Some have retained their citizenship of other European countries but, to all intents and purposes, they are now as much United Kingdom citizens as the rest of us. They are paying all their taxes, so should they not vote? There is a strong argument there, as well as the practical arguments about conflating the franchise.
My noble friend Lord Rooker described his earlier amendment as a “lifeboat”. We provided that lifeboat for the coalition. The coalition has not jumped on to that lifeboat yet but it is waiting, bobbing alongside the coalition liner, ready to provide some help if 5 May proves difficult. This amendment is not so much a lifeboat as a lifebelt for my noble friend—he is still my noble friend—Lord McNally. If he wishes to take it, he can make life a lot easier for the polling officers. He can go back to his colleagues in the other place and say, “We’ve improved the Bill in this way. We’ve made it easier for people to vote. We’ve made it less cumbersome and less confusing. That’s one argument that that fellow Foulkes can no longer keep on pursuing”. I hope that the Minister will see this as a lifebelt and grasp it with both hands.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Foulkes identifies a problem that arises from the Government’s plan to combine the date of the referendum with already scheduled polls in the devolved regions and local authority areas across the United Kingdom. Citizens of other European Union member states who are resident in the Untied Kingdom can vote in local government elections. A French citizen living in Leicester will be able to cast their vote in the unitary authority elections on 5 May. An Italian citizen who lives in Newcastle upon Tyne will be able to do the same, as will a Spaniard in west Somerset.
Those who are resident in Scotland and Wales, by virtue of their residency and not their citizenship, may vote in either the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales elections. Consequently, a German citizen who lives in Cardiff will be able to vote for his local AM in May, as a Belgian in Edinburgh will be able to vote for her local MSP. However, when any of these people go to the polls next May, they will not be eligible to cast a vote in the Government’s proposed referendum. The consequence, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, so emphatically and eye-poppingly enthusiastically said before supper, of having different electorates for different votes would be terrible. This is what my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock has indicated is the position.
Clause 2(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill states:
“Those who are entitled to vote in the referendum are … the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency”.
This explicitly does not include citizens of other EU member states who are resident in the UK. As my noble friend has argued, there is potential here for administrative confusion. The polling stations in the 80 per cent of the country that will be combining polls on 5 May will be administering multiple franchises. There will need to be two separate lists of eligible voters: one for the referendum and one for the local and devolved elections. This is the argument behind my noble friend’s amendment. I see that the confusion argument has force but I would deal with it differently. I would deal with it on the basis that the answer is not to combine, but to move the referendum to a date other than 5 November.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Sorry, it felt like blowing up Parliament. I apologise for the confusion. My noble friend Lord Rooker’s amendment, which was agreed to in this House, provides the coalition with the opportunity to move the date, which it can still take.
My conclusion on behalf of the Front Bench is that we should move the referendum date, not change the franchise for the referendum. If citizens of other EU member states who are resident in the UK cannot vote in UK parliamentary elections, which is the current position, why should they be given a say in which electoral system is to be used in such elections? There is even an argument that, on a question that goes to the heart of the British constitution, citizens of other EU member states should not be able to express a view.
Furthermore, on the basis of reciprocity, we should not allow citizens of other EU states to vote to influence our parliamentary elections, since British citizens are not—as far as I am aware—permitted to take part in elections in any other European Union country apart from Ireland. The reason why Ireland and the UK have reciprocal arrangements has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union; it is to do with history that stretches way back before the EU.
There is an anomaly here but it can be dealt with in the way that has been suggested. It really pains me to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. We support the same football team. My son was here earlier, wearing the Heart of Midlothian colours. That is why I feel bad about not supporting my noble friend, but I feel unable to do so in relation to this amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I cannot do better than that eloquent and absolutely lacerating summing up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Does that endorsement of what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said include an acceptance to move the date of the referendum, which my noble and learned friend advocated?
Lord McNally
A kindly thought, but no. As noble Lords know, when Ministers receive research it comes with a back paper. Much as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the document states:
“There is no reason why EU citizens should be allowed to express their views in the referendum on the preferred voting system for an election in which they are not entitled to participate”.
The document shows you what a warm-hearted lot our civil servants are as it goes on to say:
“It is possible that the amendment is a probing one seeking to provoke a debate on the voting rights of EU citizens resident in the UK for the purpose of parliamentary elections”.
That shows how kindly they think of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and his intentions in putting down the amendment.
Lord Rooker
I say to the noble Lord that that was not the reason at all; it was to give the Electoral Commission the supreme opportunity to prepare all the explanatory materials on the alternative vote system in the Bill to explain it to all the other people who use modern, democratic PR systems in Europe as they would never understand the AV system being proposed.
Lord McNally
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, goes too far. The Government’s resistance to this amendment shows that they are not willing to steal a march or twist the electorate as undoubtedly the people who would be enfranchised are perfectly used to AV and would see its merits and are perfectly used to coalitions and see their merits. Therefore, we resist the amendment as a great act of altruism as we are refusing what would undoubtedly be a massive yes vote on the part of those who would be enfranchised by the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. We do not want that. As I have said before, we want the Bill to be purely and simply about fair votes and fair constituencies. Having heard his noble and learned friend’s absolutely marvellous explanation of why this is a lousy amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer—my fellow Hearts supporter—for his comments. When my noble friend Lord Sewel came into the Chamber I was reminded of last Saturday afternoon when Heart of Midlothian scored five goals against Aberdeen. But, seriously, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did not accept the consequences of the summing-up of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord made it absolutely clear that the alternative to allowing European citizens to vote was to move the referendum to another date. That is my preference and the preference of most people that I have heard contribute to this debate so far. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, accepted that—that was the lifebelt that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, offered on a previous occasion—we would welcome it.
However, some of my proposals tend to be a bit ahead of the times. In 1982, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons to outlaw smoking in public places. I think that it got about six votes. Now, all these years later, smoking in public places is prohibited. In 1983, I introduced a measure against age discrimination. Again, I got nowhere, but all these decades later we have such a measure on the statute book. Therefore, I have hope for the future. However, on the basis that this amendment may be a little ahead of the times, I accept the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to withdraw it and come back to it on another occasion.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“( ) The Electoral Commission shall appoint a sub-committee including representatives from the 3 main UK parties and one chosen by the other parties collectively, who shall have experience of referenda and have previously held elected office, to exercise all its powers and functions in relation to the referendum.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
On the basis of representations that I have received from the Electoral Commission and the changes that have recently taken place in relation to the constitution of the Electoral Commission, I now do not wish to move the amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I had expected that some other Members might have spoken against clause stand part, which is why I was not immediately ready. On page 2, line 39, it is stated:
“The polls for the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary general election in 2011 are to be taken together”.
I am proposing that the subsection be deleted. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this is his solution, because we have just been discussing the confusion that will take place in a Scottish parliamentary election. I have spoken on this matter, but there are a number of areas of confusion; I will not go on at length about them, but will make a brief reprise of what I said previously. Two areas of confusion are likely to arise. The first is confusion in campaigning and the other, which relates to one of the solutions that I have just put forward—extending the franchise to European citizens—is confusion at polling.
On the confusion in campaigning, I do not think that the Liberal Democrat Members in particular understood the import of what was said in the previous debate. As to running a cross-party campaign, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, have been involved. He and I were hand in hand together on the campaign for Britain to remain a member of the European Union—he was in the Labour Party then. However, we worked together with Conservatives such as Malcolm Rifkind, members of the SNP, and other parties—particularly the Liberals. I remember campaigning for our membership on an all-party and cross-party basis. We were able to do that without any problems or difficulties, because there was no election taking place on the same day. We appeared on the same platform. John P Mackintosh was on the same platform as Malcolm Rifkind. That did not create any problems, because people understood that all that was being discussed was whether Britain should remain part of the European Union. They did not say, “It’s strange having a Tory and a Labour person on the same platform”, because they were not standing against each other in an election on the same day.
Imagine what will happen on 5 May next year if we have the elections for the Scottish Parliament and the referendum on the same day. As I have said on previous occasions, imagine campaigning with people of other parties. I chose the example of David McLetchie—a friend of mine who is a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament. Imagine if I said that I agreed with him that we should have first past the post and should not move to this awful system of alternative votes, but while we were going around Wester Hailes, in the Edinburgh Pentlands, people asked, “Are you supporting David McLetchie to be re-elected as the MSP?”. Of course the answer is, “No, I am campaigning for Ricky Henderson, the Labour candidate”. They would then say, “But why are you here with McLetchie?”. If I said, “Because we are campaigning in the referendum”, they would say, “But there is an election taking place”. That is how confusion arises.
As to expenditure, when you are campaigning, how can you easily differentiate between expenditure on the election and on the referendum? For example, I may use a loudspeaker system in campaigning for the Labour Party and then borrow it for a day to use in the no campaign for the referendum. How do you allocate the finances? In a later amendment there is a reference to party election broadcasts. At the moment it would be possible for the Liberal Democrats to have a party election broadcast not to say, “Vote Liberal Democrat in the election” but, “Vote yes in the referendum”. Unless we change it later, that is quite possible. Most Members here have taken part in an election of one kind or another, or one kind of cross-party referendum campaign or another, and know of the problems of having the two on the same day. So there will be confusion in campaigning.
I turn now to confusion within the polling booth. As I said, I tried to provide the noble Lord, Lord McNally, with a lifebelt to resolve this problem by bringing together the franchises and trying to introduce a single register, which would have made things easier. However, he chose not to take advantage of that lifebelt. Instead, he agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who summed up the debate on European citizens voting. The noble and learned Lord said specifically in his reply that he disagreed with the solution in my amendment about allowing European citizens to vote and thought that there was an easier and better way of doing it—and that was not to have the referendum on the same day as the local elections.
That is now quite possible because of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which was passed by the House. It allows the Government to hold the referendum on any day between 5 May and 31 October and gives them the necessary flexibility. I shall not give away a confidence by saying who it was, but a Liberal Democrat Peer said to me, “George, I see the strength of your argument now as far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned”. In fact, he agreed that it would be better for the Liberal Democrats not to have the referendum on the same day as the elections because he believed that they would not get the same degree of support for AV. I could see his argument. When the elections in Scotland and Wales and the local government elections in England are taking place, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party will be pushing to get out their electorate to vote in the elections. They will turn out primarily for the elections and be predominantly in favour of first past the post. Therefore the AV support is likely to be at a minimum and the first past the post support at a maximum. However, if the referendum is held on a separate day it will be the real activists, the ones who want change, who will come out and vote for AV. The first past the post people will sit at home and think, “It will never change anyway” and wake up the next day to find that the activists in favour of AV have turned out. Without a threshold, there could be just a small 10 per cent turnout and the constitution would be changed.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
It rather sounds as if the noble Lord is making a speech of no confidence in his own party leader. Surely that will remove all problems of dubiety about who is for and who is against, because he will get lots of publicity. Mr Ed Miliband has made it clear that he supports AV, which will surely overcome quite a lot of the problems put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Of course, the support of Ed Miliband—and I have a great respect for him—will help the AV campaign. However, I do not think that it will help it as much as the wide range of support for the first-past-the-post campaign in the Labour Party, which has a whole galaxy of supporters. That still does not argue the case about the differential in the turnout. The Liberal Democrat that I mentioned was arguing from his point of view the fact that it would be for Liberal Democrats to have the referendum on its own so that they could concentrate on the change that was necessary and get the enthusiasts and activists to turn out.
I urge noble Lords to support the deletion of this clause. It is the first in a group of amendments that would have a similar effect in different areas and in different ways. The amendment would eliminate the probability, or certainty, of confusion of the electorate in the campaign and at the polling booths. If we do that, we will have produced a far better Bill than we received from the other place.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)
I point out to noble Lords that if this amendment were agreed, I could not call Amendment 39A by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on this amendment. I have always taken the view that we should be working overtime to ensure that the referendum vote on the alternate vote system is not held on the same day as the local elections. I have never really understood that anybody can argue that the two issues, as the noble Lord has pointed out, would be completely confused.
One thing that we have established on the debate that we have had on the alternate vote is that it is not just a simple change in how we carry out voting. It is incredibly complicated, and we need an extensive debate to clarify these issues. I am not saying that the British electorate are made up of people who are so extraordinarily thick that they do not understand. Let us face it—many of us in this House have been on a seriously steep learning curve as to what the alternate vote is about. When I came here, I thought that there was only one alternate vote; I find that in fact there are four different variations of the alternate vote. It is extremely complicated and a very major change in our constitution. It is a serious change in how we carry out our elections, and not something that should just be thrown in as a referendum at the same time as local elections. It is something that the country should debate and consider very seriously, because it will in perpetuity change how we hold elections in this country and change, also, the outcome of these elections.
I had great discussion with my noble friend Lord Tyler, who claimed rather interestingly that if we had the alternate vote, it would make what he described as a balanced Parliament—which I have always more pejoratively described as a hung Parliament—less likely. That is a very profound statement for my noble friend to have made, because he is actually saying that the Liberal Democrats are advocating an electoral system that will disadvantage them in general elections. That shows an altruism that I did not think existed in the Liberal Democrats. It has really opened my eyes. It has also changed where I come from, because the reason why I am trying to delay the alternate vote referendum is because I want to see the alternate vote soundly defeated. On the other hand, if the alternative vote system will make it less likely that we will end up with coalition Governments, I should be supporting it.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, perhaps I might intervene as a supporter of AV. I agree with nearly every word that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said. There is a slight Alice in Wonderland feel about today. I have popped in and out of the Chamber and on many occasions when I came in, I heard the noble Lord, Lord McNally, saying that this was a simple Bill. Every time I hear him say it, I look again at Clause 4—Clause 4 stand part is part of this grouping—and find so much legalistic rigmarole that, despite having many years of experience of parliamentary draftsmen, I find it extremely hard to comprehend. Given the compelling case that has just been made both by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, it is very hard to understand why on earth the Government continue to want to hold the referendum on 5 May. I find that particularly hard to understand of my noble friend Lord McNally—I call him my noble friend because we have been friends for many years. Like me, he is in favour of a yes vote in the AV referendum. The Liberal Democrats, who seem to want this vote to be held on 5 May, are in favour of a yes vote in the referendum, but the one thing that will make it very difficult for proponents of AV to win that vote is to hold it on 5 May.
I have heard only one argument with any force that it could be to the advantage of AV campaigners to hold the referendum on 5 May and it is that turnout in Scotland and Wales will be higher on that date because there will be regional elections on the same day and that will help. However, that is conceptually ridiculous. Let us suppose that the Scots would be 10 per cent more likely to vote AV than people in the rest of the country, and let us suppose that, as a result of having the two elections on the same day, the turnout would be 10 per cent higher. If those two extraordinary assumptions were true, it would make a difference to the national vote of something like 0.1 per cent. Any advantage that might be gained from a higher turnover would be absolutely negligible in terms of the outcome of the referendum. However, why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book? We have YouGov polls, so we know what the level of support is in each part of the United Kingdom. Support in Scotland is precisely the same as that in England and more or less the same as that in Wales. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for a differential turnout to favour those in support of the alternative vote system.
However, there is a major reason to suppose that it would be bad news for AV if we had the referendum on 5 May, and it is this. When it comes to the battle over the referendum, supporters of AV have one enormous advantage. Unlike in this House, where most active Members—I freely concede this—are opposed to AV, there is a network of supporters, most of them in the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat party, who are prepared to work their socks off for a victory for AV on whichever day the referendum is held. They are networking and phone banking and so on. I doubt whether there is a similar organisation of people opposed to AV, although I am sure that a very sophisticated campaign will be run by the nice Mr Elliott who runs the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and I am sure that they have done very well to get him on their side. However, we will cast this huge potential advantage to the wind if we hold the referendum on 5 May. If you think that Liberal Democrats campaigning in a local election are going to be able to turn their attention from supporting their candidates, who are whipping them on, to manning the phone banks for AV, you are mistaken.
More powerfully—and I can say this with a great deal more authority—the idea that Labour supporters fighting Liberal Democrats up and down the country, condemning Nick Clegg for the disgraceful abandonment of his election pledge on tuition fees, and trying to eliminate the Liberal Democrats as a party in this country will at the same time on the side go out and hit the phones, saying “Would you mind voting for AV? It might help our little Lib Dem friends”, is a complete absurdity. The result is that, if the referendum is held on 5 May, we who are in favour of AV—and I do not claim, and never have claimed, that our task is an easy one—will have cast aside our greatest advantage and will have handed a greater chance of victory to those who would block what we are trying to do.
I can understand the Conservatives supporting that way forward and I can understand those on my own side who do not share my view about AV supporting that point of view. However, I was greatly cheered to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—whom I hugely admire and whose performance throughout our debates on this Bill has been so remarkable—cheering and nodding at some of the analytic remarks that I made, even if he would not necessarily support the conclusion to which they were directed. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, too, could share the preference for 5 May. But I have to ask: what is the noble Lord, Lord McNally, up to? Does he not want to see the result for which he—like me—has worked for so many years? I am mystified by the coalition’s stance, purely because of the realpolitik involved; that leaves aside the whole argument that I have developed on other occasions about what I almost call the “immorality” of combining different sets of issues, including sub-national Parliaments, Assemblies, local government, a change in the voting system for national elections all on the one day, which is a cruelty to inflict on the willing but sometimes confused electorate, who although willing may be confused by such shenanigans.
I beg the noble Lord, Lord McNally to think again and to look at the analytic case both in terms of the result he wants and its merits. I know that as he is a good and clear thinking man, he will conclude, whatever he may say tonight, that the right thing is to abandon 5 May and to have an early but separate referendum so that the British people can concentrate on resolving this issue for the good of the nation.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I do not want to detain the Committee but, until I read the Marshalled List, I was unaware of the issue that my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock was going to raise.
The more I think about it, the proposition in the Bill is utterly ludicrous. The Liberal Democrats must understand that the idea that we will have joint platforms either for or against the question being answered positively does not arise. The Liberal Democrats more than any other party should know of the bitterness that often exists at local level during campaigning. How is it possible to have a full, honest, open and participatory debate if the people at the heart of it are factionalised and arguing among themselves about the greater issue of who will be in Parliament and who will be on the local authority? I cannot understand the logic.
Who is driving this on? Where is all the pressure coming from? After four days of listening to these debates, have not Liberal Democrats and the coalition realised that there might be something wrong with the way in which we are proceeding, particularly when some of us are passionately in favour of electoral reform? We are worried that it will all go wrong. The only way forward, it seems to me, is for the parties in the coalition to sit down privately, without telling anyone, and to think through again whether there is a need to further amend the proposed legislation, perhaps even against the new timetable.
What is the pressure for the timetable? Why in the first year are we faced with a Bill for a five-year fixed-term Parliament? Why are we so preoccupied in this year one in getting through the legislation in this form? Can we not afford another 12 or 18 months? What will be lost by delaying and getting the question and the process right? We would then have a chance of a successful resolution. We are being stampeded into a decision. It is like a panic-based decision, which will result in it all coming apart. If it does not come apart, we will end up with the wrong system. The Conservative element of the coalition will be faced with an electoral system for which it will be held responsible historically. Why cannot the coalition just sit down for perhaps a matter of months to reconsider this part of the legislation with a view to coming back following the inquiry that a number of us have asked for, having decided on a proper system and process?
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, despite the lateness of the hour, I rise with some enthusiasm to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I thought that he made a powerful case for why it is a mistake to have this referendum poll on the same date as the Scottish parliamentary elections. In doing so, he did not draw on nearly all the arguments that exist, as has been apparent from other contributions.
I am struck by the contribution of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours allied to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. From the different perspectives of reform, I thought that they made complementary cases on why the Government should be persuaded to take more time over this process and to get it right. If we are to get a decision about the way in which we elect the House of Commons for a generation or more—or, indeed, for ever—it does not seem unreasonable to ask for time to think about the full implications of the decision that we are making and to test that even by discussion among parties or, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggests, among those who broadly favour reform. Furthermore, I thought that the analysis of my noble friend Lord Lipsey of the effect of the coalition’s proposal was deadly accurate.
I have been listening to debates in Committee on this issue and have been struck by the number of contributions supporting contemporaneous polls from people who, I have the sense, have not done much campaigning to encourage activists and electors to engage in polling. They may well have organised campaigns from the centre, but not out there in the streets as I have done time and again. It is challenging to try to encourage activists to go out with you often in quite inclement weather in Scotland, even at that time of the year, to knock on hundreds of doors, to spend hours and hours on doorsteps engaging with people and persuading them that they should come out during a particular window of opportunity. To ask people to do that and, at the same time, to support a campaign that involves them working with those whom they are campaigning against will be almost impossible. I know from the activists whom I have tried to engage and have worked with successfully on numerous occasions that that is a difficult thing to do. This should not be complicated any more than it needs to be.
I have already contributed to this debate and I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments that I made when the Committee considered this issue before, but I must say today that I have been reassured that not only did we win that argument—although we were unable to persuade the coalition Government to accept the consequences—but it seems that, subconsciously, we have persuaded more members of the coalition than we thought. For example, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, adopt exactly the argument that he opposed days ago and earlier today in his opposition to 16 and 17 year-olds having the vote. If he is not consciously aware that he has absorbed the argument, subconsciously his political acumen is telling him that there is something in it, because he repeated the argument.
Earlier, I suggested to the Committee that one reason why we should not have the Scottish Parliament elections and the referendum on the same day is that the London-centric media will dominate the debate and drown out the voices of Scottish politicians as they try to persuade people to engage with the issues that are important to them concerning who forms the Scottish Government for the next four years. I remember that argument being pooh-poohed, but I heard it repeated back to me today by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, as a justification for why we can be sanguine about the effect that having these elections on the same day will have on the 15 or 20 per cent of the vote, concentrated in London, who will not be part of a contemporaneous process. We are told that the London-centric media will be strong enough to counteract the differential turnout. Because I have done it myself, I admire the ability to use an argument that one opposes in a different set of circumstances for a different purpose. I do not admire the ability to use an argument that one opposes on a different occasion in the same set of circumstances. We seem to be persuading people much more than we thought on these Benches, from the results that we are having with the coalition.
However, I want to major on another point, which concerns respect. Having the referendum poll on the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament shows a distinct lack of respect for the Scottish Parliament. The proposal has created in Scotland a unique coalition of opposition. That coalition of opposition was reflected in the views expressed and the vote cast in the Scottish Parliament itself. The Scottish Parliament, the electoral body that will have an election on the same day, has said to this Parliament, “Do not do this to us. Do not impose this dichotomy on our electorate on the same day and please do not do it against the background of the experience that we had in 2007, when a similar set of circumstances were created”.
I read that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Scotland Office dealt with this argument in the House of Commons by saying that he had no response to that debate or that decision because not one argument was rehearsed in the Scottish Parliament debate that had not been rehearsed in the other place or in this Parliament and that therefore he did not need to take cognisance of it. That is disrespectful in the extreme and we in this place should be above that sort of argument.
I believe that the coalition is required to give Scottish parliamentarians, who have expressed their view in that way, an explanation as to why they are not listening to them. They particularly require to do that because this same coalition Government have just published a Bill that accepts a recommendation of the Calman commission that will give that Parliament the responsibility for organising its elections once that Bill becomes an Act. The Government have said, “In principle, we accept the argument that the Scottish Parliament should be a sovereign body in relation to the conduct of its own elections”. That is now printed in a Bill that they hope to persuade this House and the other place to support. At the same time, they are saying, “We will ride roughshod over your recent exercise—potentially—of that right by imposing on you a coincidence of polls that you say you do not want”. What is the coalition Government’s position?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I do not see any contradiction between giving the Scottish Parliament sovereignty over its own electoral matters and the right of this Parliament, which is sovereign over United Kingdom matters, to decide how referenda that apply throughout the United Kingdom should be decided. To abdicate that principle is not a matter of disrespect but a recognition of the principle of subsidiarity. That is deeply rooted in our constitutional understanding of devolution and membership of the European Union. We are entitled to take decisions in this Parliament that govern how this Parliament’s membership will be arrived at. We do not defer to Europe on that issue or to any regional or other body in this country on these matters.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention because he sets the context for the argument that I am making. I am not making a legalistic argument. As he knows, I am well versed in the legal relationship between the devolved Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament and was close to the process that delivered that settlement for the people of Scotland. I agree entirely with him in a legalistic sense but, if I understand his argument, he is now saying from the Liberal Democrat Benches that the Liberal Democrats’ attitude, or at least his attitude, to the Scottish Parliament is: “We have known the date of your election for four years, but we want that date. You can move”. If the implication of the noble Lord’s argument is accepted, that will at a stroke in Scotland undermine the only reason that we have heard articulated in this Chamber for why the coalition Government want to have the referendum on the same day as the Scottish Parliament election.
If I understand the noble Lord, he is saying, “We want to do these two votes on the same day to maximise the turnout, but if you are right”—and we have to accept that they are closer to this than we are—“that this will do a disservice to your election, feel free to move your election. Of course, we have known about the date of that election for four years, but the lack of respect that we have for you is such that you can move over and we will take your date, even if we don’t get your turnout”. That is not the argument that this House, this Parliament or, indeed, the coalition Government should be putting before the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland have spoken through their Parliament and said, “Please do not do this to us. Our electoral system and Parliament are important to us. Do not do this to us”. It seems to me, for all the reasons that have been rehearsed, that they create an argument that is in favour of the objective that the noble Lord wants to achieve. It does not seem to be unreasonable to ask the coalition Government to accede to that request.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, in this group there are two amendments and the clause stand part debate. The first, Amendment 39, is in the name of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and seeks to delete Clause 4(3) on taking,
“The polls for the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary general election”,
together. The second amendment, Amendment 39A, is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I have also given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. I will come back on anything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, says about Amendment 39A. That might be the fairest way to deal with it, unless the noble and learned Lord wants to speak before me on Amendment 39A. I am entirely in his hands.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If the noble and learned Lord thinks it would be helpful for me to speak to Amendment 39A, I will also deal with the other points that have been made and perhaps come back to him after he has had an opportunity to speak.
This has been an interesting debate. Some of the arguments have been well rehearsed before. In a debate a week ago tonight in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, sought in a very similar amendment not to have the referendum on 5 May. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, responded, and the House took the view quite clearly that the amendment should not pass. I am always slightly wary of this position. I can understand the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Campbell-Savours, who I think are basically in favour of some form of electoral reform, counselling against the date, but when the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who I know wants a no vote, tries to tell Liberal Democrats what is in their best interests, Greeks bearing gifts tend to come to mind. It is also interesting that the two sides of the argument—the one side that wants no and the other side that wants yes—think that there are equally good reasons for not having the referendum on 5 May. In some respects, they cancel each other out.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble and learned Lord will recall that when I said that, I was talking about a conversation that I had had with a Liberal Democrat Peer, whom I wanted to remain anonymous, who argued with me that the date should be separate and that he should support my amendment. I was saying that this was the advice that I was being given from one anonymous Liberal Democrat.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I know that the noble Lord is always willing to give advice to Liberal Democrats. It is for Liberal Democrats to judge when and when not to accept his advice.
We rehearsed some of these arguments with the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, during the debate in the House last Thursday on the order relating to the Scottish elections in 2011. The point about this debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which indeed relates to Scotland, in combination with the clause stand part debate on local elections and perhaps some mayoralty elections in England, elections to the Welsh National Assembly, and a series of elections and other local referendums in Northern Ireland on the same day, is that the effect of the noble Lord’s amendment—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
What the Government are doing in the Bill is saying that the polls to be taken together are local authority elections in England, local referendums in England not Northern Ireland, and mayoral elections in England, as well as the Welsh Assembly general election, the Scottish parliamentary general election, the general election of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Northern Ireland local elections.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is correct. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for setting that out ad longam. However, the point about the amendment, or indeed the clause failing to pass, is not that the poll for the referendum on the electoral system for the alternative vote could not take place on 5 May; it is, rather, that two polls could take place but would not be combined. It is important that we recognise just what the impact would be either of not letting this clause stand part or of passing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That is an interesting point. Clause 4(1) states:
“Where the date of the poll for one or more of the following is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together”.
That refers to,
“a local authority election in England … a local referendum in England … a mayoral election in England”.
What the noble and learned Lord has said in relation to that is right; that is, if they are on the same day, they can all take place in the same polling station. However, Clause 4(2) to (4) appear to be different. They state that it is compulsory for the polls to be taken together, so they have to be on the same day.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That point was raised on Report in another place. In fact, it does not need necessarily to be the referendum. I think that I am right in saying that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly have the powers themselves to move the date. Therefore, if they were to use those powers, it would not make sense that they should be stuck together. Amendment 39A seeks to address that point.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Will the noble and learned Lord confirm what I am saying? Under Clause 4(1), it is permissive, if they are on the same day, for the three named elections to be dealt with together—for example, in the same polling station. Subsections (2) to (4) refer to the Welsh Assembly elections, the Scottish parliamentary elections and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections. As a result of this wording, they have to take place on the same day.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If that is taken along with Amendment 39A, which provides:
“If any of the elections referred to in subsections (2) to (4) are not held on the same day as the referendum, this Part has effect with any necessary adaptations and in particular … if the Welsh Assembly general election in 2011 is not held on that day, subsection (2) and Schedule 6 do not apply”.
There is a similar provision for the Scottish parliamentary election. Paragraph (c) to be inserted under Amendment 39A states that,
“if any of the elections referred to in subsection (4) are not held on that day, that subsection and Schedule 8 either do not apply or apply only in relation to the elections that are held on that day”.
So there is provision for a separation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
To come back on that, I found the drafting of Amendment 39A extraordinary. Under Clause 4(2) to (4), there is a requirement, as the noble and learned Lord has just confirmed, to have the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections on the same day. But if they are not held on the same day—for a hurricane or something like that—then provision is made. Surely, subsections (2) to (4) would need to be amended as well in order to give meaning to Amendment 39A.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The purpose of the combination is that if the elections take place on the same day and are not, for some other reason, separated, they should be combined. If they are not combined, the amendment would have the polls being conducted on the same day, but separately. For example, there would be no effective provision for administrators to use the same ballot boxes. There would have to be separate polling stations, which, technically could be within the same building, but they would have to be separate, or they might not necessarily be in the same building. As I am sure that the noble and learned Lord realises, that is the purpose of the combination.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am sorry, but if the noble and learned Lord looks at the wording, there is a distinction. Clause 4(1) refers to the fact that where they are on the same day they can be held together, which is plainly the point about not having to be in separate polling stations. Subsections (2), (3) and (4), as I thought the noble and learned Lord had confirmed, are drafted in different terms and are put on the basis that:
“The polls for the referendum and the Welsh Assembly general election … are to be taken together”.
So there is a requirement that they must be taken together, which means that they must be on the same day.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble and learned Lord will recall—he is stating the obvious—that when this Bill was brought to this House from the other place the referendum, prior to the successful amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would have been on the same day. Therefore, as they were going to be on the same day, it made good sense, as I hope the House would agree, that the polls should be combined. I do not think that the Government should stand accused because there has been an amendment—the consequential amendment was not necessarily made here. In the debate last Wednesday, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was encouraging the Government to bring forward an order which would make it 5 May but could be subject to change as long as it was before 31 October.
So, when the Bill came to this House it stated that the referendum would be held on 5 May. That is the date for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore it makes sense, if the referendum is still to be held on 5 May, and indeed it is still the Government’s position that they can achieve a referendum on that date. The Bill that was passed by the other place, published and brought to this House provided that the referendum would take place on the same day. I hope the noble and learned Lord and other Members of the Committee would agree that if they are held on the same day, it makes eminent common sense to combine the polls, and that is what is sought in Clause 4.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
What the noble and learned Lord says is correct. If they are to be held on the same day, it is wholly sensible to combine them. Why are subsections (2), (3) and (4) set out in different terms from subsection (1)? If the reason for Amendment 39A is the result of my noble friend Lord Rooker’s amendment, why not just amend it and say that if the polls for the referendum and the Welsh Assembly take place on the same day, which is the effect of subsection (1), then they are to be taken together?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I think that I have explained this. It has been a matter of some debate, but nevertheless it was expected that the elections to the Scottish Parliament would be held on 5 May 2011. It was expected that the elections to the Welsh Assembly would also be held on that day. Therefore, given that that was the date originally set out in the Bill as it came to the House prior to amendment, it makes sense to combine them. But before I sit down I will try to set out why the terms are somewhat different for the polls that will be taking place in England on that date. It could be that a particular date has not yet been set for a particular local referendum. That could be a possible explanation, but before I conclude, I hope there may be some explanation as to why the terminology is somewhat different.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Could my noble and learned friend address the whole issue of confusion? On 5 May, two important issues are going to be debated with the voters. One is who gets elected to all these local bodies, the Scottish Parliament and so forth, and the other is the question of the referendum on the alternative vote. But as we have discovered already, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, may campaign in favour of the alternative vote and in favour of a Labour candidate. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will campaign in favour of a Labour candidate and against the alternative vote. Is this not going to create confusion among the electors? Even on the Conservative Benches, if we look hard enough we may find someone here who is in favour of the alternative vote. I do not know who it is, but if we look hard enough, perhaps we will find somebody. They would ask voters to be in favour of the alternative vote in the referendum while at the same time supporting a Conservative candidate, while the overwhelming number of Conservatives would probably ask voters to vote against the alternative vote and in favour of the Conservative candidate.
These are two important issues. Is there not a very strong argument to consider them on separate days so that they can be debated properly and separately? They will not then be mixed up in the way that they are due to be at the moment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
In reply to my noble friend, these issues were rehearsed when considering a specific amendment not to have the referendum on 5 May next year. The amendment was defeated by 210 votes to 166. I do not doubt for a moment that there will be a campaign on the yes and the no sides for change to the alternative vote and that people will also be campaigning on the local elections. I do not believe that that will confuse the voters. There will be a clear question on what system of elections they want for the other place in the future and there will be clear questions on who they want to elect to the local council, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly. While I suspect that the co-operation between parties may not be as cordial as it might otherwise be, as we have already seen embryonically, various people across the parties are coming together to mount joint campaigns for the yes or the no vote. It is rather a sad reflection on our politics that people who want to come together to argue a particular case for a future voting system cannot do that and campaign for a local candidate of their own party at the same time.
Lord Campbell-Savours
May I remind the noble and learned Lord that he is speaking to his amendment, and that the contribution he has just made should follow on the next contribution, which comes from my noble friend who will wind up the debate prior to the Minister’s reply?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
With respect, my noble friend asked a question and I thought it only courteous to give him an immediate reply.
Lord Rooker
I had not really studied this amendment, and it did not cross my mind that it was a reaction to last week’s amendment. However, Amendment 39A says:
“If any of the elections referred to in subsections (2) to (4)”—
that is, the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—
“are not held on the same day”.
What are the circumstances envisaged in which they will not take place on the same day? I did not think that they controlled their own dates at present, so which circumstances have brought about Amendment 39A whereby those elections would not take place on the same day as the referendum? I am not clear about that.
I have another point. The accounting officers of those Parliaments will be driven by subsections (2), (3) and (4), which order those elections to be taken together at the same time as the clause envisages that they will not be. The lawyers in those areas will be spending money on planning, but it looks as though there are two different and contradictory instructions on what will be in the same clause. But my main point is the first one—what are the circumstances envisaged?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am hugely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for allowing me the opportunity to explain the origin of this. I do not want to disappoint him; it was not as a direct response to his amendment which was carried. As I indicated, the Bill provides in this clause for a combination of the poll on a referendum with the polls for the elections to the devolved legislatures. During the Bill’s Report stage in another place concerns were raised that the current drafting of the clauses restricts the ability set out in existing legislation for the date of the elections to the devolved Assemblies to be moved to a day which would be different from that on which the referendum is scheduled to take place. In order to avoid confusion, we have tabled this amendment to make it clear that the existing legislative powers to change the date of the polls for the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish parliamentary election and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections are not affected by the combination provisions in the Bill.
I think I am right in saying that the Scottish Parliament can bring forward the election. I am getting reassurance on that from a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Lothians region, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It can bring it forward by six months on a two-thirds vote or resolution of the Parliament. Concern was expressed—I do not think that it was specific to Scotland—that it might be felt that the statutory provisions in the Scotland Act, and in the parallel provisions of the legislation establishing the Welsh National Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, were being impeded or restricted in some way by this provision. It was to avoid any confusion of that nature that this amendment was tabled, to make it clear that the existing powers are not affected.
I hope it is accepted that that is a perfectly valid position to take. If any of these Parliaments or Assemblies wish to change it within their own statutory powers, for whatever reason, that should not be inhibited by the provision in the Bill. This is for clarification. I defer to one of the noble Lords who saw through the Scotland Bill all of 12 years ago.
Lord Sewel
Not only that, my Lords, but I have form in that I put a referendum Bill through this House at one stage. Does the noble Lord accept that the empirical evidence, both from this country and from one which has used referenda many times in a quasi-political role, France, is overwhelmingly that when it comes to referenda the electorate votes not on the question before them but on the popularity of the Government of the time? On this issue, does not conflating the issue of the merits of the electoral system with the popularity of a Government fill him with horror, particularly in Scotland?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Given that one part of the Government is likely to be supporting the yes campaign and one part, as likely as not, will be supporting the no campaign, I rather think that that might encourage people to look at the merits rather than find the best way to take it out on the Government. If there are two parties in a coalition and they are on either side of the argument, it is difficult for that argument to hold as much water as I accept that perhaps it has in the past. I am sure that the referendum on 1 March 1979 was not helped by coming immediately on the back of the winter of discontent. Nevertheless, that allowed a fair amount of cross-party support to try to get the yes vote out, and indeed the no vote. It is up to those of us who want to campaign to ensure that we are campaigning on the issues and not on some test of the parties in power. The fact that the poll is being held on the same day as other elections may mean that some of the more partisan effects that referendums—or referenda, whichever is your preference—may have on the question could be channelled into the elections being held that day. It may mean that we can have a proper debate on the relative merits of changing to the alternative vote system or of sticking with first past the post.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Minister is giving a very helpful explanation of why he has put this amendment forward. In the light of what he has said, I now understand why he has done so, but the amendment does not seem to achieve its end. I understand him to be saying that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly have the power to change the date of their elections and that, if they did so, the Government would not seek to move the date of the referendum. So the Government’s position is that if the polls are on the same day, they should be combined.
Clause 4(1) says precisely that. Why on earth are the Government drafting the Bill in the terms in which it appears to be drafted—that the polls for the referendum, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have to be held on the same day? Why are they not drafting it on the basis that, if the polls for the referendum and the Welsh Assembly are on the same day, they are to be taken together?
We do not agree with combination—we will come to that later when we say that Clause 4 should not stand part—but I cannot understand why the Minister is being advised that this is the way to achieve what he so clearly describes. Why are the Government not just saying that if the polls are on the same day, they are to be taken together?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As I have already explained, 5 May was the date originally set out in the Bill. I do not think that anyone is disputing that. It was the date set down for the elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I shall speculate, and I hope that I can get confirmation for this, that there could be a local authority election in England that may not necessarily be on 5 May, whereas the Scottish parliamentary election has been set for 5 May.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble and learned Lord says that it could be changed. That is why we have brought forward the amendment. I do not believe that it contradicts at all.
I shall recapitulate. There could be a local authority election in England that need not be on 5 May. When the Bill was brought to this House, having been passed by the other place, it had been agreed in the other place that the referendum should be on 5 May. That was the date set for the Scottish election, the Welsh Assembly election and the Northern Ireland Assembly election. It therefore makes sense, and I think that this has been widely conceded, that if the elections were to be held on the same day, as was anticipated when the Bill was brought to this House, the polls should be combined for a host of good, sound administrative reasons. Subsequently there has been a change.
It was drawn to our attention on Report in another place that there was a potential problem. Because of the inherent powers in the statutes establishing the three devolved institutions, the election might not be on 5 May if they chose, for whatever reason, to exercise those powers. That is why Amendment 39A has been tabled. The noble and learned Lord may wish to debate whether it achieves its purpose. I think I have explained what its purpose is; it is to ensure that there was no dubiety and that the powers given to the Assemblies and the Parliament were not in any way infringed by the provisions.
That is it, very simply. I think it is relatively simple. The dates were anticipated, because of the way the Bill stood, to be the same. There could be a local authority election in England that did not necessarily fall on 5 May. The purpose of the government amendment is to provide that, if the Scottish Parliament—for the sake of argument—wished to change the date, it would be allowed to do so. It would not be inhibited from doing so by these provisions.
That is why the political arguments around whether the date is right or wrong are not relevant to this clause, which is, in some respects, a technical clause. It links to the various schedules. I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who pointed to all the schedules when my noble friend Lord McNally said that this is a simple Bill. The schedules have been put into primary legislation, making provision for combining polls in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are four separate schedules, covering matters that, in many cases, would be put into secondary legislation. However, for simplicity and given the nature of this matter, it made more sense for them to appear in primary legislation in the Bill. This led to extending the length of the Bill considerably, but that is why the schedules are there: it was thought better to have the combination of provisions in the Bill.
I rather hope the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will accept that the consequence of his amendment—this is why I ask him to withdraw it—would not necessarily be to change the date of the poll. He has already lost an amendment specifically on that. It would, however, mean that if the two polls were held on the same date, they could not be formally combined. Therefore, there might be people who would have to go to two separate polling stations. That is not in anyone’s interests.
I know that this is perhaps more technical than I anticipated but it is not a political argument about the date of the poll. It is a technical one, which says that if the polls fall on the same date—it is still the Government’s intention that we should achieve that on 5 May—it is in the interests of those who would take part, not least those who are administering it, such as the returning officers, that the situation should be simplified as far as possible. I recall a Question in the House, asked by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, in July, about a letter from the convenor for the Interim Electoral Management Board for Scotland. He asked formally for the polls to be combined if the election and the referendum took place on the same day. This is our response to the spirit of that request.
No doubt we will come back to this if issues are raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will appreciate that, whatever the political argument—there has been plenty of political debate—the technical argument means that it makes much more sense to combine the polls, as proposed in this clause. His amendment would have the rather unfortunate effect of splitting them, should they take place on the same day.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
It is important to see what Clause 4 says. That is why it is worth taking some time over these things. Clause 4(1) says:
“Where the date of … a local authority election … a local referendum”,
and,
“a mayoral election in England”,
is the same as that of a referendum, the polls can be combined. That does not commit the Government to having them on the same day. It is expressly conditional on their being on the same date.
The drafting of subsections (2), (3) and (4) is in different terms for reasons that are inexplicable, unless their purpose is to make it compulsory to have the polls on the same day. As far as that is concerned, although I completely accept that the Government intend that the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to exercise their powers to move the date, the fact that you have what appears on the face of it to be compulsion to hold the relevant polls on the same day appears to me, constitutionally, to lead to a situation whereby subsections (2), (3) and (4) would override the power of the Scottish Parliament to do that. The Government do not intend that outcome and therefore they should amend subsections (2), (3) and (4) to make them the same as subsection (1).
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is important to read Amendment 39A before one gets too deeply involved in this argument. Amendment 39A says that if the relevant polls are to be on different days, “this Part” of the Bill—that includes subsections (2), (3) and (4)—has effect. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had drafted Amendment 39A, it might have been worded differently. Unfortunately, he is not, as yet, a member of parliamentary counsel and therefore he is left to criticise what they have done. However, parliamentary counsel have not left his point out of account, as the amendment states that “this Part” of the Bill, including subsections (2), (3) and (4), will be construed in this way.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, had drafted these amendments, I anticipate that he would have drafted them differently as well. On the face of it, this drafting confronts you with subsections (2), (3) and (4) comprising a compelling combination. Amendment 39A says:
“If any of the elections … are not held on the same day”,
yet subsections (2), (3) and (4) compel them to be on the same day. I completely understand what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is seeking to achieve and I do not seek to stand in his way. However, his obdurate refusal to consider doing it the obvious way—namely, inserting at the beginning of subsections (2), (3) and (4), “if they are on the same day, they will be have to be combined”—causes me confusion. I earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord to ask his officials politely and respectfully whether it would not be easier to use the same wording as that used in subsection (1) and get rid of the confusion.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
As a mere junior counsel in the face of two of the most eminent senior counsels this country has ever seen, I enter this debate with great trepidation. I am extraordinarily grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer because the penny has dropped for me. The amendment that the Government propose becomes effective only if the polls do not take place on the same day. As long as the Bill stands as it is drafted, they can take place only on the same day.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is right and I refer him to the comparison between subsections (1) and (2), (3) and (4). However, I have made my point and I earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to consider taking the government amendment away and coming back with a measure on Report to achieve his aim, should Clause 4 still remain part of the Bill after the Committee stage.
I wish to address what the noble and learned Lord rightly describes as the political aspects of this. Clause 4 is included to allow for the combination of polls. It is intended to ensure that a variety of elections can take place together. As a matter of principle, we think that that is the wrong approach to that issue. There is no dispute in any part of the House regarding the importance of the referendum. I cannot recall a referendum over the past 150 years—it is more a case of reflecting on history than personal recollection—which concerned the voting system. I think most people in this House would agree that we should hold referenda only in relation to very important constitutional issues. The referenda held since the Second World War concerned: the partition of Ireland; staying in the European Union; the 1978 referendum on devolved Assemblies for Wales and Scotland; and the 1998 referendum on devolved Parliaments or Assemblies for Wales and Scotland—all very important issues. As far as I am aware, each of those referendums has taken place alone, without there being any other poll on the same day. That is a sensible course whereby this country’s approach to referenda is that you have them only when there is an important constitutional issue. We heard from my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, who both said how important the issue is.
We also have the report from your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, which is a cross-party organisation that spoke unanimously on the issue. The committee cited evidence that the effect of having elections on the same day as a referendum is that the referendum debate gets swamped by the election of individual people. If you look at America, where frequently referenda take place on the same day as elections—such as those in November this year—you find that no one pays much attention to the referenda and everyone pays attention to the election of individual people. If the Select Committee of this House is right, you are in danger of the referendum question being swamped by the election of people in the three—or even four, if there is also a mayoral election—other elections going on at the same time.
Why is this being done if it is such an important issue? Everyone in this House wants the constitution properly to be given effect to. I do not want there to be a sense of illegitimacy about the result. Whatever view one takes about this referendum, one wants it to be decisive—decisively in favour of either first past the post or the alternative vote system. The result could be close, but you would want a good turnout and the sense that the question had properly been addressed.
This is the second national referendum in 120 years. It is the first one to affect our electoral system—the one that will make people have a view about whether they trust their electoral system. This Government, as I understand it, justify bringing the referendum together on the same day as the other elections when there is formidable evidence that it leads to the question being swamped. The Government justify that on the basis that it will save some money. Money is important, but it may be that the legitimacy of our constitution is more important.
This is a fundamental point of principle, and it is not too late for the Government to change their position. I should have thought that everyone on the government side, whether they are for or against a change in the electoral system, would want the result of the referendum to be something that the country has confidence in. What we are doing on this side is, in effect, reflecting the arguments of experts who say that having the referendum on the same day as other elections is not a good idea. It deprives the result of legitimacy.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He gave an American example, because he could not refer to any British example or precedent. However, as recently as November, California—a state close to bankruptcy—decided in one day both to change the party in government there and have a conservative outcome in a referendum on gay marriage. I do not think that it is appropriate to draw any conclusions from the American example, except that people are intelligent enough to understand what they are doing—and they do it even when there appears to be some conflict between their decisions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The American experience, which is part of the evidence relied on in these debates, suggests that in the polls in November, either in mid-term or general election years, the tendency of the public is not to focus on the proposition but to focus primarily on the people they are electing. In the coverage in November I did not spot the result of the proposition in California; all I spotted, which is where all the coverage was in America, was who was going to win in California. So the American experience tends to confirm what the Select Committee said—that the referendum question gets swamped in the question, for example, of who you want to be your Government in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Why is it being done like this? Is it only to save money or are there other reasons? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to which we have all agreed, has given the Government the opportunity to hold the referendum on a different day. In answer to my opposition to Clause 4 standing part, it is necessary for the Government to say why they think it is right that this critical question should be dealt with on a day when there are other polls; when it has never before been done in our history; when experience in other jurisdictions suggests that the referendum question gets swamped; when anyone who has any care for our constitution wants the result to be decisive. I do not want a situation where whichever Government are in power seek to change the electoral system; I want something that is settled as far as the people are concerned. That has always been the purpose of referenda in the past. Furthermore, quite separately from those points of principle, there is inevitably scope for confusion with so many elections going on with different electorates.
I shall listen very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, justifying why an issue as important as this is being dealt with in a way which seems to make it harder to come to a legitimate result than easier.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as I indicated when I spoke earlier in dealing with these amendments, the nature of Clause 4 is of a technical combination; it is not one of the political arguments. The political argument was debated in this House quite thoroughly last Monday evening in Committee and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde gave the answers to the questions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. He may not have liked the answers, but that is a different matter. The House then came to a view and endorsed the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. The amendment seeking not to have the referendum on 5 May—which I think was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes; he will correct me if I am wrong—was defeated.
The purpose of Clause 4, as I have indicated, is of a technical nature. It ensures that if the polls take place on the same day they are combined. That makes good sense for the voter—who I hope is still the most important person in this—and it makes good sense for those administering the elections. The Opposition have acknowledged and conceded that that is the case and that the technical arguments are very strong.
The London mayoral referendum took place on the same day as London elections, so the idea that having a referendum on the same day as elections is unprecedented does not hold water. As that was brought forward by the party of the noble and learned Lord when it was in government, one assumes it thought that it was quite an important referendum. Given that we have had only one UK-wide referendum in our history, I do not think we can use it to set a precedent. As I said, the arguments on the politics have already been made in a previous debate. This is very much a debate on the technical nature of combination.
The reason why the terms are different in subsection (1) is that the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly are fixed by statute. The particular local elections are not necessarily fixed by statute, hence the different wording. The amendment of my noble friend Lord McNally has the same effect.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Why does the fact that it is fixed by statute but can be changed make a difference?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Sorry, I do not follow the noble and learned Lord’s point. In the Bill as it originally stood prior to any amendment, the date was to coincide with the statutory dates for the other elections—hence the wording of these proposals. My noble friend’s amendment makes provision that, if the referendum was not on the same day as a poll for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly, the relevant schedule will not apply and, therefore, they will not be combination. That is what this clause is about and what this amendment is about. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to withdraw his amendment, as it could have an unfortunate effect, which I am sure is not what he intends. I ask the Committee to support the clause, which is important from a technical point of view, not least in the interests of voters.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
This has been a very interesting and revealing debate. If noble Lords were not confused before they came into the Chamber, I am sure that they are now. My amendment would remove the subsection that says:
“The polls for the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary general election in 2011 are to be taken together”.
Nothing could be clearer than that, could it? Then we have the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, tabled in a panic, because of something that happened on Report elsewhere. It refers to a circumstance “if” they are,
“not held on the same day”.
Which takes precedence? Surely saying that they are to be taken together means that they are to be taken together. Nothing could be clearer than that. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor, said that if that said that they were to be taken together, they were to be taken together.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I did not say that. I said that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, affects the whole of that part, including subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 4. It modifies the phrasing that the noble Lord has quoted. I agree that that could have been done differently, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, says. I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that, if I had been doing it, it would have been different; that is a different judgment altogether. However, it makes sense that the clause that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is talking about is affected by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, if it passed, when it says that the clause is to be modified if this happens.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I hope that that is now clear. There is a lot of money to be made by lawyers one way or another in challenging this. Certainly, it looks strange to me.
I have a couple of things to say in relation to the debate on the amendment in the few minutes that we have left. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, made a powerful point when he said that an extensive debate on the referendum was needed. Someone said in a previous debate that this great debate needed its own space, unsullied by local and Scottish elections. My noble friend Lord Lipsey spoke as usual with eloquence and grace, although I disagreed with much of what he said. One thing that I did agree with was his questioning of the idea that this was a simple Bill. It is not a simple Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, described it as aiming for fair votes and fair boundaries. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, and now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have clearly been given a remit from Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron to get this Bill through at all costs. They have been told, “Put your heads down and don’t worry about the arguments. If points are made by the other side, don’t worry too much about answering them. Just get it through”. That is what they are trying to do. As I said in a previous debate, this is the Clegg project and it must be got through.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked an important Question at Question Time today about holding the Executive to account. This Chamber of Parliament should have some respect for holding the Executive to account, and the Executive should have some respect for debates and votes that take place in this Chamber. The questions that have been raised have been ignored. They are sincere and important questions, which are not being answered from the Dispatch Box. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, did a much better job of answering the questions today than he has done previously. I understand that the questions concern the technicalities of the poll. However, when I moved my amendment, I, too, dealt with the technicalities of the poll and said that there would be great confusion because of the two franchises taking place. Because of the technical argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and because of his plea to me to withdraw the amendment, I will do so, on the basis that it would be much better for all of us if we struck out Clause 4.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to think again about the wording of the government amendment. I have made it clear that we would support what he wants to do if Clause 4 stands part, but I believe that the Government have not got it right and I ask them to think again. In relation to Clause 4 stand part, I will seek the opinion of the Committee, because this is the means of allowing the polls to be held together. It is right that the clause has technical aspects, but it is basically the foundation of the polls being held together.
Lord McNally
“( ) If any of the elections referred to in subsections (2) to (4) are not held on the same day as the referendum, this Part has effect with any necessary adaptations and in particular—
(a) if the Welsh Assembly general election in 2011 is not held on that day, subsection (2) and Schedule 6 do not apply (and Part 3 of Schedule 4 applies with the necessary adaptations);(b) if the Scottish parliamentary general election in 2011 is not held on that day, subsection (3) and Schedule 7 do not apply (and Part 3 of Schedule 4 applies with the necessary adaptations);(c) if any of the elections referred to in subsection (4) are not held on that day, that subsection and Schedule 8 either do not apply or apply only in relation to the elections that are held on that day.”