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
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
1. What recent discussions he has had on steps to deal with the past in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have met with political parties, community organisations, academics and victims groups from across the community to discuss dealing with the past. We will continue to listen to the views of people in Northern Ireland to find a way forward on this sensitive and contentious issue.
Mr Campbell
The Secretary of State made a commitment, which he repeated several times, that there would be no more costly, open-ended inquiries. Any decision by him to hold a further, restricted inquiry—for example, into the Pat Finucane incident—would be opposed on the one hand by nationalists and republicans, but regarded by others as a prerequisite for long-standing grievances, against the Irish Republic’s Government, for example, to be inquired into. Is it not more sensible and consistent for the Secretary of State to say, “We’ve reached the end of the inquiry road”?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is quite right: our stated policy is that we do not want to see any more costly and open-ended inquiries. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during the debate on the Saville statement that we would look at individual cases. Our position on the Finucane case—a contentious case, as the hon. Gentleman knows—was laid out clearly in my written ministerial statement on 11 November.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
At the risk of broadening the question from the previous exchange, let me say to the Secretary of State that coming to terms with history is the responsibility of us all. Those who are British, those who are Irish and those who are both welcome the progress that has been made over the past few years and recognise that many have contributed to it.
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to bring as broad a range of people as possible into the process of negotiation, so that when we arrive at a means of going forward, as many people as possible have bought into it.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is in the process of reopening a large number of historical inquests, which will place significant additional financial burdens on the Courts Service and the police service. Given the Government’s responsibilities in relation to the past, how does the Secretary of State intend to approach the sharing of those costs?
Mr Paterson
The right hon. Gentleman played a key role in seeing those powers devolved. He will know that the administration of inquests is a devolved matter that is entirely in the hands of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. It would not be for us to interfere in the mechanics and financing of his Department, which are entirely down to the local Executive.
Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Given the commitments by the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park, and the commitment by those Governments to an inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane, does the Secretary of State recognise that it would be unwise for the British Government to act unilaterally?
Mr Paterson
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is not an easy case, as he had three years to resolve the matter, as the real Secretary of State. He effectively ended up with a Mexican stand-off, where the family wanted one thing and he wanted them to have an inquiry, as I understand it, under the Inquiries Act 2005. He knows that this is not an easy matter to resolve, and that is why I had a helpful meeting with Mrs Finucane and her son. I laid out the process that we intend to follow in my written ministerial statement of 11 November.
Mr Woodward
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have also met with Geraldine Finucane. I pay tribute to the way in which she has conducted herself, as I know he has too. However, notwithstanding his remarks about future inquiries, now that he is the real Secretary of State—as he described it—is he beginning to understand the damage that could be done to community support for the devolved institutions and to the British Government if he were to renege on existing undertakings, made by a previous Government and supported by his party in opposition, to independently investigate the past?
Mr Paterson
I cannot fail to point out that the right hon. Gentleman did not meet Mrs Finucane when he was the Secretary of State. I wrote to her in June, and I had a meeting in November, which was the time that the family chose, and we had a very sensible discussion. He knows that this is not an easy issue to resolve, and I laid out very clearly in the written ministerial statement that a number of issues have to be considered. We are quite open-minded about this, and we are determined to try to find a resolution that is satisfactory to all sides.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the likely effect of proposed changes to public expenditure in Northern Ireland on policing the threat to security from dissident groups.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
3. what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the likely effect of proposed changes to public expenditure in Northern Ireland on policing the threat to security from dissident groups.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
I meet the Justice Minister regularly to discuss the policing of the terrorist threat and related expenditure. I welcome the publication this morning of the Northern Ireland Executive’s draft budget, with its significant allocation to the Department of Justice. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government will ensure that adequate resources are available to meet the threat.
Bill Esterson
Does the Secretary of State understand the very real public concern, not just in Northern Ireland but elsewhere in the United Kingdom, about any cuts in front-line policing in Northern Ireland and the impact that they would have on security and public safety?
Mr Paterson
I am fully aware of the concern that the small number of terrorists presents. That is why the Government have made a fair settlement on the Executive, and I am very pleased today that they have agreed a draft budget with a substantial allocation to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We have made it absolutely clear that, should the security position deteriorate, we will be open to further discussions with the Executive, as was agreed by the previous Government.
Gregg McClymont
The Minister will be aware that the issue of fleet renewal is causing considerable concern. Will he support any request for additional funds from the PSNI to meet the case for fleet renewal?
Mr Paterson
I think that I alluded to that a second ago. We are quite clear that, should the security position deteriorate, and should a good case be made by the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable—one of whom I talked to this morning; I spoke to the other yesterday—we will be prepared to consider going to the contingency reserve for extra funds in order to bear down on the terrorist threat.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that, if the situation were, regrettably, to get worse in Northern Ireland, either immediately or over the course of the next few years, those extra resources would come from the UK Government, rather than from the money already allocated to Northern Ireland?
Mr Paterson
We are absolutely clear about that. It was part of the settlement made by the previous Government that, should there be a deterioration in the security position in Northern Ireland, the Government of the United Kingdom would be prepared to accept a bid, on security grounds, for resources from the contingency reserve. I repeat that emphatically today. I said that to the Justice Minister when I spoke to him this morning.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
In view of the recent revelations on the WikiLeaks website—which were confirmed by the former Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern—that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams had prior knowledge of the Northern bank robbery in 2003, can the Secretary of State confirm that co-operation will take place between the Garda and the PSNI, that a full investigation will take place, that no stone will be left unturned, and that the Historical Enquiries Team will be allowed to pursue this matter in the way that it is pursuing other cases in Northern Ireland?
Mr Paterson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I think that the answer was well put by the party leader at the British-Irish Council in the Isle of Man earlier this week. We are quite clear that those who have a past can explain for themselves. For the present, however, we are content for those who adhere to the Mitchell principles and pursue their legitimate political aims by peaceful democratic means to play a part in the process. The other issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised are matters of law and order; they are matters not for elected Members but for the police and the prosecuting authorities.
Mr Dodds
I am grateful for that answer, as far as it goes. Of course, no one in the Chamber today was at the BIC meeting in the Isle of Man, so I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could elaborate on that point. Will he also make it clear that any resources that the Historical Enquiries Team needs to pursue these particular allegations will be forthcoming, and that the community in Northern Ireland can be assured of an equality of pursuit of allegations in Northern Ireland against dissident republicans and mainstream republicans if they were involved in terrorist activities, such as have been alleged not just by WikiLeaks but by the former Irish Prime Minister?
Mr Paterson
We are strong supporters of the work of the Historical Enquiries Team, who are looking at every one of the 3,268 deaths over the course of the troubles, and we are satisfied that they are absolutely colour-blind in approaching every one of these dreadful incidents. They have also been accredited with neutrality by European institutions, and we are happy that they should pursue their work, which is in the hands of the devolved Administration and financed locally. The Prime Minister and I have been on the record on many occasions, supporting the neutral work of the HET, because we know it does bring significant satisfaction to the families who have so far received reports.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that it has been announced that individuals from my constituency will stand trial next year for the murder of the soldiers in Antrim. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the full rigour of the law needs to be applied and that the sentencing needs to fit the crime?
Mr Paterson
I think that is a sub judice issue. We support the rule of law and it should be pursued by the legitimate people in authority in the legal sphere and the judicial sphere. It is not for us as elected politicians to interfere.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the real Secretary of State for the comments he made earlier, but members of the PSNI tell me that two of their principal anxieties are the dissident threat and, obviously, financial uncertainty. On 10 November, the Secretary of State said that should the situation become worse, the PSNI would
“have the right to approach the Government”—[Official Report, 10 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 276.]
—something which I think we all have. Today, he has gone a little bit further. Will he today stand four-square with the PSNI and say that, should the situation become more grave—which we hope it will not—he will support the PSNI in an application to the contingency reserve?
Mr Paterson
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role. I will say emphatically, for the third time during this Question Time—and I said it to the Chief Constable yesterday and to the Justice Minister this morning—that should the security position in Northern Ireland deteriorate, we will adhere to the arrangements, which we have conceded were fixed by the previous Government, that given a deteriorating security position, the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable can come to the UK Government with a security case for funds from the contingency reserve.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
4. What discussions he has had with the Irish Government on arrangements for the proposed visit by Her Majesty the Queen to the Irish Republic.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
Responsibility for any visit by Her Majesty the Queen lies with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in consultation with Buckingham Palace. I know that the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and the President, Mary McAleese, have expressed their support for a visit by Her Majesty and I very much hope that such a visit will be possible.
Mr Donaldson
In light of the debate that will take place in this House this afternoon and the valuable assistance that we are providing to the Republic of Ireland in its time of need, is it not past time that we had a visit by the sovereign to the Republic of Ireland? After all, the President of the Republic of Ireland has visited the United Kingdom on many occasions and I think it is time now for a degree of maturity and for this issue to be addressed.
Mr Swire
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There has been no formal invitation yet, but he is absolutely right to draw attention to the matter. The UK and Ireland have an entwined relationship: 870,000 Irish-born people live here in the UK and over 90,000 UK citizens live in Ireland, and I hope they will join us in hoping that this visit can go ahead.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend have any concerns about security issues in respect of the Queen’s proposed visit to the Irish Republic?
Mr Swire
I do not think it would be very responsible of me to comment on that, save to say that we work extremely closely with the Garda, they work extremely closely with the PSNI and I have complete faith that they would be able to see that a visit of that sort went off without any trouble whatsoever.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
5. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on future provision of prisons in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
The provision of prisons is now entirely a matter for the devolved Administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s statement to the House of 4 November outlined the discussions he has had with Justice Minister David Ford on the recommendations in the Billy Wright inquiry report.
Mr Hepburn
Will the Government’s spending decisions have any impact on potential new capital projects such as Magilligan prison and the new police training college?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. As we have said before in the House, we are committed to standing by the terms of the policing and justice financial settlement, which will enable the Executive to come to their own view about new capital expenditure, including on Magilligan prison, and we are closer to that with the announcement of the draft budget today, in respect of which we are very grateful to all the parties.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the last couple of days the Prison Service has received some adverse publicity from certain sections of the Northern Ireland media. The Prison Officers Association has stated that it accepts that some degree of change is needed. What discussions has the Minister had with the POA to bring the service forward and to get a balance, which is clearly what we need?
Mr Swire
I have, of course, followed those comments and seen the various interviews with the Justice Minister, David Ford. These are devolved matters: prisons are the responsibility of the Department of Justice. We follow these matters closely, but they are best left to those properly in charge of them.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
6. What assessment his Department has made of assets held by the Republic of Ireland’s National Asset Management Agency in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
We are not in a position to make a detailed assessment of these assets. The Northern Ireland Executive are in touch with the authorities in Dublin and NAMA’s Northern Ireland Advisory Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised Northern Ireland interests in relation to NAMA with the Taoiseach on Monday.
Mark Reckless
Given the difficulty NAMA is having in managing these assets and the Republic’s already over-indebted situation, would it not make sense for us to take some of those assets off its hands, as consideration for financial support we may give?
Mr Swire
My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make those and other points in the debate on the Loans to Ireland Bill—no doubt he will wish to take part in that. I think he should be proud of what we are doing, however. We are now part of the solution rather than the problem, and we believe it is right that we, as a country that has so much trade with the Republic of Ireland, should come to its support at this time, with no conditions.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister has indicated that the Northern Ireland Office is not in a position to make an assessment. Does he believe that the Treasury is in a position to make an assessment, and has it done so?
Mr Swire
That is a good question. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said that discussions continue with the Government in Dublin about NAMA and the way forward, so they are clearly in regular discussions. Again, no doubt my hon. Friend will inform the House about that in the debate this afternoon, and discuss it with those who wish to take part in that debate.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
7. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Northern Ireland Executive on the development of an air transport strategy for Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
The Government fully recognise the importance to Northern Ireland of a suitable framework for air travel, particularly for the economy and export trade. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to engage with colleagues in Government and the Northern Ireland Executive as the new aviation policy framework is developed in the new year.
Dr McDonnell
I thank the Minister for his answer, and endorse the point he makes about an air transport strategy and framework being essential to our economic recovery, particularly in respect of tourism. [Interruption.] Can he assure me, however, that he will do all in his power to work with those responsible—both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland—to ensure that we get a functioning strategy that provides air links to Europe, Canada and the United States? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I wish to hear the Minister’s reply, and I am sure the House wants to hear it as well.
Mr Swire
I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman is right, and I know he represents his constituents well in these matters. A balance has to be struck between extending the amount of flights that are available and the environmental consequences of doing that. I should declare that I have had meetings with Flybe, which operates out of Belfast City, and is based in my constituency. It does an excellent job, and I know it is always looking for new routes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: in order to grow tourism and exports, which we have to do to rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy, we have to make sure that we have transport links that are as good as any other part of the United Kingdom.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
8. What recent discussions he has had on the threat to security in Northern Ireland from residual terrorist groups.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
I meet regularly with my security advisers and David Ford to discuss the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. The threat level in Northern Ireland stands at severe, meaning an attack is highly likely. So far this year there have been 206 arrests, both in Northern Ireland and the Republic, for acts of terrorism and serious criminal incidents related to terrorism.
Robert Halfon
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. How is he working with the Republic of Ireland to facilitate the cross-border strategy for dealing with dissident violence?
Mr Paterson
I am very grateful for that question. Co-operation with the Republic of Ireland on this issue is at an unprecedented level. I pay tribute to the outgoing commissioner, Fachtna Murphy, who has done a tremendous job, and I am delighted that Martin Callinan has been appointed as his successor. [Interruption.] A symbol of that was the cross-border strategy announced this week, showing the unprecedented collaboration between the PSNI and the Garda. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I call the Rev. William McCrea.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the discussions held concerning the serious threat from republican dissidents, has the issue of police manpower been raised? Has due consideration been given to the representation made by the Police Federation concerning police numbers, especially the police reserve, and in light of the relevant extra financial resources that would be necessary?
Mr Paterson
I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place following his illness, as always asking pertinent questions. He will know that police levels in Northern Ireland are the highest in the United Kingdom at 4.2 per 1,000. The numbers of police are for the Chief Constable to decide—it is an operational matter—but as I have said on several occasions already in this Session, we will stand by Northern Ireland and if the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister make a good security case, we will consider access to the contingency fund.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the effects on the Northern Ireland economy of recent financial developments in the Republic of Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
We are concerned about the risk that the current economic difficulties in the Republic of Ireland might have on Northern Ireland. We will continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on these issues. The Financial Secretary and the Secretary of State met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 24 November to discuss these matters.
Mr Hollobone
What steps can my hon. Friend the Minister take to do his best to protect the Northern Ireland economy from the worst effects of the financial crisis in the south?
Mr Swire
As I said before, we should be proud of being part of the solution, rather than the problem, and it is right to stress the interdependence of the two economies. Ireland accounts for 5% of the UK’s total exports. We export more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China together, and it is incredibly important—40% of Northern Ireland’s exports go there as well. So a healthy economy in Dublin is important to a healthy economy in Belfast.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
10. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the provision of resources to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to address security threats from dissident activity.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
PSNI resources are primarily a matter for the devolved Administration. I am delighted that the Executive have agreed a draft budget. This Government will work to support the PSNI where exceptional security pressures exist.
Steve Rotheram
Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has given the Chief Constable of the PSNI a specific assurance that he will continue to have access to additional funds from the reserve, so that vital community-based policing does not suffer from a lack of resource?
Mr Paterson
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of course, in Northern Ireland, community policing is an absolutely vital part of moving the process forward. The Chief Constable has been allocated significant resources in the draft budget today, and it is up to him how to apportion those significant sums of money.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
11. What plans he has to make Northern Ireland an enterprise zone.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)
My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary is writing to the Northern Ireland Executive this week with a draft consultation paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. He and I will be meeting Executive Ministers in the new year to discuss the paper before publishing it for consultation.
Jack Lopresti
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Northern Ireland’s high dependence on the public sector is simply untenable, and that it is more important than ever that private sector innovation be promoted in the Province, in order to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this, and I am very pleased to see his continued interest in Northern Ireland matters. We have been saying for three years now that an economy that depends for 77.6% of its GDP on state spending is wholly unsustainable. It will need rebalancing. That will take time. To do nothing is irresponsible; to move too fast is irresponsible, and I estimate that it will take, probably, 25 years. This week, we will be sending a paper to the Executive for discussion, looking at ways of turning the whole of Northern Ireland into an enterprise zone.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 December.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and, in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Heidi Alexander
Time and time again, the Prime Minister has said that he wants to protect the poorest and most vulnerable while reducing the budget deficit, so can he explain to me and to residents of my Lewisham East constituency why he is heaping huge cuts on local councils, which tend to spend half their overall budget on child protection, care for the elderly and services for the disabled?
The Prime Minister
Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are doing in Lewisham to protect the most vulnerable. The per pupil funding in our schools in Lewisham will be maintained at £6,951 per pupil—that is the 10th highest in the country, recognising the level of deprivation. On top of that, for the first time in our history we will be adding a pupil premium of £430 per child. That is an excellent policy.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Q2. The BBC reports that the German Finance Minister wants to set an interest rate to punish Ireland. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this country wants to help Ireland?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be setting out the details of the loan on Second Reading of the Bill today, but I think that it is worth standing back and asking ourselves, “Why is it that we are able to make a loan to Ireland? Why is it that people are asking us to do that?” It is because Britain’s economy is out of the danger zone and recovering. If we had listened to the Labour party, we would still be in a hole.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I start by paying tribute to our troops serving in Afghanistan? We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for everything that they are doing for us, and our thoughts will be with them and with their families, who will be apart from them at this time of year.
Does the Prime Minister recognise the concern that there will be about the rise in unemployment of 35,000 that we saw this morning? Does he understand that for all those families around the country, his confidence and indeed his restatement today that Britain “is out of the danger zone” will seem very hollow?
The Prime Minister
First, let me join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to our forces in Afghanistan, whom I visited last week, and to all their families, who will be missing them at Christmas time. To be fair, under the Government of whom he was a part and under this Government we are making big improvements on their contact home—on fax time, telephone time and all the contact that they need—and that is absolutely right.
On the unemployment figures, of course everyone should be concerned—and I am concerned—by a rise in unemployment. When anyone loses a job it is a tragedy for that person, and we must do everything we can to help people into work. With the Work programme we will be launching the biggest back-to-work programme in this country for 70 years. To be accurate, although part of the figures are disappointing, they are mixed because we see that the claimant count has come down in the unemployment figures and we are also seeing an increase in the number of vacancies in our economy—every day there are another 10,000 vacancies. So, yes, we have to get the private sector going and increase the number of jobs available. Over the past six months, we have seen 300,000 new private sector jobs. We need more of them, and keeping our economy out of the danger zone is the way to get them.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister slightly sounds as though he paints himself as an innocent bystander in relation to the unemployment figures. He should not be pressing ahead with a rise in VAT on 4 January and £20 billion of public spending cuts.
I want to turn to another aspect of the Prime Minister’s financial plans. Can he confirm that the Government are now set to break the promise made in the coalition agreement:
“We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament”?
The Prime Minister
Being a bystander would mean having no plans to deal with our economic problems. This Government are cutting corporation tax, abolishing Labour’s jobs tax, reducing national insurance and increasing our jobs programme. No one should be complacent; complacency is having no answers. No one should be complacent, but we do see retail sales up, exports up, manufacturing up, interest rates coming down since the election and growth higher than expected. I am not in the slightest bit complacent about what we need to do, but let us not talk down the performance of our economy.
Turning to the NHS, we have increased the NHS budget by £10 billion in this Parliament. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that only one party stood at the election on saving the NHS and its spending and that was this party right here. I am confident that we will fulfil our goal of real-terms increases every year in the NHS.
Edward Miliband
It is very interesting that the right hon. Gentleman says that he is confident. He should listen to what the Conservative-led Health Committee said only on Monday. It said that with inflation now higher,
“the Government’s commitment to a real terms increase in health funding…will not be met.”
We all remember those posters during the election and we all remember his face, airbrushed, on those posters. Will he now admit that he is breaking that promise?
The Prime Minister
We are not breaking that promise. We want to see NHS spending increase by more than inflation every year. Let me be clear about who supports this policy. The shadow Chancellor—this is not vague, but pretty clear—said, when asked whether it is right to protect NHS spending:
“There is no logic, sense or rationality to it at all.”
Let us be clear: on this side of the House, we want real-terms increases in health spending to ensure that we improve the health of our nation; the Opposition are committed to cutting the NHS.
Edward Miliband
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is good at the broad brush, that he is good at the airbrush and that he does not do detail, but he should read the report, which says that health service spending will be cut next year in real terms.
Let me turn to his next broken promise on the NHS. He pledged, and the coalition agreement says:
“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care”,
but that is exactly what the Government are forcing on the health service. Fewer than one in four doctors think that it will improve patient services and independent experts say that it will cost £3 billion. After six months, is not an old truth being confirmed? When it comes to the NHS, you cannot trust the Tories.
The Prime Minister
There are moments when I think I am up against Basil Brush. When it comes to protecting the NHS, only one side of this House is committed to protecting NHS spending and that is this side.
Now we come on to reforming the NHS. We are not reorganising the bureaucracy of the NHS; we are cutting and abolishing it. Because we are making a 45% saving in the bureaucracy of the NHS, that will save £1.9 billion. Because we are increasing the spending on the NHS, that money will go into hospitals, beds, nurses and doctors. All those things would be cut if it was up to the Opposition because they do not have a commitment to maintaining NHS spending.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister is breaking his promise and he does not want to admit it. What does he want to do? He wants to leave it to the back end of the pantomime horse, the Deputy Prime Minister, to break the promises. It is time that the front end of the pantomime horse took some responsibility.
I want to ask the Prime Minister about another broken promise, on the education maintenance allowance. Why does he not go a couple of miles away from here—I know that he does not talk to students, or only to those in China—to Southwark college and talk to the students and teachers there? The business teacher there wrote to me and said—[Interruption.] I would have thought that Government Members would want to listen to the fate of students and young people up and down this country. The teacher said:
“I see the benefits that the EMA provides for many of my learners. I see how they struggle to pay for transport…books and other essentials. How can we expect them to aspire to a better life if we deny them the means?”
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk pantomime. I am afraid it will not be long before he is thinking, “Look behind you!”
The problem with the education maintenance allowance is that research shows that 90% of those who receive it would stay on at school anyway. As we are raising the school participation age to 18, it is right that we replace the education maintenance allowance with something that is better targeted. The right hon. Gentleman has to look at the bigger picture, which is that we inherited a completely wrecked set of public finances. His questions are always about this cut or that cut; we know which cuts he is against, but he has not made one single suggestion about how to dig the country out of the pit of debt that he left us in.
Edward Miliband
The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman began the year making promises and now he is breaking them. The promise on NHS spending—broken; the promise on the education maintenance allowance—broken; the promise on universal child benefit—broken; the promise on knife crime—broken; and the promise on new politics—broken. Should not his new year’s resolution for 2011 be to keep the promises he made in 2010?
The Prime Minister
It can be put quite simply: Labour started the year with a leader who was dithering and had no answers on the economy and it has ended the year with a leader who is dithering and has no answers on the economy. I suppose, in Labour terms, that is what passes for progress.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Q3. The Bletchley Park Trust in my constituency hopes to buy for the nation the personal papers of Alan Turing, the heroic wartime code breaker. It is confident of raising the funds to buy the papers, but there is a danger that the auction might take place before it has the chance to do so. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to give Bletchley Park a fair chance to secure those important documents for the nation?
The Prime Minister
I would certainly like to do that, because I think my hon. Friend is entirely right—Alan Turing was a remarkable man. Many of the people who worked on cracking the enigma code at Bletchley Park during the war are still alive and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. They made a decisive difference in winning the second world war and we should praise all of them. Of course I hope that private donors will generously support the fundraising campaign and I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend and do anything I can to make that happen.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Earlier, the Prime Minister expressed concern about unemployment. Unemployment in his constituency is 1.5% whereas in my constituency it is 7.3%. A full Jobcentre Plus service is available in Witney, but he has decided to close down the Deptford jobcentre. That cannot meet any test of fairness, so will he personally review that disastrous decision?
The Prime Minister
I will very happily look at the distribution of jobcentres, but the fact is that, through local government and other spending, we put a lot more money into deprived areas in our country. [Interruption.] Yes, we do. I had a little check before coming to Question Time and if we look at what is happening to grant changes—for instance, comparing my constituency with that of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—the cut in grant in my constituency is 27% greater than in his. I simply do not accept that the Government are not being fair and helping those who need help the most.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Q4. All of us in the Chamber will have had tragic cases of late diagnoses of cervical and breast cancer in our constituencies—cancers that should and can be survived. The Prime Minister promised to do more when he was in opposition. Now that we are in government, what is he doing about the unacceptably low survival rates?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The first thing we did was to make good on our promise of a cancer drugs fund. We put money into that fund so that thousands of people who were without the drugs they needed can now get them. We want to see further improvements on cancer screening and much more focus on cancer outcomes, and unlike the Labour party we are prepared to put the money in to make sure it happens.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
According to the latest statistics, children of asylum seekers have been placed in detention centres on 665 occasions in the past year, which means that it is highly likely that there will be children in our detention centres this Christmas. This is not a party-political point. May I ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of the whole House, to give a commitment that by next Christmas, in 2012, there will be no children of asylum seekers in detention centres, and that there never will be again?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. In our coalition agreement we made a commitment to address the issue, and the Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement tomorrow about how we will end this scandal.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Q5. As naval aviation celebrates its centenary, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the promised transfer of 20 Merlin helicopters from the RAF to the Fleet Air Arm will indeed take place? Otherwise critical mass may well be lost, and the first 100 years of a service that has defended us in peace and war may be the last 100 years.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. Of course I will look into the issue of the Merlin transfer. However, we should be clear about the fact that Britain will still have the fourth largest defence budget anywhere in the world. The Navy will have seven Astute class submarines, 19 destroyers and frigates, 14 minesweepers and other vessels, the Royal Marines—obviously—and our nuclear deterrent. We will have a large and fit-for-purpose Navy of which the country can rightly be proud.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be aware that there are two great football clubs in north London, Tottenham Hotspur and Enfield Town. He will also be aware that Spurs are considering moving across London to the east end—to the Olympic park. Will he join me, and the Spurs fans who signed a petition entitled “Say NO to ‘Stratford Hotspur’”, in urging the Spurs chairman to put the club and its history before shareholder value?
The Prime Minister
My recent experience has taught me to stay out of international football management. While paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s club, to Enfield Town and, of course, to Arsenal as well—I think it right to do that—I will let the club make the decision. However, it is true to say that on the Olympic site there will be a fantastic stadium of which I hope one football club will take advantage.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
Q6. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking and expressing appreciation to the postal service workers across the United Kingdom—including those whom I visited in Inverurie, Dyce and Ellen—who are struggling through snow and ice to make their deliveries? Does he agree that the mail order firms that are cancelling Christmas in Scotland by refusing to accept orders should recognise that they cannot and do not match the universal postal service, and that for that reason it should be secured and protected?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely good point. I am sure that all Members in all parts of the House—many of whom will take the opportunity to visit sorting offices this Christmas—will want to record our support and thanks for the very good work that postal workers do throughout the country in ensuring that everything is delivered in time for Christmas. I know that they are having a particularly difficult time in Scotland. Additional air and rail services have been laid on to speed the movement of mail in and out of Scotland, and Royal Mail itself has made a big investment—of £20 million—to try to deal with the most severe weather that it has faced for 30 years.
Again, let us all pay tribute to those who will ensure that cards and presents are delivered on time.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
Q7. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) is right. The situation has been horrendous in Scotland, and indeed in the north of England. The only people who are delivering are those in Royal Mail, as the private companies have offloaded their commitments on to it. The £20 million invested by Royal Mail is important. Will the Prime Minister give a straight answer to this question? Will he guarantee that universal service, and will he and his friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting next to him, review Royal Mail’s privatisation and step back from it?
The Prime Minister
The whole point of trying to get private capital and management involved in Royal Mail is to make the service better, and to ensure that it can go on doing all the things that we want it to do. Opposition Members—including the Leader of the Opposition—shake their heads, but the fact is that they were going to present plans in the last Parliament, because even they realised that this needs to be done.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the service of the Gurkhas and, especially, to my Chiswick constituent, Havildar Lachhiman Gurung, who died on 12 December aged 92? He won the Victoria cross while serving with the Gurkha Rifles in Burma in 1945, where he demonstrated
“outstanding gallantry and extreme devotion to duty, in the face of almost overwhelming odds”.
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Gurkhas both past and present. Anyone who goes to Afghanistan and sees how many Gurkhas there are not just in the Gurkha Rifles but in some of the logistic regiments, serving our country extremely well, will know that we owe them the greatest debt of gratitude, and we must always make sure that it is paid in full.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Q8. This has been a momentous week, with the trebling of tuition fees for students and the average decrease of 10% in grants for local councils. We have also been told this week that the Chancellor has to build up a war chest of £50 billion just in time for the general election—paid for by working people and their families. [Interruption.] That is right; that is the question.
The Prime Minister
I am not quite sure what the question is. Let me just answer the point about fees by putting this point on the record. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has looked carefully at our plans, and it finds:
“By decile of graduate lifetime earnings, the Government’s proposals are more progressive than the current system or that proposed by Lord Browne. The highest earning graduates would pay more on average than both the current system and that proposed by Lord Browne, while lower earning graduates would pay back less.”
I say to the Opposition, including the hon. Gentleman, if they want a progressive system for tuition fee reform, that is what we offer. In terms of dealing with the deficit, it is absolutely vital that we get on top of it. That is good for everyone in this country, his constituents included.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Q9. Will the Prime Minister ensure that primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and all NHS bureaucracies serve patients, not their own interests? Will he further ensure that the Secretary of State for Health intervenes to stamp out any excessive failures caused by that unnecessary bureaucracy?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend, but the key is to try to get rid of so much of that bureaucracy. Under the previous Government, the number of managers went up faster than the number of nurses, and our aim is to reduce that bureaucracy, get rid of that bureaucracy and put power in the hands of GPs and their patients, so that the decisions taken in our constituencies about hospitals and services are driven by the choices our constituents make, rather than by bureaucrats. That is the key to those reforms and why I hope everyone in the House will support them.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Q10. Is there any truth in the rumour that tomorrow the Liberal Democrats will move the writ for the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election for 13 January, thus denying the good people of Oldham a politician-free Christmas and new year? Is that unseemly haste over the festive season a cynical attempt by the Government to avoid the wrath of the public and especially students on tuition fees, school cuts and police cuts?
The Prime Minister
Do I gather that the Opposition are frightened of having an election? I would put the question the other way: why should the people of that constituency put up with not having a Member of Parliament, and what have you lot got to be frightened of?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the steps that the Government are taking to cut through the legacy of red tape and bureaucracy that we inherited from the previous Government in order to deliver real value-for-money front-line services?
The Prime Minister
There is no doubt that regulation has got out of control in this country. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is introducing a new one-in, one-out rule—so that any time the Government want to legislate or regulate they have to remove a regulation first. That sort of discipline can make a real difference.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Q11. May I put on the record my appreciation, and the appreciation of many, of the goodwill and practical neighbourly support that the Prime Minister and Chancellor have shown to Ireland at this difficult time? It makes very good sense, because the Irish economy, the Northern Ireland economy and the British economy are closely intertwined. But the economic indications are that Northern Ireland is still in decline and the economy is in serious need of a boost. May I ask the Prime Minister for his assessment of the possibility of a boost to the Northern Ireland economy by reducing corporation tax to 12.5%?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the economy in Northern Ireland. We want to see it recover and grow, but everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the size of the state—the size of government—in Northern Ireland has become too big, and we have to see a private sector recovery. We are looking at all sorts of ideas, including the enterprise zone to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred. I should also like to put on record my thanks to those Northern Irish Members who are going to support what we are doing to help the Republic of Ireland in its time of need.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Q12. The people of Bromsgrove are immensely proud of our brave servicemen and women. That is why Bromsgrove district council has decided to give the freedom of the district to the Mercian Regiment next month. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the decision of the council, and does he believe that we can all do more to honour our heroes?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. Bromsgrove is absolutely right to honour the Mercian Regiment in that way. He brings out an important point. Yes, we have responsibility, as a Government and as a House of Commons, to deliver on the military covenant for our personnel in the armed services, but there is a broader responsibility on businesses, on the media, on us as individuals and on the whole country to work out what more we can do to recognise the bravery of these people who do so much on our behalf.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Q13. There are 1,238 students at York college who come from families poor enough to qualify for a full education maintenance allowance. That is one in three at the college. The chair of governors describes the Government’s plans for EMAs as “totally unacceptable” and the replacement funding as “woefully inadequate.” I know that the Prime Minister visits North Yorkshire from time to time, will he show that he cares about social mobility and that he really is a one-nation Tory by meeting people from the college to discuss—
The Prime Minister
I absolutely accept that we have got to do more to help people to get from the very bottom to the very top. That is why we have saved the per pupil funding and why we are increasing the pupil premium. When we look at what happened over the last few years, since 2004, child poverty rose by 100,000, inequality reached the highest level since 1961, and 5 million people were stuck on out-of-work benefits. That is why we need to change the way that we help people to get on in life, and that is exactly what we are committed to doing.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Q14. As we approach Holocaust memorial day, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will generously donate to the Auschwitz-Birkenau restoration fund?
The Prime Minister
I can do that. Auschwitz-Birkenau is a very powerful reminder of the ultimate consequences of intolerance, and it is only right that it should be preserved to bear witness to the deaths of the millions of victims who perished there and to act as a stark reminder of man’s inhumanity to man. The director of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation has recently visited the UK to discuss funding with a number of Government Departments, and we are also involved in EU discussions. I think everyone in this House knows how important it is to maintain these memorials. We obviously remember the holocaust, but we must also remember that there have been other acts of gross inhumanity more recently. We have to go on remembering to stop that happening again.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether, when he appointed the ex-Member for Arundel and South Downs to the other place, he knew his thoughts on state benefits being an incentive to breed? Is that another example of the new politics the Prime Minister promised the country?
The Prime Minister
I do not know how long that one took to think up. The former hon. Member, who is now a Member of the House of Lords, completely withdrew those comments and apologised for what he said, which was completely unacceptable. I am prepared to leave it at that.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Q15. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of many people at reports in the press that he plans to support high-speed rail regardless of next year’s consultation? Will he spread a bit of Christmas cheer by reassuring my constituents that he will keep an open mind and that he will not be railroading through a railroad?
The Prime Minister
I completely understand the concern that there is all the way along the proposed line. Obviously, people are worried about it and, yes, this is a proper consultation—it must be a proper consultation and it will be. As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, for 50 years we have been trying to deal with the north-south divide and have a more effective regional policy. I do believe that high-speed rail has a really effective role to play in bringing our country closer together and spreading economic benefit throughout all our country.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Students in Wirral tell me that they need their education maintenance allowance for travel to go to the sixth form or college of their choice. Catherine McCormack, the head of South Wirral high school, says:
“Without EMA, choice and diversity are not supported.”
Does the Prime Minister think that a choice of courses is only for those who can afford it?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the hon. Lady that we looked very carefully at the study that was completed under the Government of the Labour party and it showed that nine out of 10 of those people receiving education maintenance allowance would have stayed on at school anyway. This is why the Labour party landed us in such a mess over the economy. We have to ask the question about value for money and whether we are spending money in the correct way. We are not abolishing EMAs: we are replacing EMAs with something more effective. At a time—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members ask the question; they must listen to the Prime Minister’s answer.
The Prime Minister
At a time when we are legislating to raise the participation age to 18, we have to ask whether it is it is right to spend so much money on asking people to do something that by law they will be asked to do anyway.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Time and time again, we seem to be exporting extreme Islamist terrorists and suicide bombers to Afghanistan, Israel and now Sweden. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to drain the poison of extreme Islamism from our country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. If we are frank on both sides of the House, we have not done enough to deal with the promotion of extremist Islamism in our country. Whether it is making sure that imams coming over to this country can speak English properly, or whether it is making sure that we de-radicalise our universities, we have to take a range of further steps, and I am going to be working hard to make sure that we do. Yes, we have got to have the policing in place; yes, we have got to make sure that we invest in our intelligence services; yes, we have got to co-operate with other countries—but we have also got to ask why it is that so many young men in our country get radicalised in this completely unacceptable way.
Mr Speaker
We come now to the 10-minute rule motion. I call Nadhim Zahawi. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would just wait for a moment, may I, as always, appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly so that the same courtesy is extended to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon as they would want to be extended to them? [Interruption.] I hope that Members are on their way out, but large numbers of Members will of course be staying to listen to the hon. Gentleman.
St George’s Day and St David’s Day
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to designate St George’s Day, or the nearest working day, as an annual public holiday in England with effect from 2012; to designate St David’s Day, or the nearest working day, as an annual public holiday in Wales with effect from 2012; and for connected purposes.
In all three primary party manifestos, we vowed to promote national integration. One of the most effective ways of achieving that is to make the saints’ days of St George and St David bank holidays in England and Wales respectively. This is a subject that means a lot to me and to many of my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon. I stood up and promised the people of Stratford-on-Avon that I would not add to the legislative burden that they already face and that I would take away from it. I promised that if I had the chance, I would introduce this Bill.
Unlike our neighbours in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, England and Wales do not currently celebrate our saints’ days as bank holidays, which is something that I wish to change. It is quite right that in 2011 there should be a special one-off bank holiday to celebrate the royal wedding, but from 2012 onwards, the royal wedding bank holiday should be replaced by bank holidays that celebrate our two countries’ patron saints.
We all know St George as the famous dragon slayer whose bravery freed a town from the tyranny of a vicious dragon and eventually led the townsfolk to Christianity. I have to point out, however, that St George was an immigrant to this country. St George is widely believed to have been born in Turkey and served in the Roman army before being taken into English hearts. My hon. Friend the Father of the House, who is an expert on that region, tells me that he may even have been of Kurdish origin—I speculate further that his skin may have been my shade of tan. St David is remembered not only for his miracles and for his close affinity to nature, but as a great unifying force for Christianity and for Wales. Both saints had a huge impact on the culture of their respective countries. What they stood for is just as relevant today as it was way back then.
We all know our patron saints, but why is it important to celebrate them? The best answer is simple: it is through national days that we can celebrate what makes our nation so great. On such days, we can be yet more proud of the best aspects of English and Welsh culture and society, such as our history of tolerance, acceptance and scientific innovation, and the huge impact that we have had on the history of the world. There is so much to be proud of in our past and so much that our children can learn from, both in our successes and our mistakes.
In recent years, I have been saddened to see the symbols of our patriotism hijacked by the fringe right-wing of our country. Today, this House can go a long way towards reclaiming them. We can ensure that all who live in Britain, whatever their background, can join together and celebrate all that makes Britain great. I am a firm believer in the supreme value of our culture and history, and we should never let anyone tell us not to celebrate them.
I will now put to bed the one argument against such a change, which I have heard time and again, that an extra bank holiday would be bad for our economy. As a business man and entrepreneur who has built strong and enduring businesses, I reject the idea that one extra bank holiday will affect productivity. The working people of this country will do the work that they need to do regardless of a new bank holiday. We must remember that the whole concept of work has changed. Work is no longer just about turning up at a particular place at a particular time and then leaving at a fixed time. One beneficiary of the proposal would be small shops and businesses in our town centres, which would benefit from extra custom during the holiday. Our local pubs will undoubtedly attract many people who wish to toast St George or St David. Through the creation of special events for those days, our leisure and tourism industries will do well.
To further put the proposal in context, we should consider the relatively few bank holidays that we receive compared with our European and north American neighbours. We are 16th in Europe with only eight bank holidays, whereas France has 11, Sweden has 11 and Germany has 12. Even our notoriously hard-working American friends have 13 bank holidays a year, although I accept that they take less vacation time overall.
Interestingly, and by a strange coincidence, YouGov recently commissioned a survey into the British public’s attitude on this issue. It discovered strong public support for an increase in the number of bank holidays. More than two thirds of adults—68%—think that it would be appropriate for Great Britain to have at least nine days of public holiday a year. Of the calendar occasions that are candidates for the extra bank holiday, YouGov found that St George’s day is the most popular with 22% of support. That is just ahead of Remembrance day on 21%, which is the other clear favourite. The battle of Trafalgar and the summer solstice came third and fourth respectively.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister heard my call for the flag of St George to be flown over Downing street in the summer. It is high time that the flag was taken back from those groups that are not worthy of it. Today could be a huge step in the right direction. If passed, the Bill could be of real benefit to social cohesion in England and Wales, and I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting it and making it a reality. It would be a very fine wedding present to both nations. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Nadhim Zahawi, Claire Perry, Nick Boles, Keith Vaz, Brandon Lewis, Andrew Rosindell, Jonathan Edwards, Simon Hughes, Sajid Javid, Mr Robert Buckland, Mr Brian Binley and Robert Halfon present the Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May and to be printed (Bill 128).
Point of Order
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, as noted at column 814 of the Official Report, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—I have notified her that I would raise the matter today—effectively said that I had misled the House in the previous Parliament on whether the Americans would be able to maintain cluster munitions on British territory, for instance in Diego Garcia. The Foreign Secretary wisely said that he had no evidence that the House had been misled, but that he had not been able to see the papers of the previous Government. For the complete avoidance of doubt, may I make it clear that it was our complete intention that there would be no American cluster munitions on British territories anywhere in the world? Can you advise me of how I can put that on the record?
Mr Speaker
The answer is that the hon. Gentleman has just done so, as he well knows.
Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 22 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The amendment has not been selected, but there will be an opportunity for a debate, and if necessary a vote, on the main motion.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Loans to Ireland Bill:
Timetable
1.–(1) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today’s sitting in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption or six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
(a) it shall (despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
3.–(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Speaker or Chair shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single question in relation to those provisions.
Miscellaneous
8. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
9.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
10. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
11.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
12.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
13. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
14.–(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
15. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
16.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 4 pm at today’s sitting shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill today.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 4 pm and the conclusion of those proceedings.
I do not wish to detain the House too long in moving the motion. It seeks the approval of the House to consider all stages of this important Bill in a single day. With the co-operation of the House, the Bill will make a major contribution to the United Kingdom’s declared international commitments.
Why do we need to expedite the Bill? The loan to Ireland is novel and large, and the Bill is needed to give the Treasury the necessary authority to advance funds to Ireland. The loan agreement will require the Government to obtain all necessary authorisations before the first draw-down on the loan can be made. The international package is to be discussed at the International Monetary Fund tomorrow, and it is important that the Government, the IMF and the other lenders can be sure that legislation will be passed so that they can assess the adequacy of the total support package, hence the desire to proceed as quickly as possible today. Passing the Bill will also provide certainty to financial markets that the UK’s funding package will be in place. It is in no one’s interest to create further instability.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I do not think that anybody wants to waste time on the timetable motion unless necessary, but if my hon. Friend were to provide an assurance that the Bill can and will be used only for a single bilateral loan to Ireland, and that it will not be used for any other purpose, that might help it on its way.
Mr Hoban
I do not wish to pre-empt the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make on Second Reading, but I can provide that assurance to my hon. Friend.
The Bill is needed to provide statutory authority for the Treasury to pay out the funds involved. Any loan agreement is contingent on obtaining that necessary authority. In improving the overall package of financial assistance to Ireland, our international partners need to be sure that the UK will have the necessary legislation in place to allow it to fulfil its part.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister clarify one point that confuses me? The Bill is entitled the Loans to Ireland Bill, but the explanatory notes, which I know are not binding, keep referring to, and imply that there is, a single loan. How many loans will there be to Ireland? Is there a limit?
Chris Bryant
I, too, do not want overly to delay the House, but we are using an emergency procedure on a Bill that will not go through the same processes as other Bills. It is therefore all the more important that we ensure that we rarely use such a procedure. Will the Minister ensure that the Government do not use this procedure on future occasions, if similar arrangements have to be made for other countries?
Mr Hoban
It is important that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of measures such as this. That is why we sought to agree the timetable through the usual channels, and to ensure that there is time to debate amendments and that the Bill goes through the normal process of scrutiny. Given that the Bill is shorter, it can be scrutinised in a shorter period of time without compromising scrutiny. That is why I believe that we can deal with it today. I urge the House to support the programme motion.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I have a lot of respect for the Minister; he is one of the most able in the House. [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear.”] However, it was not his best speech.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a point about emergency measures, but the Minister did not call the Bill an emergency measure—he just said that it is an important Bill and that it be would rather nice to get it through quickly. It is absolutely true that the Bill is not an emergency measure and there is no such urgency for it. However, it is not the duty of the House to say to the Executive, “It will be jolly nice to get the Bill through quickly.” We are here to scrutinise the Bill. It matters not what team Back Benchers are on: they are here to hold the Government to account. I said that as an Opposition Member and I shall say it as a Government Member. The Minister remarked that the longer he spoke, the more he would eat into time on Second Reading, but the Government designed the allocation of time motion in that way. When we were in opposition, we said that that such remarks were appalling, and they are also appalling in government.
This motion contains one of the most draconian guillotines we have ever seen in Parliament. It contains 16 separate restrictions on debate, it is longer and has more words than the Bill itself, and it is designed purely to restrict debate and to remove the right to vote on amendments in Committee. I am afraid that it is as bad as those we used to see under the previous Government. It is rubber-stamping at its finest. The motion proposes to rush through legislation at a speed that would win approval in North Korea and to take Parliament for granted.
This is not my first time scrutinising a Government who are trying to rush a Bill through Parliament. Coincidentally, the circumstances of a debate on a Northern Ireland Bill on 4 March 2009 were very much the same, in so far as the Government tried to rush through a Bill in one day when, as now, it was not necessary to do so. Therefore, I feel that we have come full circle. Here we are with a different Government—a coalition Government—who are trying to rush through another Bill.
As a trained chartered accountant, I am rather partial to my numbers. Therefore, I would like to read out a few. Three and a half hours is the amount of time that Parliament is being given for the Second Reading debate of the Bill; £3.25 billion is the minimum amount that the Bill proposes to give the Republic of Ireland; and zero is the probable chance that the House of Lords will be able to scrutinise it, because it will most likely be certified as a money Bill. Let me expand on those three figures. Three and a half hours for Parliament to debate a Bill on Second Reading—actually, I should have said that three and a half hours is the maximum time that we are being given, because the time starts from the moment that the allocation of time debate starts. If the allocation of time debate runs its full course and there is a Division, the time for a Second Reading debate on a Bill that proposes spending £3.25 billion will be a maximum of 15 minutes. The Chancellor will not have cleared his throat in 15 minutes. In other words, we will be spending £216 million a minute during that debate.
One could argue that none of these things matters—we saw it all the time in the previous Parliament—because we have the backstop of the other place, which cannot limit debates, and Members can scrutinise the Bill clause by clause and vote on amendments. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this Bill: because it will be certified as a money Bill, there will be limited time for debate in the other place. We therefore do not have the backstop, so it is up to this House to scrutinise the Bill properly. This is a most draconian guillotine motion and is entirely unnecessary, and I intend to try to divide the House on this most important matter. Whether one is for or against the principle of the Bill—or, indeed, whether one is indifferent to it—we as parliamentarians must demand proper time for debate.
It is important to set out the reasons why all stages of the Loans to Ireland Bill should not take place on one day. Let us consider the circumstances under which the Government can legitimately push their legislation through all its stages in one day. I understand that in national emergencies, such as those relating to terrorism, the swift progression of a Bill through Parliament is needed. However, the Loans to Ireland Bill is not one of those Bills. Since 1997, only a handful of Bills have been pushed through the Commons in one day alone. The last one was the Northern Ireland Bill in 2009, which I referred to a few moments ago, but let us look at the typical Bill that has gone through in one day and the precedents that this motion creates.
On 4 April 2001, the Elections Bill went through all its stages in one day, owing to the national crisis caused by the foot and mouth epidemic. Clearly that is not a reason for the Loans to Ireland Bill to go through in one day. On 2 September 1998, Parliament was recalled from its summer recess to pass all stages of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, as an urgent response to the terrible Omagh bombing. Again, that does not apply to today’s Bill. On 19 February 2008, the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill was passed in relation to Northern Rock, and therefore needed to be rushed through the Commons. The House sat until midnight on that day, which I understand was because of market sensitivity. Again, that does not apply to today’s Bill. None of those exceptional circumstances applies to the Loans to Ireland Bill. If this guillotine motion goes through, the Government will have set a dangerous precedent for curtailing debate and excluding proper parliamentary scrutiny on controversial issues.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) say in his intervention on the Minister that we should not waste any more time on the motion than is necessary. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend, and is he as intrigued as I am to know under what circumstances time wasting would indeed be necessary?
Mr Bone
This Government have put us in a Catch-22 situation, which the previous Government used to put us in too: time for debating guillotine motions is taken out of time on Second Reading. That never used to happen; it was something that the previous Government got into the habit of doing. That means that all these people on the Government Benches want me to shut up, so that we can get on with Second Reading. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Well, my colleagues behind me are going to be disappointed. The newer Members of this Parliament are going to learn—I know that they are keen on this, because they want parliamentary scrutiny, not rubber-stamping—that there is a simple way for all my colleagues on the Government Benches and for Opposition Members to get into the debate, which is to defeat the guillotine motion in a vote.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
We may have heard one or two “Hear, hears”, and I am certainly someone who wants to speak on Second Reading, but let me make clear my appreciation for what my hon. Friend is doing. Any responsibility for the curtailment of time for Back Benchers should rest squarely where it belongs, which is with those on the Treasury Bench.
Mr Bone
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. If we do not get it right today, this coalition Government and future Governments will use the same trick again and again.
What I am doing is not a wrecking manoeuvre; nor is it about stopping the Bill from making progress. All we need to do is defeat the guillotine motion now, and then there will be a full Second Reading debate, followed by the Committee stage and Third Reading. The current situation is an abuse of Parliament and its democracy. Normal rules are being abandoned so that the Government can get things through on the nod. Surely I am not mistaken that the only possible reason for proceeding today would be if the Minister had written a cheque for £3.25 billion last night and handed it to the Irish Government. Then I might be inclined to agree that we should get on with things today. However, the Minister does not seem to be leaping to the Dispatch Box to confirm that.
One argument for pushing the Bill through could be the lack of space in the parliamentary calendar and an inability to spare any more time to debate it, but we all know that that is not true. Even with recess upon us, we could have abandoned the Backbench Business Committee debate tomorrow—Thursday—and had the Committee stage and Third Reading instead. However, if that was not the flavour of the will of the House, we could have used Monday, for which a general debate is listed. If the general debate were abandoned, Government business would not be lost, and the debate could be rescheduled for another time. Alternatively, if there really is an emergency and the Bill really does need to be progressed now, let the House sit this Friday until the business is complete.
Parliament could be allowed a full day on Second Reading, which would occur after the allocation of time motion were defeated, and the Government could then choose Thursday, Friday or Monday for Committee and Third Reading. That would in no way hold up progress; nor could it be interpreted as letting our friends in Europe down. Indeed, the idea that they do not take our word for it that the Government are serious is also, I have to say, not believable. If the Government say that they are going to give £3.25 billion to Ireland in a loan, they know that that is what will happen, so that argument is just an excuse to push the Bill through in one day.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Clearly the issue at hand is not whether the Government will give £3.25 billion to Ireland. However, the Minister did not necessarily make it clear in his response to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) whether money would be going just to Ireland, or to Portugal or Spain in future too. Could the hon. Gentleman give us his views on that?
Mr Bone
Mr Speaker, you would rightly tick me off if I answered that question. That is a matter for the Second Reading debate, because it is to do with the issues in the Bill. I am expressing no view on that at the moment. However, unless we have adequate time to discuss those issues, the hon. Gentleman’s point might not be clarified.
Lack of parliamentary time cannot be an excuse for this motion. The advantage of splitting the debate over two days is that it would allow a proper debate on Second Reading today. I believe that many Members would like to take part in such a debate. It would also allow amendments to be tabled in the normal way, and enable us to have a proper debate in Committee, with time for a debate and votes on each of the amendments. There would also be time for a Third Reading debate.
I understand that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment today, although I have not seen it. That amendment has been tabled without allowing Members the time to consider it. That just shows the weakness of this procedure. If the allocation of time motion were defeated, we would have a full Second Reading debate and the Government would have to rearrange their business to provide for the Committee stage and Third Reading. The loan would still go through, but the Bill would have been properly debated and, if necessary, amended. Defeating the allocation of time motion would not wreck the Bill; it would simply give more time for proper scrutiny so that the Bill could be improved. We have already seen that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment. What will happen if, during the 15 minutes of the Second Reading debate, a Member decides that they want to table an amendment? They just will not have time to do it.
How does the motion fit in with the principles behind parliamentary sittings? The present timetabling of our sittings is broadly based on the Jopling reforms and encompasses three principles. It is against those three principles that we should judge the Bill today. The first is that the Government must be able to get their business through, and, within that principle, ultimately control the time of the House. Secondly, the Opposition must have the opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the Government and to improve or oppose legislation as they think fit. Thirdly—this is of more interest to me—Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern from their constituents. A number of my constituents have contacted me with concerns about this Bill.
A major role of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise and review legislation. It is a well-known fact—I doubt that anyone in the House would disagree with this—that the better the scrutiny, the better the Bill. It is also a major role of Members of Parliament who are not members of the Executive to hold the Executive to account, whichever party or parties make up that Executive. That is one of the most important roles we have as Members of Parliament. This motion removes that role. It is appalling that the coalition Government should try to stifle that essential function. I have long campaigned for more transparency and debate in Parliament. I strongly believe in strengthening the role of the Back Bencher. The erosion of parliamentary power to scrutinise legislation has been a long-adopted approach by successive Governments. This motion, I am afraid, is a step too far. Individual Members of Parliament attach a great deal of importance to scrutiny and accountability, and problems arise when the Executive try to deny us that right.
The Government have declared that amendments must be tabled before Second Reading, which is ludicrous. They ask MPs to table amendments before we have had a chance to hear what the Minister has to say. How can MPs properly table amendments when they have not heard the details and the arguments? Despite that difficulty, 11 amendments have already been tabled. The Government were forced to produce a three-page document—I have it with me—of amendments, and another five-page document on their justification for rushing the Bill through. These documents were produced only in the last few days. How can they, and the amendments, realistically be scrutinised if the Bill goes through all its stages today? It is just not possible.
The House of Lords got rather fed up with the Commons bouncing it, so it has now come up with a procedure whereby the Government have to answer a number of questions—I think it is eight—before they can get a Bill such as this through. Those questions are printed in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Let us look at some of them for a minute, and see whether the answers hold up to scrutiny.
The first question is: “Why is fast-tracking necessary?” The notes go on to explain that the proposal is for a bilateral loan, and that the timing of the UK’s proposed loan is currently unclear. They state:
“It is necessary to fast-track the Bill so that the UK’s international partners can be confident that the bilateral loan will be implemented.”
That is an absolutely hopeless answer to the question. It does not tell us why the Bill is being fast-tracked. It is ridiculous to suggest that our international partners would think that, because we had not taken another day or two to debate the Bill, the Government were not going to proceed with the loan.
The next question is:
“What is the justification for fast-tracking each element of the Bill?”
Again, there does not seem to be an answer. The notes state:
“The Bill is a short Bill, with few substantive provisions other than to provide for sums required by the Treasury”.
Yes, the Bill is short because many of the provisions deal with statutory instruments and affirmative resolutions. It is an important Bill, but it is short because many of the provisions do not go into detail. That is exactly why we need a proper Second Reading debate. I do not think that the Government have answered that question either.
The next question is a good one:
“What efforts have been made to ensure the amount of time made available for parliamentary scrutiny has been maximised?”
The answer is:
“The Bill is being published on the same day it is introduced and arrangements are being made for amendments to be accepted in advance of second reading in the House of Commons.”
How on earth does that answer the question about making time available for parliamentary scrutiny? It is like the Prime Minister being asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions and giving an answer to a completely different one. It might be a good answer, but it is not the answer to the question that was asked.
The next thing that the Lords want to know is this:
“To what extent have interested parties and outside groups been given an opportunity to influence the policy proposal?”
The answer talks about our European Union colleagues, but the key is in the last sentence, which states that
“there has been limited opportunity to give interested parties and outside groups an opportunity to influence.”
By the Government’s own admission, they have failed in regard to that question.
The next question asks whether the Bill includes a sunset clause. The Government can argue, with some justification, that it does, because it stipulates a period of five years. It does not tell us when the loans are to be repaid, but it places a five-year limit on the period in which they can be made. That is not what is normally understood by a sunset clause, however. Sunset clauses normally stipulate that in, say, a year’s time, Parliament will look again at the legislation to see whether it is correct.
The next question is:
“Are mechanisms for effective post legislative scrutiny and review in place? If not, why do the Government judge that their inclusion is not appropriate?”
The answer states:
“The Bill provides for regular reports”.
On that one, I will give the Government a tick. So far, they have passed one of the six tests. The next question is:
“Has an assessment been made as to whether existing legislation is sufficient to deal with any or all the issues in question?”
The Government do not really answer that one. They say:
“Statutory authority for such expenditure is required in accordance with the Concordat of 1932 between the Government and the Public Accounts Committee.”
I am unclear as to what that means, but it does not seem to answer the question that has been asked. The final question is:
“Has the relevant Parliamentary committees been given to opportunity to scrutinise the legislation?”
The explanatory notes were drawn up in such haste that the spelling of the question was incorrect, but the simple answer to it, as I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) might confirm, is that no such scrutiny has taken place.
In concluding my opening remarks, I want to say a few words about what I think is wrong. Let me state to the House how this mother of Parliaments should work in relation to timings of debates. The driving principle of reform should be the redistribution of power—from the powerful to the powerless. That means boosting Parliament’s power to hold the Government of the day to account. The House of Commons’ historic functions were to vote money for Governments to spend, and to scrutinise laws. It now barely bothers with the first, and does the second extremely badly. There was a time when legislation that had been formulated after months of civil service and ministerial deliberation was sent to the House of Commons which would pore over it, shape it and send it back, get it back, look at it again and improve it some more—Bill by Bill, clause by clause, line by line. Every piece of legislation would be put under intense scrutiny. Is it legally sound? Will it be effective? Is it worth the cost?
Let us compare that with today. Let me take Members on the journey of a piece of legislation as it passes through the modern House of Commons. It is likely to have been dreamt up on the sofa of No. 10. A Bill is drafted and it is sent to the House for a couple of hours of routine debate among a few MPs. Then the bells ring, the whips are cracked and suddenly, out of nowhere, all the Members turn up to vote. More often than not, they do not even know what they are voting for. The Bill limps through. Then it goes into Committee. The Committee’s duty is to look at the detail clause by clause, but it is packed full of people that the Whips have put there. So, surprise, surprise, the Government rarely lose a vote on any of the individual points of detailed scrutiny. Then it is back to the House to do it all again—debate, bell and then vote to wave the legislation through.
Every Bill now has a programme motion setting out how much time can be spent scrutinising and debating each part. There are automatic guillotines, and the time allowed for scrutiny is set in advance, before anyone can see whether or not a particular issue is contentious or complex. Watching a Minister in the Commons drawing out one point for an hour to fill the time, to an audience of dozing Back Benchers—that is not accountability. How can the mother of all Parliaments turn itself into such a pliant child?
Unfortunately, I cannot claim credit for that last section of my speech. It was in fact from a speech on fixing broken promises delivered on 26 May 2009 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron). I do not think that Ministers on the Front Bench today want to upset the Prime Minister. So they have an opportunity, before the conclusion of the debate, to say that they will withdraw the allocation of time motion, and that we will have proper debate.
For many years I have sat on the Back Benches imploring others to give more time for Parliament to scrutinise legislation. I believe that to be the fundamental role, not only of the Back Bencher, but of Parliament itself.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say just how much I stand behind the Prime Minister in his remarks, which my hon. Friend has so generously shared with the House. However, does my hon. Friend agree that if this bail-out is necessary at all, it is an emergency?
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is tempting me to enter the debate, which I am not going to do, and as time is short, I shall conclude my remarks.
Time is all we have as Back Benchers, and if that is taken away from us, so is power. I urge all parliamentarians in the House to vote against the guillotine motion.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I shall be brief. I want to commend the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for his absolute consistency. The speech that he has just delivered is one that he would have delivered, and perhaps did deliver—certainly the gist of it—many times when he sat on the Opposition Benches. The points that he raises are extremely important in the general context of how Parliament operates.
I do not want to say a great deal about the Bill because we shall come to Second Reading shortly, but I will say this. We are used to having Northern Ireland business rushed through—sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for not so good reasons. I have had various discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and others relating to important matters that we believe require legislation, not least an issue that was extremely important during the run-up to the general election—the fact that Members of this House who do not take their seats continue to claim lots of money for parliamentary purposes—and we were told that time would be made available to debate that, and for the House to have its say. We were also told that legislation on the issue of dual mandates would appear. Yet I am now told that the Government cannot do any of that because “there isn’t any time”.
The only point that I want to raise is this. The hon. Member for Wellingborough has spoken at great length, but the bottom line is that the Government will do what they will. The notion that “there isn’t any time” to do the necessary things and important things that have been laid out by the Government in relation to Northern Ireland is simply not tenable, given the fact that here we are today, setting time aside to rush through all stages of a Bill—I will not get into the merits of it; we will come to those—in one day. I say to the Government, especially the senior Members on the Treasury Bench, that they should reflect on the fact that we are being told that other important things cannot be done. It is clear that they can be done and should be done, and I urge the Government to take action as soon as possible.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
There is one element of the guillotine motion that I particularly resent. That is the provision that if a group of amendments is being discussed when the guillotine falls, it will not be possible to vote on any more than the question that was before the House at that time, whereas under a traditional programme motion it would be possible, with the leave of the Chair, to vote on more than one of the amendments in the group.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says he thinks it is reasonable that we should have the opportunity to give the Bill proper scrutiny. In my submission, scrutiny includes having the opportunity to test the view of the House on amendments before it. My concern is that if all the amendments are grouped together, and if the debate on that group carries on until the guillotine falls, it will only be possible to vote on one narrow amendment—amendment 3—although of course the guillotine motion allows the Government amendment to be voted on as well, because those are the biased terms in which the motion has been drafted.
The Bill is a very significant measure. I have had letters from constituents asking, “How is it that we can afford to lend £3.25 billion to Ireland when the Government are saying that they cannot do anything to make more money go to small businesses that are crying out for loans?” That is the sort of question that our constituents are asking, and I would have hoped that the Government would be more co-operative with the House by providing a bit more detail in the Bill.
We have heard that the Chancellor will be telling us in due course about the terms of the loan, the interest rate and the repayment schedule. Why could not those details have been included on the face of the Bill, to enable us to make an assessment and decide whether to table amendments? If the Government are really saying, “This is so desperately urgent that we need to do it straight away,” why were they not prepared to co-operate with the House a bit more and give us the maximum amount of information to enable us to deal with it in a constructive way today?
I am very concerned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has articulated the wider constitutional implications. We know that the other place was very concerned about the fact that the Government were taking forward a lot of emergency measures without giving the opportunity for proper debate and consideration—and that applied not just to money Bills but to other Bills too. This is a money Bill, so it will not be possible for the other place to consider it in detail. That responsibility falls fairly and squarely on this House.
We got a guarantee from the Government that if there was going to be fast-tracking or emergency legislation, the justification for it would be set out in the explanatory notes. I do not think the justification given in these explanatory notes is a justification for what the Government are trying to do today.
If this Bill were to be considered tomorrow or on Monday, we would have more time to debate it. Incidentally, we would also be able to consider what the Members of the Irish Parliament are saying on this very subject in their House today. If, for example, many of them were to say that they would not wish to repay the loan given to them by the United Kingdom, I would have thought that would be a very material consideration in our debate on the matter, but this motion denies us the opportunity to consider the implications of what transpires today in the Irish Parliament. I suspect that is not an accident; I suspect it is by design. That is why I will vote against this guillotine motion.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I wanted to intervene on my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to ask for a further assurance. I am minded to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) by voting against this motion in the Lobby if there is a Division. However, I might refrain from doing so if my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary were to rise to his feet and assure me that the measures in the Bill could not be used to lend to Ireland through another international institution, such as the European Union. I would be grateful for that assurance.
Mr Speaker
No further Members are standing to show that they wish to speak.
Question put.
Loans to Ireland Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 523 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Two weeks ago I told the House that it was my intention to ask for authority to make a bilateral loan to Ireland as part of the multinational assistance programme for that country. I said that I judged it to be in our national interest, given our country’s close economic, financial and political connections to the Irish Republic, to be ready to help, and I want to thank all parts of this House for agreeing with that judgment.
Let me directly address the question of why we are taking this legislation through today, and why we are seeking to do it rapidly. The reason is that this week we expect the International Monetary Fund board to meet and agree the assistance package, the eurozone to sign off on its contribution, and the Irish Parliament to accept the international help that is offered. Let me say this to hon. Members in reference to the previous debate. I actually have the authority to make, under common law, a loan to Ireland and to seek at a much later date retrospective authority from Parliament. I decided—[Interruption.] Let me say that I decided that that was a wholly inappropriate thing to do, and that I should come to Parliament to seek its authority before signing the loan agreement. The loan agreement may be signed at any moment.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way, but has he not let the cat out of the bag? He has just said that there is no urgency, because he had the power to do this anyway. If that had been said in the previous debate, the result of the vote might been different.
Mr Osborne
From what I could tell from what my hon. Friend was saying in the previous debate, he thought it important to have parliamentary scrutiny. It is true that I could have issued the loan under the common-law powers available to me, and come back at a later point to seek parliamentary approval. I thought the House would prefer me to seek parliamentary approval first, before making the loan—but there we go; you can’t please everyone.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
The Chancellor suggested that it is at his discretion that he has brought forward this Bill. Is it not the case that the 1932 convention requires him to do so—and does not that, rather than his discretion, explain why this legislation is before the House?
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention. We will hear from the Chancellor.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Setting aside the technicalities of why we are debating this measure and how long we shall do so, and getting down to the substantive issue of the loan, can the Chancellor share with the House what the fees and the interest to the UK Government will be over the period of the loan if the Irish Government draw down the whole of the loan?
Mr Osborne
The second intervention draws me back into the rest of my speech, but in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), I have common-law powers to issue the loan and sign the loan agreement. I then have to seek statutory authority, but that could be done retrospectively. I thought it more appropriate to seek parliamentary approval first, and that was a discretionary choice that I had.
I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) directly a bit later in my remarks, when I get on to the terms of the loan that we are going to consider.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr Osborne
I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then I really must make some progress.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. If the point that he is making is such a good one—it may well be—why did he not include it in paragraph 14 of the explanatory notes, making a virtue of the fact that he was bringing this matter before the House now rather than seeking retrospective approval?
Mr Osborne
I said in an earlier statement to the House that I was seeking to do that, and I had hoped that hon. Members were paying attention to what I said at the time.
The legislation that we shall pass today will allow the UK to be ready in the new year to meet its commitments to one of our closest international partners. As has been noted, the legislation before the House is narrow in scope—it is explicitly a Loans to Ireland Bill—but it is still enabling legislation. It sits alongside the actual loan agreement, which sets out in detail what we will offer Ireland. To ensure that Members have as much information as possible available to them for today’s discussion, a summary of the key terms of the loan agreement, which was agreed with the Irish Government only this morning, has been available in the Vote Office for more than an hour now.
Mr Osborne
If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will make a bit of progress and then of course take some further interventions.
In my remarks today, I intend to address both the substance of the legislation and the loan agreement, but before that let me briefly say something about how we got here. Over the course of this year, it became increasingly clear that the situation in the Irish economy was unsustainable. Their sovereign debt markets had effectively closed and had little prospect of re-opening. Ireland’s market interest rates had risen to record levels, and Irish banks had become almost wholly reliant on central bank funding to maintain their operations, with no obvious prospect that that was going to change. This situation simply could not go on. We had been monitoring the situation for many months and had engaged in confidential discussions with our partners in the G7 and at ECOFIN about possible solutions.
Over the weekend of 20 November, Ireland’s Prime Minister made a formal request for international financial assistance. The UK, alongside the International Monetary Fund, the EU, the eurozone and some other member states—Sweden and Denmark—made an agreement in principle to take part in putting together an assistance package for Ireland. Since then, the various interested parties have been working round the clock with the Irish authorities to put together a package. Officials from the British Treasury have been in Dublin in recent days ensuring that our interests and concerns were represented, and I want to thank them for their hard work. At the end of November, Ireland agreed with the IMF and the EU a three-year financial assistance package worth €85 billion.
Mr Cash
The document to which my right hon. Friend just referred is “for information purposes only” and is clearly not intended to be construed as part and parcel of the Bill. So can he explain why in the document the “conditions precedent” to the arrangements interweave the so-called “bilateral loan” with the European financial stability mechanism, and why an attempt is then made to bypass that by referring to the “Governing law” as “English law”?
Mr Osborne
I am going to discuss some of the conditions attached to the loan. The particular condition that my hon. Friend refers to ensures that the UK is protected if other parties to this international agreement change their arrangement with Ireland in some way that materially affects our ability to be repaid. That condition gives us an ability at that point to step in.
Mr Osborne
I know that my hon. Friend is assiduous on these points, but I think that on this occasion he is not correct. This is simply a fall-back mechanism for us to say that if Ireland in some way renegotiates its loan from the eurozone, from the EU or from the IMF, it is a condition of our loan to Ireland that we can step in at that point and examine our situation. That protects the British taxpayer and has absolutely nothing to do with European law or anything else; it is simply there to make sure that other parties to this international agreement must have due regard to what they are doing, and how that might have an impact on the ability of the British taxpayer to be repaid.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Two things are happening in Ireland at the moment. The first is that austerity reigns and the economy is going down on a daily basis. The second is that a whiff of elections is in the air. The right hon. Gentleman talks of renegotiation, but is it not a fact that renegotiation of a new Government in Ireland is very much on the cards?
Mr Osborne
Obviously we are not going to prejudge the outcome of any Irish general election. Of course we—not just us, but the IMF and others—negotiate with the Government of the day. Although the principal Opposition parties in Ireland have concerns about the Irish budget and the like, I understand that they have accepted the principle of international assistance, and the IMF has been in direct contact, and has engaged in discussions with them. The international community, including the UK, is satisfied that we are in a position to make this offer to the Irish Government, which is why I am bringing the Bill to the House today.
As I was saying, Ireland agreed to seek IMF and other support worth €85 billion, and the money will be used as follows: €35 billion will be used to support Ireland’s banking sector, with €10 billion going towards immediate bank recapitalisation; and the remaining €50 billion will be used for sovereign debt support. In terms of contributions to the cost of the package, Ireland itself will provide €17.5 billion towards the total. The remaining €67.5 billion will be split, with one third coming from the IMF, one third from the European financial stability mechanism, and one third from the eurozone facility and bilateral loans from the UK, Sweden and Denmark. I have agreed that our contribution should amount to €3.8 billion, or £3.25 billion at today’s exchange rate.
This significant package will help Ireland to deal decisively with its problems. It will help it to recapitalise its banks and set up a contingency reserve for future problems. It will also help the Irish authorities to cover the shortfall in their budget, which was passed by the Irish Parliament earlier this month. Their budget will see a fiscal consolidation of €15 billion by 2014, of which €6 billion will be implemented next year, as part of their strategy leading to a target budget deficit of 3% of gross domestic product in four years’ time.
Of course people ask why we are extending the loan to Ireland. We are doing so because it is overwhelmingly in our national interest to have a strong Irish economy and a stable banking system. This is not just about the Irish economy and Irish jobs; it is about the British economy and British jobs. A loan does not add to our deficit, and any increase in borrowing is matched, of course, by the commitment of the Irish to repay with interest. The answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon earlier is that if Ireland takes out all the loan that is being made available to it and pays it back with the interest that has been forecast, it would pay us £440 million in fees and interest over this period.
Let us remember that Ireland is the fifth largest market for British exporters and accounts for 5% of our total exports abroad. An interesting way for the House to think about it is that every man, woman and child in Ireland spends an average of £3,600 per year on British goods—that is how connected our economies are. Indeed, as has often been pointed out, we export more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China put together, although we are trying to increase our exports to those four very large emerging markets. For some of our industrial sectors, such as food and drink or clothing and footwear, Ireland is our top export market. Ireland is also the only country with which we share a land border, and in Northern Ireland our economies are particularly linked, with two-fifths of exports going to the Republic.
I wish to reassure Members representing Northern Ireland that I am very aware of their constituents’ worries and the difficulty they face as a result of the problems in Ireland. That is why my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary recently visited Belfast to discuss these issues directly. I am open to any discussions that Members from Northern Ireland wish to have with me or the Treasury about the economic situation and indeed the banking situation in Northern Ireland. Just as our two economies are linked, our businesses and banking sectors are also interconnected. More Irish companies are listed on London exchanges than companies from any other foreign country. The two main Irish-owned banks have an important presence in the UK, holding between them about £30 billion of customer deposits. In Northern Ireland, two of the four largest high street banks are Irish-owned, accounting for almost a quarter of personal accounts.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has stressed the importance of the export market and our strong links with Ireland. So why did he find it necessary for paragraph 6(h), under the heading “Events of default”, in the summary document to set out that
“the Borrower not being or ceasing to be a member of the European Union”
would constitute a default? I would hope that we would support Ireland if we chose to do so, and not bind it into necessarily having to stay in the European Union, given the length and operation of the loan.
Mr Osborne
It is merely an observation that the fact that Ireland is a member of the European Union is not why we are making this loan; it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that Ireland is deeply connected to us. Indeed, we have just made a loan agreement with Iceland, which of course is not a member of the European Union, in order to seek to recover moneys that were spent on savers in Icelandic banks here in the UK.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As this crisis was triggered by the withdrawal of European Central Bank support for Irish banks, will the Chancellor give us an assurance that we will not be involved in any further refinancing of ECB liabilities should it do the same to another country?
Mr Osborne
I had a very specific choice. I had the opportunity—of course, I would have had to seek the authority of the House—to introduce a general Bill to allow me to make bilateral loans to any number of countries. That legislation would have been very easy to draw up, and it would have been easy to ask the House for its support. I have explicitly restricted this to a Loans to Ireland Bill because of the specific connections between our two economies.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
May I confirm what the Chancellor has just said? The UK contribution to the entire package will be about 5% of the non-Irish contribution—about £3.5 billion—and that stands in comparison with some £12 billion of exports to Ireland, and, as he said, the Irish banks holding some quarter of the deposits in Northern Ireland. Is that the broad summary of where we are?
Mr Osborne
It is a reasonable summary. Of course we stand behind the International Monetary Fund as a shareholder of it, as are most countries in the world. I shall come on to the European financial stability mechanism, which I have already talked to the House about on a number of occasions. Like other contributors to the EU budget, we stand behind it. In a sense, the loan that we are proposing today is the direct British taxpayer contribution—or rather, the money that is borrowed on behalf of the British taxpayer. I shall come to the terms of the loan, but of course we expect to be repaid, and repaid with interest. We are doing this because we think it is absolutely in our national interest, for some of the reasons that have been set out.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
On that point, may I welcome the fact that the Bill is before the House today and that approval is being sought before the loan is made? Will my right hon. Friend explain how we came to be part of the European financial stability mechanism, what approval the House gave to it and what level of debates there were about it?
Mr Osborne
As I explained to the House previously—my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) is here, and might at some point want to give his own version of events—my understanding is that in the period between the general election and the formation of the Government, an emergency ECOFIN meeting was held to address the Greek situation and to provide confidence that the European Union and the eurozone stood behind other member states that were potentially in difficulty.
My predecessor ensured that we stayed out of the eurozone facility—I have acknowledged that in the House —but acquiesced in the use of article 122 of the treaty, which allowed the European Union to disburse funds when a natural disaster, such as an extreme weather event, was affecting a member state, to create a mechanism that could stand behind countries that got into difficulties. The decision on the use of that mechanism is taken by qualified majority voting, so although we could vote against its use in this situation, I did not think that that would achieve anything. I am focused, in a way that I shall describe, on trying to extricate the UK from the EU-27 mechanisms that stand behind eurozone countries. If hon. Members will bear with me, I shall talk about that later, and if people want to intervene at that point, that would be more sensible.
Let me move on to the connections between our banking sectors. Our banking sector has a considerable exposure to Ireland, but I should stress that in the opinion of the Financial Services Authority, the UK banks are sufficiently well capitalised to more than manage the impact of the situation in Ireland. For a long time now the devaluation in Irish asset values has been accounted for and priced in.
One thing is clear. It is undoubtedly in Britain’s national interest to have a growing Irish economy and a stable Irish banking system. In the judgment of both the Irish Government and the international community that was not going to come about without the assistance package we debate today. I would now like to explain to Members the principles of the Bill, and then take them through the heads of terms of the loan agreement.
The Bill has two substantive clauses. Clause 1 sets out the parameters under which the Treasury may make payments under UK loans to Ireland. As I explained earlier, the total international assistance package, including our contribution, is denominated in euros. However, we are making a bilateral loan in sterling so that Ireland bears the exchange rate risk over the coming years. Subsection (3) of the clause includes a cap on the total size of our bilateral loan. It is written on the face of the Bill that
“the aggregate amount of payments made by the Treasury by way of Irish loans...must not exceed £3,250 million”.
In other words, the £3.25 billion we originally agreed will be the maximum total size of our bilateral loan to Ireland. A sunset clause is also, in effect, built into the legislation. The period over which the loans may be offered begins on 9 December 2010, when the Bill was published, and ends on 8 December 2015.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is pre-empting my speech. I shall get on and explain exactly what those two subsections mean.
As I said, there is no expectation that we will have to make further loans to Ireland in the future. Subsection (4) is intended to prevent an increase in the size of the loan, unless an order is made by statutory instrument, but because the loan is denominated in sterling, a mechanism is needed to accommodate potential changes in the exchange rate in the period between the publication of the Bill and the signing of the loan agreement—that answers my hon. Friend’s point—which could happen in a matter of days. This is not about the exchange rate risk over the coming years—that risk is borne by Ireland—but merely a mechanism to deal with the fact that we are publishing the Bill before we sign the loan agreement, for the reasons that I set out earlier.
The Bill allows the Treasury, under subsections (5) to (7), to make an order once the Bill is in force to increase the limit, as long as that is done solely to take account of exchange rate fluctuations between now and 30 days after Royal Assent, without further Parliamentary procedure.
Mr Cash
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand my saying that it would have been so much simpler if what he has just said had been specified in the Bill, instead of a blanket wording referring to substituting a greater amount. We would have then known that that was only intended to allow a margin of error depending on currency fluctuations. Subsection (4) is absolutely clear that there is no restriction.
Mr Osborne
No, let me explain. There are two separate subsections. Subsection (4) allows the loan to be increased substantively, but only with the authority and vote of this Parliament. If I were ever to seek a larger loan to Ireland, I would have to come here and get the vote of the House of Commons. That is what subsection (4) is about. I am making it clear that I have no intention at the moment of doing that, but subsection (4) provides for it, and would prevent us from having to pass further primary legislation. The protection for Members of Parliament is the same—they can keep a check on the Executive—because I would be required to get that affirmative resolution.
Subsections (5) and (6) refer to something different, which is the gap between the passage of the Bill and the signing of the loan agreement. There might be small movements in the exchange rate. We have signed up to this package of a contribution in euros, but we are making a sterling loan. As I explained earlier, I had the opportunity to sign the loan agreement and come retrospectively to seek parliamentary approval, but I am trying to do it the other way around because it gives Members of Parliament a much greater degree of control. That is why these two subsections are required.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I will be supporting my right hon. Friend in the Lobbies tonight, but I am slightly concerned about clause 1(4), which is rather open-ended about the amount that could be paid. Even though a change would have to be passed by the affirmative resolution, I think the Chancellor would confirm that would be agreed by only a very small number of Members and not the entire House.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend has a deep knowledge and experience of issues in Northern Ireland, and indeed the Republic, and I know that his Select Committee will be interested in what is happening with those economies. Let me reassure him that there would be a vote by all Members of the House if I, or any successor of mine—should there be one before 8 December 2015—ever sought to increase the loan. A vote in Parliament would be required, so the effect is exactly the same as asking Parliament to pass another piece of primary legislation. It would involve a vote of the House, which means the legislature exercising its control over and acting as a check on the Executive.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding previous assurances, this loan will not rank pari passu with the EU funds extended under the mechanism, but will be subordinated to them?
Mr Osborne
There is a convention that multilateral loans, such as those involving the mechanism and the IMF, rank senior in any loan agreement. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that I have examined this with great care and interest. The convention is pretty clear and long-established in international law that multilateral loans are senior. That means principally the loan from the IMF, but also the loan from the European mechanism, which we stand behind, so it is also in our interest that it is repaid. However, our loan will rank pari passu with the eurozone and the other bilateral loans. That has partly shaped our judgment about the interest rate we will charge and the point at which we will start to disburse our loan. I shall come back to that.
We expect full repayment to be made over the term of the loan. Clause 1(8) sets out that repayments of both the principal and the interest will go into the Consolidated Fund. We want the whole process to be as transparent as possible, so clause 2 creates a requirement for the Treasury to prepare and lay before Parliament every six months a report on any payments made by the Treasury by way of a loan to Ireland, any sums received by the Treasury by way of interest or repayment of such loans, and the amounts outstanding, in the period to which the report refers.
As I have said, I welcome the agreement across many parts of the House about the need to make this loan, which is in our national interest. I thank the Opposition in particular for their support, and to reciprocate their co-operation I thought we should look favourably on their amendments. I therefore propose to accept in principle the Opposition’s amendment 1, which would modify the Government’s reporting requirements in relation to the bilateral loans. We have today tabled a more appropriately worded version of the amendment which achieves exactly the effect that the Opposition intended. May I explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that this is why there is a manuscript amendment? I am trying not to tempt him, because I am sure that he could speak for even longer, but I want to explain this point because he has raised his concern about it. The manuscript amendment has been drafted by the Government’s parliamentary draftsmen in relation to an Opposition amendment that we propose to accept and it has exactly the effect that the Opposition sought.
Let me update the House on the terms of the bilateral loan that we have now agreed in principle with the Irish authorities. I apologise that this information was not made available much further in advance, but the terms were agreed only this morning with the Irish Government and I wanted all Members of the House to have this information available to them. The loan will be drawn in eight tranches, each with a 7.5-year term. The length of the loan is in line with the terms of both the European and IMF loans. The first tranche of our loan will be available to be disbursed in September 2011, which is later than for some of the other tranches that are being drawn down from partners such as the IMF and the European Union.
The interest rate charged on each tranche of the loan will be fixed specifically for that tranche. It will be set by adding a fixed margin of 2.29 percentage points to the appropriate market-determined interest rate—the sterling 7.5-year swap rate—at the time of disbursement. For example, at the present time, the estimated—I stress estimated—interest rate on the first tranche of the UK loan would be the sterling 7.5-year swap rate in September 2011, which on Monday stood at 3.65 percentage points, plus 2.29 percentage points. That would mean a hypothetical interest rate of 5.9% for the first tranche of the loan. The rate on our bilateral loan will be slightly higher than the estimated rate of 5.7% for the first tranche of the IMF and European mechanism funds, so we are charging a slightly higher rate of interest, but it is lower than the estimated 6.1% rate that the eurozone facility will charge on its first tranche of lending. That reflects the different costs of funding and is a measure of international confidence in the UK’s public finances.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend inform the House how that rate of interest compares with the loan he mentioned earlier that the UK Government agreed with Iceland?
Mr Osborne
The interest rate to Iceland is substantially lower because, frankly, needs must: I am seeking to recover money from Iceland. I am dealing with a situation that I have inherited—obviously the Iceland loan relates to events that happened under the previous Government—and I need the support of the Icelandic Parliament. The rate of interest we are charging is slightly higher than the Dutch, who have also entered into an agreement with the Icelandic Government, are seeking. People might remember the circumstances at the relevant time—there was a pretty acrimonious dispute between Iceland and the previous UK Government—and we have sought to repair broken bridges. The terms of the loan that we have come to with Iceland mean that this country will get its money back. My judgment was that other terms might have meant our not getting our money back at all and that would not have been very sensible.
Mark Reckless
It is enormously welcome that this country is working with Iceland and Ireland to support them in these very difficult times. The Chancellor has mentioned the current 7.5-year swap rate; can he tell us how much higher it is than when he first announced our participation in this bail-out?
Mr Osborne
I do not think it has materially changed. I have been quite focused on trying to land it at the 5.9% rate, because that sits between the 6.1% and 5.7% rates of the other international parts of the package. That rate reflects some of the circumstances that relate to my hon. Friend’s earlier intervention.
The IMF will charge a floating rate, with a margin above its funding costs, in line with its pre-existing loan terms for an extended fund facility. The European loans, like ours, will charge a fixed rate on each tranche set using a margin above their own cost of funds. We will charge interest every six months and there will be a repayment of the principal at the end of the 7.5-year term of each tranche.
In common with the IMF, we will also charge a commitment fee for making the loan. We will charge half a percentage point on the total amounts that may be drawn on under the loan agreement for the forthcoming 12-month period. If the loan is drawn on, the fee will be waived and effectively replaced with the interest charged on the loan.
There are two conditions, which are set out in terms to which I draw the House’s particular attention. The first is that the IMF, as well as the EU, must be satisfied that Ireland is complying with the agreed restructuring plan. I think that that is a very important safeguard for British taxpayers. The second, crucial, condition is that there must be
“no amendments to the Restructuring Plan that would have a material adverse financial impact on the UK operations of Anglo Irish bank, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland”.
Given the scale of those banks’ operations in the UK, that second condition is significant, and it shows in a practical way why I believe it was right for us to provide the loan. It allows us to have a say in a restructuring plan that could otherwise have had a major impact on the UK and its banking system, and could potentially have cost the British taxpayer considerable sums of money without our voice even being heard. Making the loan has enabled us to set that condition, and to be part of the discussion about the restructuring plan and its impact on the UK subsidiaries of banks which have significant presences in Northern Ireland. I know that there is concern about the potential impact of the plan on jobs and the availability of credit in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, about its potential impact throughout the UK, given that Bank of Ireland owns the Post Office card account.
Nadhim Zahawi
What the Chancellor is saying is particularly pertinent, given that the Post Office cash machine in Portcullis House was provided by the Irish banks.
May I ask a quick question?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
No interventions on an intervention, please.
Nadhim Zahawi
Are we the only lender that is lending in a currency other than the euro?
Mr Osborne
Sweden and Denmark are at this moment finalising their loan agreement, and I do not think they have yet made that decision. As I have said, we decided to lend in sterling so that the exchange rate risk would be borne by the Irish rather than the British Government.
The official advice from the Treasury is that the loan agreement represents value for money for the British taxpayer. As I said earlier, it is also in line with the terms offered by both the IMF and the eurozone. I have laid before the House a summary of the key terms of the agreement, and a final written agreement will be forthcoming in the next few days—or, potentially, weeks—once the European and IMF assistance has also been agreed. I will, of course, keep the House informed.
One thing is clear: Ireland is a friend in need, and it is because our economy is currently in a stronger position than Ireland’s that we are able to offer it such reasonable and sensible terms for our bilateral loan.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I understand all the Chancellor’s concerns about the close relationship between us and Ireland. He said it was important for this country to be at the table in terms of any restructuring. Does he understand the concerns of many of our constituents, who would say that a similar argument could be advanced if there were problems for, say, Santander in Spain, or for other European banks with significant interests in London? Will he make it very plain at this juncture that he considers this to be a case in its own right, rather than one to which we might have to return in the next six to nine months if further problems arose in the eurozone?
Mr Osborne
I have said that I regard this as a case in its own right—a very specific case. As I have explained, quite candidly, my officials offered me two options: a general, enabling piece of legislation allowing us to make bilateral loans to other countries, and the much more narrowly drafted Loans to Ireland Bill. I think that the clue is in the title.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Over the past few days we have seen substantial growth in the economy of the UK mainland, but that growth has not been reflected in Northern Ireland, as some of its financial institutions—notably Ulster bank—have indicated. What assurance can the Chancellor give the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Minister of Finance and Northern Ireland Members in the House that, at every stage, full consideration will be given to how loans to the Republic of Ireland will affect the economy in Northern Ireland? At this stage, we feel apprehensive about what is being proposed.
Mr Osborne
I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s apprehension, given the close connections between the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Let me make two points. First, as I said earlier, the loan has enabled us to be part of the international discussion about the restructuring of the Irish banks, some of which—as the hon. Gentleman knows even better than I do—are incredibly important operators in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that he will not have had a chance to study the loan agreement, as I have laid it before the House only within the last couple of hours, but one of the conditions is that there should be
“no amendments to the Restructuring Plan that would have a material adverse financial impact on the UK operations of Anglo Irish Bank, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland”.
That partly addresses the banking situation in Northern Ireland, and, as I have said, it gives us a seat at the table in discussions that affect the UK.
Secondly, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said this morning during Northern Ireland questions, we want to engage with the Executive, with representatives of the Assembly and, indeed, with Members of Parliament about how we can enable the Northern Ireland economy to grow. A draft paper has been put to the Executive. I am very engaged in the process, as is my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I repeat the offer that I made earlier to hold a detailed discussion with Northern Ireland representatives, at any point, about some of the broader economic measures that we might be able to take in Northern Ireland to help its economy.
Mr Osborne
I give way to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am grateful to the Chancellor, whose comments have clearly provoked a big reaction.
Corporation tax is a big issue in Northern Ireland. It worries people there that the Irish Republic wishes to retain its 12.5% corporation tax rate. We in Northern Ireland are arguing for a cut in our rate, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tells us that that will cost us some £310 million of our block grant. In a way, we will be subsidising the Irish Republic to keep its corporation tax low, and penalising Northern Ireland if it wants to reduce its corporation tax. The Chancellor must take that into account in the context of this package of measures.
Mr Osborne
As I said to the House on a previous occasion, I did not think it right—others may take a different view—for one sovereign nation to try to dictate the tax rates of another sovereign nation. I did not think that that was a precedent that we particularly wanted to set. I entirely understand the competitive pressure that the Irish corporation tax rate puts on Northern Ireland, but ultimately it must be for the Irish Parliament to determine its own tax rates. It is, of course, having to take some very difficult measures to preserve the corporation tax rate in the Republic.
I know that there is a discussion to be had about the corporation tax rate in Northern Ireland, and about other measures that might be taken there. A document has been submitted this week. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but let us have that discussion with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Members.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I have listened with interest to what the Chancellor has been saying. I appreciate the measured way in which he has presented his proposals and, indeed, the cross-party support for them, and I have no wish to disturb that support. However, will the Chancellor think again about two aspects of what he has said?
First, there is the question of the terms on which the loan will be repaid. Given that the deal is currently quite advantageous to the Irish in terms of interest rate security and, indeed, the standing of the loan, would it not be possible to negotiate the option for the UK to be repaid in sterling should there be an interesting movement in the sterling-euro exchange rate, which is quite likely?
Secondly, given that the right hon. Gentleman rather alarmingly says that this might not be the end of the matter, and that therefore he has left the way open, through just the affirmative procedure, for more substantial loans—I think I understand the situation correctly from what he says—to be made to Ireland, will he look at making such action subject to new legislation in the House, which would attract more attention and scrutiny from this body?
Mr Osborne
We are being repaid in sterling, so that answers the hon. Gentleman’s first point. I have already dealt with the second point on a number of occasions, but I shall just point out that the effect would be exactly the same. Whether I brought to the House legislation or used the affirmative procedure, I would have to get the support of Members, so materially the impact would be exactly the same: the House of Commons would be able to stop such action taking place. I should stress that I have absolutely no intention of doing so at the moment, and there is protection.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I do not pretend to be an economist, but does the Chancellor share my concern that, if the European Union forces Ireland to put up its corporation tax, that might hold greater danger for us, as Ireland could be in less of a position to pay us back the money? For that reason alone, we should resist any attempt by outside bodies to impose a tax regime on Ireland.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. A sudden flight of international investment from Ireland is not in anybody’s interest. All countries seek to compete against each other for such inward investment, but, as I say, it would set a poor precedent for the UK if one nation state or a collection of nation states started dictating to another nation state what its tax rate should be.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend will be very focused on what I am about to say, so if he does not mind I shall make a little progress, and then I shall be happy to take an intervention.
Let me turn briefly to the arrangements for a permanent stability mechanism for eurozone economies. The European Council this week is expected to discuss the matter. Both the Prime Minister and I are very clear that when it comes to putting in place a permanent mechanism, the UK is not part of the eurozone and so will not be part of that mechanism. The president of the euro group has accepted that the UK will not be part of the permanent stability mechanism, and that the European financial stability mechanism, which the previous Government agreed in May and of which we are part, will cease to exist when that permanent eurozone mechanism is put in place.
We will seek to bring to an end the use of the mechanism established in May for the resolution of sovereign debt problems. It was established under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty and originally intended to provide support for member states following natural disasters. European Finance Ministers, including my predecessor, chose to apply that article in May to deal with the eurozone crisis at that time, but that temporary solution should not become a permanent way of doing things, and the time has now come for the eurozone to put in place its own mechanism for dealing with the imbalances in the eurozone. That needs to be part of a comprehensive solution whereby countries address their own problems more decisively, including in their banking systems. We in Britain have shown the way.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
The Chancellor speaks of a comprehensive solution. Does he recognise that we face not only a crisis of liquidity in Portugal, Greece and Ireland, which we are assisting bilaterally, but a crisis of solvency? The solvency crisis will require us to address not just Irish bank restructuring, but Ireland’s sovereign debt—it is impossible to distinguish the two, given that the Irish state has guaranteed all the Irish banking system’s liabilities—and the solvency of other peripheral eurozone economies. We are helping with financing, but we have not yet addressed the fundamental solvency of those peripheral countries.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There was a debate—it was pretty widely reported, so I am not betraying anything that was not read by everyone throughout the world—about whether to address the solvency issues, and whether there should be a contribution—or a haircut, to use the jargon—from senior debt holders in the banks or, indeed, sovereign debt holders. The international community’s view, with which we absolutely agree, is that such a contribution risked a very serious contagion that might spread through many different banking systems, not just those of the countries to which my hon. Friend refers. So the decision was taken not to require a private sector bail-in from senior debt holders in the banks or, indeed, sovereign debt holders.
As part of a comprehensive solution, the eurozone needs to come to a rapid conclusion about its mechanism, draw a distinction, as it has sought to, between existing debt and potential future-issued debt, create a credible mechanism and work out how a single currency zone that does not have a single fiscal policy or a political union will deal with its imbalances.
Mr Osborne
I see the speed with which my hon. Friend leaps to his feet at that point, but I shall take his intervention in a moment.
The eurozone needs to address that situation, and we need to ensure that it gets it right, because that is absolutely in our interests. Individual countries also need to address their problems. Portugal has a long-standing problem with its economic productivity, which the Portuguese Government are determined to address. The Irish banking system has caused enormous problems for the Irish Government, who are now addressing that. In a bipartisan debate, this is a slightly partisan point, but I think that the UK has demonstrated over the past six months that, by its own efforts, a country can earn market credibility, improve its credit rating and improve international confidence in its economy. We need the eurozone to sort out its mechanism, but individual countries in Europe also need to take decisive steps to deal with the particular problems that their economies face. Let me give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), and then I must conclude to allow others to speak.
Mr Cash
I have put a number of questions, as yet unanswered, to my right hon. Friend on that very issue, but I am glad that he has given, at any rate, a partial answer to one of them. The mechanism’s transfer from what appears to be an unlawful basis in article 122 of the Lisbon treaty to the new proposals under article 136 will involve only the eurozone and represent an important step in the right direction. Does my right hon. Friend not accept, however, that much could happen over the next two or three years, between now and 2013, while the mechanism in which my right hon. Friend’s predecessor engaged, and which I believe to be unlawful, continues? We could be locked into a Portuguese or a Spanish black hole. We do not know yet, but there is a danger.
Mr Osborne
First, I am dealing with the situation as I found it, and as I found it we were committed to that mechanism under qualified majority voting, but I am trying to extricate us from that. Secondly, the permanent arrangements might come into play sooner than 2013. That is a subject for discussion at the European Council, and, certainly as far as we are concerned, the sooner we get on with it, the better. I am doing everything I can to ensure that the UK is extricated from the commitment that was entered into, and we are making good progress.
Mr Osborne
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have already taken an intervention from him. Many Members want to speak, and I have spoken for an hour.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Get on with it, George.
Mr Osborne
Well, I took a lot of interventions. I’m sorry about that, but there we go—there’s no gratitude in this place!
Let me conclude. The Government have taken action to put our own house in order. We were once seen as part of the problem; we are now part of the solution. It is in our national interest to help Ireland, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
We will support the Bill. The more I listen to the Chancellor, the more my admiration and respect grows for his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). On 8 May, my right hon. Friend negotiated arrangements under which the UK remained outside the €440 billion European financial stability facility and ensured that we did not contribute as much as a rusty old drachma to the bail-out of Greece.
Alan Johnson
I will take interventions later.
In his statement on 22 November—repeated today—the Chancellor said that he counselled his predecessor against joining the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which was a pre-existing fund involving all 27 member states and was worth only a seventh of the larger facility. As the Chancellor said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West is in his place and if he catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, he can give his recollection of that conversation.
However, given that the mechanism—the smaller amount—was decided by qualified majority voting, it seems that agreeing to ensure that we stay out of the €440 billion EFSF was a good deal for our country, particularly as my right hon. Friend ensured that none of the mechanism of which we were part was used to bail out Greece. That was a good deal all round, and a lesson for our inexperienced Chancellor in the art of negotiation. Indeed, the quip going round a couple of years ago, when the collapse of the banking industry in Iceland was closely followed by what happened in Ireland, was: what is the difference between Iceland and Ireland? Answer—one letter and six months. A modern variation could be to ask, what is the difference between Darling and Osborne? Answer—five letters, six months and £6.6 billion.
Mr Cash
When the shadow Chancellor says, as the Chancellor said, that the process was triggered by a qualified majority vote, I am sure that he would agree that that is not strictly true, because it resulted from a request by a member state. The final solution or arrangements are made by virtue of a qualified majority vote at the end. That is a qualification, but it does not alter the fact that, on the basis it was explained to us, article 122 was almost certainly unlawful and the use of article 136 would have been a better route. However, we appear to be entrapped into article 122 for the current purposes.
Alan Johnson
I believe that the hon. Gentleman will seek to address that in his amendment to clause 3, which we will discuss later. On the specific issue, there is no doubt that the mechanism was decided by qualified majority voting. All 27 European member states were part of that. I know from experience of negotiating in Europe over many years that it is a pretty turgid process and one has to be on one’s toes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West can speak for himself, but I think he got a very good deal for this country on Greece.
The Chancellor must take responsibility for the deal that he has negotiated and not try spuriously to blame his predecessor, as he did again in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on 8 December. He had a choice about whether the UK should contribute to the Irish rescue plan. In principle, he has made the right choice, but before us today is a hastily drawn-up Bill that does not set out the terms of the loan, the interest rate or the repayment schedule. Colleagues from all parties will want to explore and probe those matters in Committee, and we particularly want to get to our amendments on clause 2, so a goodly proportion of the time available to us this afternoon may be better spent on that. It is therefore not my intention to detain the House for long on Second Reading.
David T. C. Davies
Does the shadow Chancellor share my gratitude that the decision is being taken in this Chamber and not by a group of unelected bankers in Frankfurt? That is because we did not listen to Opposition Members—we have never supported joining the euro, which would have meant that the decision would not have been ours to make in the first place.
Alan Johnson
I always try to avoid sharing the hon. Gentleman’s pleasure. I shall come to the nature of the deal, because in debating the Bill we are discussing one element that constitutes a little more than half of the money that the UK taxpayer is putting into the deal.
The argument for treating Ireland as a special case is clear. I shall reiterate some of the points that the Chancellor made. Our two countries are intertwined in commerce, in trade, in banking, in culture and in sport. We share a language and a land border. Not only is Ireland one of our five largest export markets but, as the Chancellor said, one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—sends 40% of its exports across the border to the Republic. The situation in Ireland could cause significant damage to UK financial institutions and create instability in both sovereign and bank debt markets. The UK is Ireland’s largest creditor—we are talking about almost €112 billion—and I understand from a newspaper report last week that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds have Irish loan books worth 82% and 53% of net assets respectively.
In its report last month, the International Monetary Fund singled out Ireland to demonstrate what it called the “key underlying vulnerability” of UK banks’ exposure to foreign banks. The support programme assures the protection of senior bond holders in Irish banks from any losses, thus affording a greater level of protection to UK banks. For all of those reasons and many more, it is in this country’s interest to support this package.
I want to raise three concerns. The first, which was raised in a couple of interventions—including by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—is the open-ended nature of the commitment. There is a distinct possibility of more money being required for Ireland after 2013, given the tendency of Irish banks to downplay the severity of their situation and the tough conditionality being applied alongside concerns about European growth. In those circumstances, should we not make it clear to our European partners that the EFSF must be used for any further financial support, rather than giving the impression that this is a well into which further buckets can be dipped?
That is particularly relevant to my second concern about the balance between the contributions made by the various mechanisms. The €440 billion EFSF—the facility— for eurozone countries only is being tapped for 4% of the total resources that eurozone countries have agreed to make available for Ireland. The smaller EFSM—the mechanism—of which we are part and to which we contribute, was not used at all for the Greek bail-out. The EFSM is offering 37.5% of its available resources for the Irish bail-out. Why was that formulation chosen and why is the total amount we are contributing double the amount that we would have had to pay if we were a eurozone country?
Mr George Osborne
I am not sure that the shadow Chancellor is correct in that assertion. First, our contribution has been calculated on the basis of what we would have paid if we had been part of the facility. That is how the £3.25 billion figure was broadly arrived at. Secondly, the mechanism currently in use was created after the bilateral agreement was put together for the Greek bail-out. It was never available to be used for the Greek bail-out, which took place as a series of bilateral loans across Europe. As I understand it, over the May weekend the facility was put in place to address the crisis and article 122 was drawn upon to create the mechanism, so it could not have been used for Greece at that point.
Alan Johnson
I am grateful to the Chancellor for that intervention. However, it does not explain why the £3.25 billion he has just mentioned is the bilateral loan. That is the equivalent of what we would have put into the Irish bail-out had we been members of the eurozone. However, we are also putting in £2.6 billion through the EFSM and £800 million through the IMF. With the bilateral loan added to the other donations of British taxpayers’ contributions that we are making through the mechanisms, we are putting in double the amount of money that other European Union countries are contributing.
Charlie Elphicke
Surely, the right hon. Gentleman’s point highlights the lack of wisdom in signing us up to the stabilisation mechanism on 9 May.
Alan Johnson
This may be news to the hon. Gentleman, but his party is in government now. As I said, my party ensured that we contributed nothing—not a penny, not a euro, not a drachma—to the Greek bailout. The Chancellor is coming before this House with a £6.6 billion contribution to Ireland, which we support, but the various aspects of the mechanism need to be explained and understood.
Alan Johnson
We have the €60 billion fund, about which the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) intervened, and we have a second fund of €440 billion. I am simply pointing out—the public deserve to know this—that only 4% is coming from the larger amount and 37% from the smaller amount. I am curious about that, and we need to understand the logic of it.
Mr Hollobone
Is the shadow Chancellor’s point that the European Central Bank is keeping these funds to rescue Portugal, Spain and perhaps Italy in due course?
Mr Mark Field
I will try to make a more helpful point. Given that the Opposition are supporting this loan arrangement, does the shadow Chancellor think it desirable that part of it should be bilateral and therefore agree with the structure that the Chancellor has put in place?
Alan Johnson
I do agree that part of it should be bilateral, for all the reasons that I have mentioned. As various members have commented, however, we need to understand why the formulation has been made—because it could be setting precedents; because there is a larger pot of money out of which a lesser sum of money is being brought; and because the Chancellor can come back to this House, by virtue of a statutory instrument and seek further money for Ireland. We need to be clear what we are letting ourselves in for.
Alan Johnson
No, I will not give way—perhaps later.
I am also curious about the following piece of distorted logic. In the Treasury Committee, the Chancellor said that it was okay to set austerity aside in order to make a loan to Ireland because of the promise of repayment. He said that this loan “adds to our debt” but
“We’re getting back a very important asset which is a commitment from the Irish government to pay us back with interest.”
What puzzles me is which part of that definition of a sensible loan did not apply to Sheffield Forgemasters. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I am sorry that Government. Members groan about British manufacturing industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) raised this issue during the Chancellor’s statement on 22 November. Why does the Chancellor agree a huge loan to Ireland on the basis he cited but reject a modest £80 million that would be paid back with interest and boost the opportunity of British manufacturers to have a substantial stake in the civil nuclear energy supply chain, which is currently dominated by overseas companies? At a time when we are looking for jobs and growth, the logic of that escapes me.
My third concern is the prospect of each eurozone country being bailed out as its economy falls into crisis without addressing the root causes of the continent’s problems.
Mr Cash
Is the shadow Chancellor aware that serious discussions are going on about increasing the €400 billion facility, and probably doubling it? In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), is not the whole European Union, not to mention the world at large, confronting a very dangerous and difficult situation?
Alan Johnson
Yes, but that is a matter for the eurozone. If the Chancellor is right in his prediction that perhaps this can ensure that we come out of the €60 billion mechanism, the facility and the other moneys, then fine, but as we are making a big contribution—more than we would have done had we paid the amount that a eurozone country would have paid to rescue Ireland—we must be in a position to influence this debate.
Mr George Osborne
I must correct this point. We are paying pretty much exactly what we would have paid if we had been a member of the euro; that is how the bilateral loan is being calculated. Germany is paying both through the facility and through the mechanism, and so are France and the other members of the euro. Other countries are paying twice. Ours is a bilateral loan like those of Sweden and Denmark, and they too have been calculated in a similar way.
Alan Johnson
I am grateful for that clarification; we will look at that very carefully. What the Chancellor is saying is that France and Germany, through their IMF contribution—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says no. The point I am trying to get at—perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clear this up when he replies to the debate—is that if the UK is putting in a bilateral loan that is equal to the amount that we would have paid as a eurozone member, and we are putting in money through the IMF as well as £2.6 billion through the mechanism, how does that relate to the money that France and Germany are contributing? As far as I am aware, they have no bilateral arrangements, so the money is going through the IMF, or through the stability facility which accounts for only 4% of the resources. That is a point that we need to hear about.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor says that he supports the idea of a bilateral loan because Ireland is such an important trading partner for Britain. I am delighted to hear that he is going to support the Bill. However, will this be another situation like the graduate tax whereby he will say one thing and the rest of the shadow Cabinet will say another?
Alan Johnson
I will not bother to take an intervention from the hon. Lady next time, because that point does not even begin to be germane to this problem.
My third concern is how we are going to draw a line under this matter. We had the Greek bail-out, and now we have had the Irish bail-out. There is no sign of any real stability in the eurozone to stop such events happening again.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Is it not important that Europe gets ahead of the crisis? As we saw with the Greek bail-out, such short-term measures do not solve the fundamental problems across the eurozone.
Alan Johnson
I am coming to exactly that point.
Some Conservative Members think that the root cause is the single currency. I do not share that view. The euro had nothing to do with the property boom and bust, and a failed euro would be an economic and political disaster with repercussions well beyond our continent. Ireland needs a healthy eurozone, or it will end up with years of deflation and unemployment, and we will be less likely to have our loan repaid.
As the loan that we are being asked to approve is equal to the amount of money that we would have contributed had we been a member of the eurozone, surely that gives us the right to influence the necessary debate on what action is needed to address the underlying causes of this recurring crisis. This bail-out buys time, but there is no sign that Europe’s leaders know how to put it to good use. In May, we had the Greek bail-out; six months later, we have to deal with Ireland. In neither case is there much sign that these countries have resolved the core dilemma, which is solvency.
Collective austerity across Europe offers countries with high debt burdens no way out. Cutting demand in Germany is the last thing that Ireland needs at the moment. What we are seeing in Europe bears out the IMF’s conclusion that fiscal austerity does not boost short-term growth and that deficit cuts are more painful if they occur simultaneously across many countries. Ireland needs a healthy eurozone with markets such as Germany consuming Irish goods, or it will end up with years of deflation and unemployment. Having engaged in repeated rounds of austerity, with VAT rises, welfare cuts and redundancies, Ireland still finds growth elusive: it has been consistently poor for the past three years. Indeed, the economy has shrunk in 11 of the 14 quarters since the beginning of 2007, and sluggish growth has made getting the deficit down much harder.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
When a country becomes over-indebted, it can either enslave itself to the debt or inflate and devalue. Is it not clear that the fundamental problem is that none of the countries in the euro can inflate and devalue to get out of their problems? That is why some Conservative Members are saying that it is only a matter of time before some of these countries fall out of the euro, and that we would be better off planning on that basis than pretending that we can hold back an unstoppable tide.
Alan Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right that the single currency gives Ireland no mechanism to devalue its currency, and that that causes it a problem. However, there are two extremes to that argument. The first says that the eurozone is unfinished business; what started as a currency harmonisation needs to move to the next stage. I heard the president of the European Central Bank say on the radio last night that the next stage should be political integration. My party does not agree with that; nor I am sure does the hon. Gentleman’s. Further integration is one extreme that we should not go to.
The second extreme says that if Ireland simply withdrew from the euro or the eurozone, its problems would be solved. I do not believe that to be the case. The eurozone has to recognise the problem that its countries cannot devalue and must find a mechanism that ensures that this problem does not keep happening to country after country. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has a view, as do many of his colleagues, on the answer to this ongoing problem. I do not agree with him, but I believe that it is central to stop this happening to other countries, and to stop it being a regular event. The fragility of the recovery, especially in Europe, emphasises the need for decisive action to resolve the underlying difficulties faced by eurozone countries.
The situation in Ireland is a huge embarrassment for the Chancellor, exposing as it does his poor judgment and rich hyperbole. At the time of the comprehensive spending review, he claimed that our country was on the brink of bankruptcy. He now proposes a loan of an amount that is well over half the cumulative debt interest savings that he claimed he would make over the spending review period. There is also the paradox of his support for Ireland’s banks, but his opposition to the previous Government’s successful measures to protect British banks.
Finally, there is the Chancellor’s frequently expressed belief that Britain should look to Ireland for inspiration, which he expressed both before the banking crisis, when he urged us to emulate the “Irish miracle”, and since the crisis, with his desire to copy some of Ireland’s painful austerity measures. His gloriously misjudged 2006 article in The Times is now well known:
“Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking”.
He is in good company. I shall quote from the Prime Minister in the Belfast Telegraph on 26 October 2006.
Alan Johnson
No, I will not give way. The Prime Minister said:
“That is why a priority for any Conservative government led by me will be to create a much better environment for business… We know it can be done. Just look at the Republic of Ireland.”
Two years later, at exactly the time when Ireland’s six largest banks were forced to borrow €20 billion from the European Central Bank, the Prime Minister said that Ireland had
“a ‘future fund’ of assets, providing security against future liabilities and unknown shocks coming down the line.”
Perhaps those on the Treasury Bench will update us on how that future fund is doing in Ireland. Finally, in June 2008, at a Cameron Direct event in Harlow, he said:
“When it comes to the engine room of the country, the economy, you know you can look across to southern Ireland where they have created a dynamic economy. Well we’ve got to do that right here.”
Our message to the Chancellor as we prepare to support his Bill is not to replicate Ireland, but to repudiate the measures that put its economy in such a perilous position.
We understand that there is an O’Donnell circulating a plan B in Whitehall against the Chancellor’s wishes. As the Chancellor said in The Times, the Irish have
“much to teach us, if only we are willing to learn.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Because of the popularity of this debate, there will be a seven-minute limit for speeches by Back Benchers. The usual arrangements apply for interventions.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Until the shadow Chancellor’s last few words, I was looking forward to saying that I agree with just about everything that has been said from both Front Benches. None the less, there is a good deal of cross-party consensus about what is being discussed.
The Chancellor is faced with a difficult situation: a regional currency crisis that is largely not of his making, a close neighbour with strong historical ties in the eye of the storm and an inherited financial commitment to assistance at the European level.
The Treasury Committee took advantage of the Chancellor’s appearance before us last week to cross-examine him on these matters in some detail. That appearance, his speech today and particularly the terms sheet, which we have just received, have given us a good deal of information, and I am grateful to him. I am relieved, according to that information, that any increase in the loan, which is permitted by the legislation, will be debated on the Floor of the House.
We now know the price of the loan for the first time, broadly speaking. It looks sensible, although I notice that it can be varied under the enabling legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has pointed out, we have discovered from the terms sheet that the loan is junior in the debt hierarchy to support through the EU mechanism. It would be useful if the Minister, in the winding-up speech, told us whether the Irish can repay the loan early without penalty. I do not think that that is what is stated in paragraph 5(c) of “Other Terms” in the loan agreement—I have obviously had very little time to read it—but there is also a reference to “exceptions” in the bracketed part of the sentence.
A number of hon. Members and I would like to know whether the Government have considered purchasing assets held by the National Asset Management Agency, as an alternative to part or all of the loan.
As far as I know, this bilateral loan has no direct precedent. The UK has gone further than was needed to fulfil its legal obligations. The Chancellor made a strong and persuasive case, which was supported by the Opposition. However, I think that that decision needs close scrutiny, as does the decision, which straddled the previous Government’s tenure, that left the UK with extra contingent liabilities as a result of the mechanism. We may have been put in the unsatisfactory position of making EU budget payments to bail out the eurozone, even though we are not a member of it.
It is important to bear in mind that demand for a bail-out originated not with a request from Ireland, but from the fear among eurozone members of contagion spreading from Ireland to Portugal and Spain. Most hon. Members agree that bailing out the eurozone is primarily its business and not ours. It is true that the collapse of the zone would generate shockwaves throughout the region, and possibly the world. However, the eurozone does have the capacity to bail out weaker members and, to the extent that the stability of the whole financial system is at stake, our contribution should usually be made via the International Monetary Fund. It is for those reasons that I was relieved when the Chancellor confirmed before the Select Committee that the legislation will be unique to Ireland and does not contain enabling powers for further bilateral eurozone bail-outs.
Mr Tyrie
I appreciate that. The Chancellor has referred to 2013 on a number of occasions, and my hon. Friend has referred to the possible unlawfulness of the mechanism on a number of occasions, including in private discussions.
This is a crisis of the eurozone, for which UK taxpayers are footing part of the bill. The UK will have to engage with members of the eurozone to limit the damage now and to construct something better for the future. I will touch on a few of those points in the moments that remain. I recognise that the problems to which I refer may be intractable. First, as the Chancellor has said, the senior creditors have been exempted from a haircut. The Chancellor told us that this was because of the risk of contagion. He is probably right, but the resulting moral hazard is large and will have to be addressed.
The second issue that I wish to raise, which naturally none of the authorities wants to talk about, is the fact that even the measures for Ireland and for Greece may not prevent default. The crisis may be one of solvency, not liquidity. That has a bearing on the lender of last resort provisions for the eurozone. It is possible that a sovereign default could trigger a banking crisis and even failure in parts of the eurozone, because banks hold a large amount of sovereign debt on their balance sheets. Such a bank failure could be highly toxic.
It is worth bearing in mind that the great depression of the 1930s was triggered as much by bank failures after 1931 as it was by the stock market collapse of 1929. I do not want to play the role of Cassandra, but I plead that contingency planning at European level be done now for the risk of such a bank failure. On the basis of the eurozone’s responses to the crisis so far, I am not optimistic that that planning is being done. The eurozone is fearful of leaks, and those doing the work would be terrified of that possibility. I have no doubt that that would inhibit their work. In addition, pessimism on such issues in European circles does not exactly make such work a career-enhancing prospect for the eurocrats who would have to do it. Let us just hope that they are doing that work.
The third problem that I wish to refer to—I shall leave it at that given the time available—is the long-term future of the eurozone itself in a world in which the bond markets have discovered that the no bail-out clause is toothless. I should say at this point that I have never opposed the eurozone on ideological grounds or on grounds of principle, but I have been wary on practical grounds, particularly the ground that the no bail-out clause may turn out to have no clothes. That is exactly what has happened.
Mr Jenkin
Does my hon. Friend share the concern that because we are taking part in the Irish bail-out on equal terms with the euro members, we are setting a precedent that will put political pressure on the Government to take part in other bail-outs? Does he believe that the Government will be in a position to resist that pressure?
Mr Tyrie
I have no doubt that the Government are listening to my hon. Friend and others, who will put pressure on them to resist the pressure from other quarters. I agree with his point.
It seems to me that very little work is being done on the possibility of the euro crisis leading to more general examples of the no bail-out clause’s bluff being called. I would be surprised if there had been any such work. I cannot be sure, but it strikes me as highly unlikely. It is the Ark of the Covenant that the eurozone will continue indefinitely.
When the Chancellor came before the Treasury Committee, he assured us that eurozone members were
“having a discussion about the permanent eurozone bail-out mechanism.”
Mr Tyrie
I will not, because I am about to conclude.
Any new bail-out mechanism, however, may itself lack credibility in the absence of a common European fiscal policy. That is why the discovery that the no bail-out clause is a paper tiger will remain an enduring problem for the eurozone’s stability, a problem from whose consequences the UK will certainly not be immune.
Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) that we should be concerned about what is being done within Europe not only to deal with the immediate crisis in Ireland but in relation to the other problems that I believe will arise during the course of next year. The piecemeal approach that Europe has adopted, certainly in the past two or three years, has got to stop. I shall return to that point in the short time that I have available.
I support the Bill and agree with much of what the Chancellor has said. He may feel that that is of absolutely no comfort to him given what some hon. Members sitting behind him have to say. He is absolutely right that because of our interests in Ireland—particularly the interests of the British banks in the Republic of Ireland and the Republic’s banks’ interests in this country—we should be involved in any restructuring discussions. That is very important to us.
Before I deal with the wider problems, I wish to deal with the funding of the rescue, which has been the subject of the debate this afternoon. As the Chancellor has said, we are funding that rescue through the IMF, which we ultimately guarantee, and through a direct loan from the United Kingdom. We obviously hope that that money will be repaid in full, but there is a contingent liability. We are not part of the eurozone fund, and on the weekend of 9 May I spent many hours resisting every attempt from just about every quarter to get us to stand behind the euro. I did not think that was right for us.
We are also making a contribution, of course, through the European financial stability mechanism. That was the subject of a lot of discussion at the meeting of 9 May. I went to Brussels that weekend with no enthusiasm whatever. We had lost the election, but this country was in the unusual position that there was not a Government in place by the Friday, which was the normal situation over the past few decades. Frankly, I had no option but to go, because not to have done so would have been to empty-chair the UK, which would have been quite wrong. I spoke to the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) and the Chancellor, because I felt it appropriate to do so. I thought that in all probability they would both be in office within a couple of days.
I have to remind the House of the circumstances of that weekend. We were meeting at a time of crisis. There was a real sense that the markets were about to have a go at Portugal and Spain, and there is a sense of déjà vu about that, because we are back in that position now. In all probability, the IMF was going to make a loan. There had been a lot of discussions, prompted by the United States, urging Europe to do something about the growing crisis, yet nothing had happened throughout January, February, March and April. It took that emergency meeting in May, when we had to put together a rescue package to persuade the European Central Bank to start buying bonds. That was the critical decision taken that weekend. If it had not bought bonds, there would have been a real problem. That was why we were faced with the situation that we were.
I discussed with the Chancellor what we should do about the financial stability mechanism. He had his reservations and stated very clearly that he was against deploying it, and he asked me whether I should abstain, recognising that the decision was to be taken by qualified majority voting. Both of us recognised, I think, that if we had abstained, the proposal would still have gone through, because everybody else in the room wanted the mechanism to be deployed. I found myself in exactly the same position that he did just a few weeks ago when he was being asked to contribute. He made it clear in a statement to the House on 22 November that he did not believe we should make that commitment, but said:
“However, it operates according to qualified majority voting and so we cannot stop it being used, and to exercise that vote at this time would, I judge, be very disruptive.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 39.]
That was exactly the situation in which I found myself in May, which was why I agreed to go along with the proposal.
However, I have to say that that fund was not used at all when it came to the bail-out of Greece. That was entirely from the eurozone fund that was set up. Obviously I had left office by then and was not part of the discussions, but that is the simple fact of the matter. Once again, Europe was meeting in crisis, and we had to get a package of £500 billion together to get the ECB to meet. Otherwise, it would have done absolutely nothing.
Sajid Javid
The shadow Chancellor made the rather incredible statement in his opening remarks that he believes that Ireland’s euro membership has absolutely nothing to do with the predicament in which it finds itself. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Darling
The circumstances in which Ireland finds itself are complex, but there is no doubt that one problem is that a common interest rate right across Europe is perhaps inappropriate for an economy that is rapidly investing in an asset bubble. However, I do not have the same phobia about the euro that many Conservative Members still have, 20 years on.
Mr Cash
I am extremely grateful. Did the right hon. Gentleman take legal advice on whether, as I said at the time, the use of the financial stability mechanism was an unlawful deal? Article 122 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union deals with natural disasters, energy supplies and so on, and it has absolutely nothing to do with financial mistakes or misjudgments. Really, the whole thing should never have gone through, and he should have repudiated it on those grounds.
Mr Darling
Yes, but as I said earlier, because of QMV, the deal would have gone through anyway. I also do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis or that the legal position was that clear-cut.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr Darling
No—I will not do so because of the time constraints.
I agree with many hon. Members that Europe urgently needs a robust and workable rescue mechanism. We cannot wait until 2013, which brings me to my second main point.
As I have said, I am concerned about the piecemeal way in which Europe as a whole, and the eurozone in particular, address the problems that they face. Even today, there is speculation that the credit rating agencies might revise Spain’s status, which would be damaging to that country and to the euro. However, the approach that has been taken so far, which fails to recognise that the single currency involves 16 member states and 16 Treasuries, will inherently be under stress in times such as these. We are simply storing up problems for the future.
Germany must recognise that if it wants to keep the single currency, which is important to it economically and politically, there are consequences in respect of transfer payments to help countries that are in difficulty. I also believe that simply telling those peripheral countries that the only remedy lies in austerity programmes that developed countries might baulk at implementing, runs the risk of them—far from being able to repay or service loans—finding themselves deeper and deeper in the mire. The IMF has discussed that problem. When Ministers in different parts of Europe are asked privately where all the growth will come from—for Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal—they say, “We don’t know. We can’t be certain.”
Consider the news today. There is rising unemployment. Most of the job losses are in the public sector, and there is precious little sign that the private sector is taking its place. We should be concerned about the “austerity first” programmes that are being imposed across Europe. The dominant political thought at the moment is that if Government’s cut enough, they will get through to salvation. That was tried in the 1920s and early 1930s, and it did not work.
I believe that countries that are in difficulty should look to mend their own houses and to take difficult and controversial steps, but we need to be watchful that we do not get into a situation in which those countries have no way out. If that happens, their consumer and business confidence will fall. Whom do they export to if other countries are shutting down?
The need for some sort of mechanism to address the problems that are inherent in the euro is absolutely urgent. Those problems were simply glossed over 10 or 15 years ago. Let no one think that this is a matter only for the eurozone. As many hon. Members have said time and again, the problem affects us as well, because we are so integrated with Europe and because it is such a big trading partner. Parliament and Ministers need to address the question of such a mechanism. Frankly, we cannot afford to carry on with the current piecemeal approach, which I believe threatens our recovery as much as that of other European countries.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I hope that the former Chancellor’s message to Germany is well received by the German people, because the fact that a price of eurozone membership was making transfer payments to sustain the currency in countries that are not so competitive was never sufficiently spelled out to them. This is essentially a eurozone problem and an Irish problem, and I do not think that we should put British taxpayers’ money into it other than to meet our obligations under our membership of the IMF. It is perfectly reasonable to contribute through that mechanism. As the Chancellor has said, in so doing, we get more security for our loan than we would from a bilateral agreement.
The proposed loan to Ireland is relatively soft. Interestingly, the Chancellor says that the proposed interest rate will probably be slightly less than that of the eurozone facility, and that that demonstrates the competitiveness of our economy. I see things differently. If we have such a competitive economy, why not make a profit on the interest rate and charge the same rate as the eurozone and get the benefit for the British taxpayer?
Mark Reckless
All we are doing is passing on to Ireland the quarter per cent. or so of benefit that we gain by being a better creditor than the eurozone. Most hon. Members feel that we should help Ireland, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not necessarily helpful to Ireland to have a huge amount of extra debt on top of the great debt it already has. On that basis, I understand his point.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations.
None of my constituents, particularly those in the business community, understand how or why we can justify increasing our national debt to help Ireland. The line is that the Irish are friends in need, but I remind the House that there is a strong argument to suggest that the Irish Government exacerbated the original banking crisis. When we had problems with Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock, and our Government limited the deposit guarantee to £50,000, the Irish increased their guarantee to all deposits. That helped the run on Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock accounts, thereby developing our banking crisis. We did not get much help from the Irish when we were in need in that situation.
We must also not lose sight of the fact that the Irish people have received enormous sums of British taxpayers’ money through our membership of the EU. We make big net contributions to the EU, and a lot of that money was subsequently pushed into Ireland, enabling the Irish people to sustain for a time a much higher standard of living.
Mr Chope
I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are contributing to Ireland through our EU membership, so the Irish people should be very grateful.
When, on behalf of my constituents, I weigh up whether we can be pleased with how Ireland conducts its affairs, I must express renewed disappointment that Ireland caved in on the Lisbon treaty, with the consequence that this country has been landed with it.
Mr Hollobone
Does my hon. Friend recall Ireland’s position a few months ago, when the UK Government tried to bring the European Parliament budget under control and needed a blocking third to prevent the proposed budget increase? Where was Ireland at our time of need on that occasion?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend asks a rhetorical question. The answer is that I am not sure where Ireland was at that time.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that we should allow the Irish to have their own domestic policy. That is why it would not be right for us to interfere with their low corporation tax policy—it should be for them to decide. However, the other side of the coin must be that we let the Irish take the consequences and accept the responsibility for what happens as a result. We cannot say, “We’re going to help pay for the consequences while not being able to influence the policy.” I find what is proposed very intellectually trying to deal with.
When we have a border—our hon. Friends from Northern Ireland have made their points about this—that low corporation tax policy makes things much more difficult. Indeed, it is possible to argue that we have lost the corporate headquarters of major international organisations from London to Dublin as a result of Ireland’s low corporation tax policy. Now we are subsidising that policy, the consequences of which are that the Irish have been unable to meet their financial obligations and are desperate for additional loans. I am not convinced that we should be getting involved with British taxpayers’ money. It would be different if we did not have an awful national debt crisis, but we do. One consequence of the Bill, if it goes through today, may be to send out a signal to our constituents that says, “Don’t worry, the debt crisis is not as bad as we’ve been telling you, because we can afford to add to that debt further by giving a soft loan to the Irish.” At the same time, we are having to argue to our constituents that we cannot put pressure on the banks to give more soft loans to businesses, even if those businesses go bust or cannot expand as a result, with all the damaging consequences for employment that that would have in our country, so I am not convinced.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge the scale of the exposure of British banks in the Irish Republic’s economy or the key dependence of Northern Ireland’s economy on the role of some of the Irish banks?
Mr Chope
Of course I acknowledge that, because it is a fact. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) made the important point that, in negotiating a bilateral deal, we might have been able to deal with the debts owed to those banks and, in a sense, directed any money that we wanted to give into those British banks, rather than into the Irish coffers in general. We could have linked those things, if that was what was needed. However, I do not think that the difficulties of those banks are a justification for increasing our national debt further in the way that the Bill proposes.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). He mentioned corporation tax, which I shall come to shortly. However, it is worth saying first that what is proposed is a generous act on the part of the Government and the people of the United Kingdom. Of course there are good, economic reasons why what is proposed should be considered in the national interest. As has been pointed out, there are strong arguments about Northern Ireland’s position, the involvement of banks from the Irish Republic in Northern Ireland’s economy, the exposure of British banks to Irish banks, and so on, which are reasons why we should engage in the loan.
However, it would be remiss of me and the people for whom I speak not to point out that the loan is being made merely months before the 90th anniversary of the secession of the 26 southern counties from the United Kingdom. For probably the vast majority of that time, and certainly in the past 30 or 40 years, politicians and others in the Irish Republic have spent most of their time denying the relationship between southern Ireland and the United Kingdom. However, the loan and all that has been said prove the interdependence of the Irish economy and the Irish Republic with—and, to a large degree, their dependence on—the United Kingdom. There are those who go around saying that the United Kingdom should keep out of their affairs and all that, but I think they now realise that in many ways the dependence is very great, and not just on Europe, but on the United Kingdom in particular.
It is also worth spending a minute or two recapping how we came to this position. For many years, people referred to the great Celtic tiger that was the Irish Republic’s economy, and that includes those now in government, as has been pointed out. Those who raised issues about the way in which that economy was lauded were criticised as being driven by petty political considerations and told that their criticisms were not justified. There were those of us who pointed out that there were domestic issues to do with the great concentration on property. However, a recent editorial in The Guardian summed up the position well:
“Politicians kept consumer demand buoyant with generous public spending, while rewarding developer friends with public works contracts. Ireland’s narrow elite ran the economy like a casino and awarded itself free chips. No one, save a few lonely economists, had much incentive to call time on the party. By 2007, around one in five Irish jobs depended in some way on the property market.”
The international mistake was to join the euro. Of course the problems are not entirely down to that, but the economic tools that could have helped to control some of the economic excesses, and some of the issues that arose as a result of the bursting of the property bubble, were not available to the Irish Republic as a result of its membership of the euro. Those tools include devaluation and the ability to cut interest rates. So when the crisis came, the Republic was virtually powerless to do anything in that context. That is well known.
We in Northern Ireland have had our disputes with the Irish Republic, but relations are now much better than they used to be, and we do not take any satisfaction from the crisis that has enveloped it. Someone asked where the Irish Republic stood in relation to recent debates on Europe. People will remind us in this House of the Irish Republic’s attitude during the long years of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, when the Republic became a safe haven for terrorists and refused to extradite wanted criminals to Northern Ireland for justice. Some of our constituents are now saying, “Why should we help them now that they are in this situation?” They also remember the Irish Republic’s role in the formation of the IRA, back in 1969. They say, “We see all these inquiries, but what are we doing about that?” That is understandable, because lives were lost and families were bereaved as a result of the activities of Governments of all shades and opinions in the Irish Republic. All of them played a role, whether Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour or the rest of them.
Having said all that, we recognise that the Irish Republic needs to receive this loan at this critical time, for the reasons that have been set out. Two of the banks are owned by the Irish Republic and are active in Northern Ireland, and a quarter of all the personal accounts of people in Northern Ireland are in those banks. We have also heard about the exposure of British banks to Irish Banks, as well as the wider trade issues, given that 40% of trade in Northern Ireland is carried out with the Irish Republic. All of that means that, if the situation were to deteriorate even further, we would be in a very difficult situation in Northern Ireland. On balance, therefore, we will not vote against the Government, and we have made it clear that we support the Bill.
There are wider issues relating to the implications of the bail-out of other countries, which we shall discuss in Committee. On corporation tax, the Irish Republic should of course have the right to set its own tax rates; that is not the argument. The argument is that Northern Ireland is at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the lower rate in the Republic, because of the land border. The Irish Republic is our greatest competitor for foreign direct investment. For us to get the equivalent benefit, we are told that we would have to take a further cut in public expenditure of £310 million. In these circumstances, when a subsidy loan is being provided to the Irish Republic, the case for Northern Ireland should be looked at. Why should we be hit immediately with that cut when the Republic will be given years to pay back its loan, giving it a competitive advantage?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). He made many powerful points, especially his last one. I note that the Bill is called the Loans to Ireland Bill, not the Loans to the Irish Republic Bill. I wonder whether the Government have had some foresight, and whether some of the loans will actually be provided to Northern Ireland, to help to reduce corporation tax there. Perhaps there is some hope in that regard.
I want to start by saying that we have an excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer and a first-class Treasury team, including my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who has the misfortune to be at the Dispatch Box to listen to my remarks. On this particular issue, however, I think that they have got it wrong for a number of reasons. Everyone in the House wants to see the Irish Republic prosper, but the question is: which is the best way to help it? Its problem is that it is part of the euro. Government Members have always argued that the United Kingdom should not be part of the euro, because it cannot possibly work. It is not possible to have one fixed interest rate and one fixed currency covering a number of different countries. What we are witnessing is a crisis in which that problem has come to light.
If Ireland were not part of the eurozone—if it had its own currency—it could change its interest rate, but more importantly, its currency could depreciate, which would make it more expensive for exports to come into Ireland and cheaper for exports to go out. It is a market mechanism for self-righting an economic collapse, and because Ireland is part of the eurozone, it cannot do that.
I take the view that in the next few months the euro will collapse. It will not just be Ireland and Greece; it will be Spain, Portugal and possibly Italy. At that stage, it will be necessary to abandon the euro entirely or have two eurozones. If I am right in that assumption, it is a mistake to give £3.25 billion to the Irish at a time when it will do no good at all and that money will never be repaid. If we were paving the way for the Irish to have their own currency again, which would be part of the sterling area, we would be more of a help to Ireland. My argument is that we are sending the money in the wrong direction.
The second issue we have—to be fair to the shadow Chancellor, I think he was on to it—is that we do not know how the figure has been arrived at. Nobody has explained—at least, I have not heard anyone do so—why we have settled on £3.25 billion, but I think the Chancellor was arguing that that is the sort of amount we would have had to provide through the European financial stability facility if we had been part of the eurozone. Well, we are not part of the eurozone, so why should we be contributing to something that eurozone countries should be providing on their own?
Sajid Javid
Is my hon. Friend aware that recently the Prime Minister of Luxembourg made a proposal that the EU should issue EU-wide bonds, and does he agree that Britain should have nothing to do with such a proposal?
Mr Bone
Of course; I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.
I disagreed with the shadow Chancellor when he said that there were two extremes. One was to have a unified eurozone with central controls over taxation and spending. It is one option, and I accept that such a model would work, but I reject it completely. However, no one can pretend that the current system will ever work. We would just end up putting billions and billions more pounds into a system that will eventually collapse, and, in my view, that will happen earlier rather than later.
Let me return to how the €85 billion package is made up. We have €17.7 billion from the facility and €22.5 billion from the mechanism. The mechanism was designed for natural emergencies; it was never designed for this purpose, and yet we are taking more out of the mechanism, which has a total pot of €60 billion, than out of the one that has €440 billion. Why? The simple answer is that the United Kingdom has to contribute to the mechanism, but we do not contribute to the facility because it is all eurozone money. In my view we do not need to make this £3.25 billion loan; it should come entirely from the €440 billion that is available for exactly this reason. That is why the facility was set up.
I also did not follow the Chancellor’s argument when he said that because of qualified majority voting, we would not have voted against the use of the mechanism because we would have been overruled. I have to say to him that on a number of occasions I have voted on measures on which I know I will not win, but it does not mean that one should not vote that way; one should vote as one sees fit. I think on that small point the Chancellor has also made a mistake.
Many hon. Members will refer to the man on the Clapham omnibus, but in my case it is the man on the Wellingborough 46 bus, and such people make the following very simple point. My county council has announced that it will fire all its lollipop ladies and close a number of libraries, and those people say to me, “If we’re having to do that because we’re not allowed to increase the national debt, how on earth can you provide £3.25 billion to a country that is in the eurozone?” It is very difficult for me to give an answer. In fact, the answer I give is, “We shouldn’t be doing it.”
If the House divides on the Government’s proposal, I will, reluctantly, have to vote against it, not because I think the Government’s aim is wrong—because, yes, we want to have a prosperous Ireland—but because of the way this is being done and the way it is being funded. Nobody is suggesting that because we trade a lot with the United States of America, if there were a crisis there, we would suddenly lend it money. Ireland is a grown-up country. It decided to become part of the euro. The problem lies in the eurozone, and it should sort this out, not us.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I congratulate the Chancellor on the proposal, which I fully support. It is my understanding that this step is being taken because there was a potential domino effect, in that any damage in the Irish Republic could have led to further damage to British banks that operate there and to damage to the Northern Ireland economy, and that in turn would have had a very significant effect on the British economy and British interests. I therefore see this as a generous move, but also a move of enlightened self-interest.
The Irish economy is in its current situation because it had a banking crisis, not an economic crisis. The underlying economy is sound; the potential for growth exists, and that growth will come forward. The pharmaceuticals and other major industries in the south of Ireland are thriving. The economy is expected to stabilise this year and to begin to expand at between 2.5 and 3% in the period 2011-14. The package of measures that is in place is required in order to restore the public finances and banking liquidity by 2014. The Irish Government have rapidly moved to curtail expenditure dramatically and to raise revenue themselves. The adjustment is expected to bring the economy back into balance within four or five years.
Ireland is a small open economy in which long-term sustainable growth depends on healthy international trading, and the conditions for export-led growth are in place: good infrastructure, high-quality human capital, a favourable taxation environment and available credit for viable businesses. The national recovery plan has been put in place, and it is tough and will be difficult. Export-led growth will foster recovery in domestic trading sectors. The growth in GDP is expected to bring unemployment down fairly rapidly, and certainly well below 10% within two to three years. The balance of payments will return to surplus in 2011, so Ireland will be earning its way out of the difficulty that it is in within the next 12 months.
Some Members have referred to Ireland’s membership of the eurozone as a major difficulty, but I do not agree. It is a handicap, but it is not as massive a disadvantage as some claim. Ireland’s membership of the eurozone obliges it to adhere to stability and growth rules and to bring the general Government deficit to below 3%. The Irish Budget contained a very tough package. Initially, the 2010 Budget presumed an adjustment of about €7.5 billion over a four-year period. With hindsight, we know that the figure proved to be almost double that—some €15 billion—as we crept towards the year end. Two thirds of that is coming out of budgetary adjustment achieved through reduced expenditure, and a third out of taxation. However, by 2014, Irish expenditure will be back to 2007 levels. Total Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP will be reduced from 49% to 36% in the next three years.
Mrs Main
I heard what the hon. Gentleman said earlier in his speech about why we should support southern Ireland, but I am struggling somewhat with his non-condemnation of membership of the eurozone. The euro seems to be a large part of the problems, but he seems to have glossed over that fact.
Dr McDonnell
Some of us see the euro as a problem and some of us do not. Being in the euro has been an advantage to Ireland for many years. It has become a handicap at present because of the restrictions and constraints, but the eurozone works and has worked very well for many years. In the present crisis it has its handicaps and limitations. Some people are predicting that the eurozone will collapse shortly; I do not accept that, and that is not the view of everybody.
The point I am trying to make is that Ireland’s underlying economy is healthy. Its membership of and involvement in the eurozone is healthy, and in the long-term it will come round and sort itself out. Ireland has a financial crisis—a banking crisis—that was brought about largely by a property bubble and a lack of liquidity, rather than a flaw in the underlying economy. I want to assure people that the money will be paid, in my opinion and assessment, and that in due course—
Mark Durkan
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Lessons will have to be learned, not so much about the euro per se but about the performance of the European Central Bank. There is a serious question to be asked about its insistence on low interest rates for a sustained period. That helped to feed the property bubble in Ireland, despite the valiant efforts of the then Finance Minister to find other ways of getting out of the economy the money that was fuelling the property bubble, such as paying off the national debt, putting big money into the national pensions reserve fund and introducing special savings investment accounts.
Dr McDonnell
I thank my hon. Friend, who puts it better than I could have done.
I want to come on to why international intervention was needed. Ireland did its best at an internal level. It is a small country in a very tough global marketplace, and it did its best to resolve both the banking and the deficit situations internally. However, the interdependence of the modern world, Ireland’s membership of the eurozone and large market movements put some of the solutions beyond internal domestic management. Indeed, as we all know, both the European Union and the eurozone are themselves facing fundamental challenges in devising a fair and equitable response to the financial crisis in other countries.
However, although the domestic measures in Ireland did not prove sufficient, that does not mean they were not necessary. Ireland did its best to solve the situation internally, and only in the end, when nothing more could be done internally, did it resort to international help.
There are major north-south implications within the island of Ireland. All of us in the island of Ireland remain convinced that north-south co-operation is a central element of the push for economic recovery—not just within the Irish Republic but within the north. Indeed, the Prime Minister referred to such matters at Question Time. Despite the difficulties, the Irish Government have maintained some €110 million of investment in the north in various things, including major infrastructure projects of importance to both the north and the south. I am referring to roads and other aspects that are central. All that is important, and works. For the future prosperity of the island economy it is essential to build on the peace that we have achieved and to create the economic opportunities for a new generation.
I wish simply to restate a number of points about the UK’s interest. The UK is strong and robust, as we have discussed in relation to trade and all the rest. Ireland, a small country, accounts for 5% of Britain’s total exports. We are told that the UK exports more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China put together. Allowing that to collapse would have an immediate impact on this country. The two economies are particularly linked in Northern Ireland, with two fifths of Northern Ireland’s economy dependent on the Irish Republic. Just as the two economies are linked, the two banking sectors are linked. As other hon. Members have said, the two main southern Irish banks are very active in the north, and to some extent in Britain; they also issue sterling banknotes, so that all has an implication for the whole banking sector. If this banking liquidity crisis had not been sorted out, we could have ended up with 25% or 30% unemployment, not just in southern Ireland, but in the north.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to animal welfare, the Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 221, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
We have about 15 minutes available and three more speakers to fit in. I would like to ensure that all three have the chance to speak, so I ask you to divide the time up, because the speeches from the Front Benches will begin at 4 o’clock.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
As I watched a few minutes of the film “The Perfect Storm” recently, I could not help but reflect on the economic challenges encircling Ireland. The film buffs in the House today will recall how George Clooney tried his best to get his fishermen back to base through a once-in-a-generation storm, created by the coming together of three much smaller but still deadly storms. Just as in that story, we are seeing a clear convergence, and it is of economic crises engulfing the emerald isle. As we have heard, that confluence has far-reaching economic implications, not only for Ireland but for our trading partners in the eurozone and, as a result and most importantly, for the UK economy. That is why the Government are absolutely right to take this specific action in this specific situation to help steer us to a departure from that film’s finale and underpin a much more sustainable future for the Irish economy.
That is why it is important to reflect on some of the factors that have created this crisis, on why helping Ireland is so important to our national interest at that this point in time, and on why we are left with no option other than to make this bilateral loan to Ireland. We have talked about the three converging elements: the banking crisis, the sovereign debt crisis, and how the complicating factor of Ireland’s membership of the euro is exacerbating those issues. The credit crunch cruelly revealed the extent to which the Irish banks had overextended themselves, and the fact that they were no longer able to access funding on the open market. As a result, the European Central Bank had to step in. The Irish Government had sought to guarantee all the bank liabilities, and the €440 billion promise that they had put in place was twice the size of the Irish gross domestic product. Those losses brought about a complete loss of confidence in the markets, and finally the Government had no choice but to face up to a looming sovereign debt crisis and seek international assistance.
Joining the euro did not, in itself, cause the challenges that Ireland faces, but it exacerbated them; that is where I disagree with the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell). When the banks binge-borrowed on the back of lower interest rates, it created all sorts of problems that could not have arisen had the punt still been in place. Now, sadly, Ireland’s euro membership is acting as a straitjacket. Independent monetary policy and exchange rate flexibility are not an option; they are not available to help Ireland navigate its way out of this terrible crisis.
I am a confirmed Eurosceptic, and my mother happens to be Danish, so I am proud that when this country worked hard to save sterling, others with more Viking blood than me stepped forward to ensure that they kept their kroner—and quite right too. It is also important to note that both Denmark and Sweden will join the UK in offering loans to Ireland in this unique situation—loans of, I think, €1 billion, or £850 million in proper money.
Despite Ireland’s recent history and my views on the euro, I believe that in these unique circumstances the Chancellor is right to extend the bilateral loan to Ireland. The reason is simple: if the Irish storm gathers more momentum it will have major implications not just for the people of Ireland but for all of us in the United Kingdom.
We should help our neighbour in need, and it is in our national interest to do so. The recent Office for Budget Responsibility report underlined the strong contribution that will be required from net trade to help get us out of the crisis that we ourselves face. We have talked about the size of the UK’s exports to Ireland, but the report goes on to say:
“If recent events significantly reduced Irish demand for UK exports there would be a material impact on UK export growth.”
There is no question about that.
Furthermore, we must take the steps to protect UK banks. Again, the OBR estimates that the exposure runs at £82 billion, £4.6 billion of which is exposed in the Irish sovereign debt. In its November report, it states that its estimate of the direct net cost or benefit to the taxpayer of the Government’s interventions in the UK banking sector may be affected by the exposure of UK banks to Irish liabilities. There is a clear and important reason for us to take this step forward and mitigate the risk, as well as mitigating the risk of contagion. Given the lack of time available, I simply want to stress my belief that it is vital to support the Government in taking these steps.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The package is described as a bail-out of Ireland, but it is important that we recognise that Ireland has not asked for the bail-out and that it is not the package that the Irish would have wished. Ireland and the IMF proposed to write down bank senior debt—that is, default on an element of that debt—because they recognised that it would be very difficult, although not impossible, for Ireland to pay back its vast amount of debt. It is not clear to me that adding another €67.5 billion to those debts and subordinating the previous debts to that will help Ireland out of this crisis.
Let us consider why Ireland was pushed into the crisis. The European Central Bank threatened to withdraw finance for the Irish banks. The ECB had extended €130 billion at a 1% interest rate in temporary liquidity support to the Irish banking sector—a courageous and rather risky thing for it to have done. It would prefer that credit to be refinanced on a longer term basis and at a higher interest rate. If the eurozone wishes to do that, that is a matter for it to agree.
What is not clear is what interest we, or indeed Ireland, have in refinancing that eurozone debt into an EU-wide debt. We must consider the funding costs. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has the proud achievement, for which he deserves significant credit, of reducing the long-term costs of borrowing in the UK. Unfortunately, that has gone into reverse over the last three weeks or so. When he came in, we did not give money to the Greek bail-out. We had a rescue package with €440 billion loans and only €60 billion of the dubious EU facility. Unfortunately, that is now being confused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) recognised back in May that this was the beginning of a European debt union, but it was only when I saw how the package was denominated that I began to share that view. Unfortunately, it is rebounding on our credit. The EU puts in €22.5 billion, the eurozone puts in €17 billion and we put in €3.5 billion or so. Rather than this appearing to be a bilateral arrangement that we have properly agreed, because it is in the interests of these islands, and that has been negotiated between the UK and the Republic, we give the markets the impression that we are being sucked into a wider EU package and those markets worry that we will do the same for Portugal or Spain. We have seen the back-up in interest rates in the past few weeks, but I ask the Treasury Front-Bench team to make it as clear as they can that this is a one-off involving Ireland. By doing that, we could at least potentially protect our credit from some of the assumptions that the market has built up in the past few weeks.
On Europe, I commissioned an opinion poll last month of 1,000 representative people in the Republic, and more than a third of that sample said that they would like to leave the euro and return to sterling. The Chancellor says that “I told you so” is not a policy and of course he is right, but he needs to recognise that there is a policy implication that we should not make the same mistake again. I shared with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary, back in 1998, analysis of what had been happening in Ireland—how bank lending was out of control and how there was going to be a most extraordinary boom and bust that would serve as a vivid lesson to this country. I also shared that analysis with Bertie Ahern, prior to his becoming Taoiseach. Like the Chancellor, he said he understood the analysis and that we might be right, but he wanted to join the euro for political reasons. We saw the impact of that decision in Donegal three weeks ago, where the successor seat of my grandfather, who was the Fianna Fail Member for that area, has now been taken by Sinn Fein.
This is Ireland’s decision, but I hope, in its interests and ours, that we will work together much more closely than we have been. There have been improvements in relations since the Prime Minister’s comments about the Bloody Sunday inquiry and, given what the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has said and given his very positive and supportive attitude, I believe we should work with Ireland on a bilateral basis to try to put things right and get a long-term sustainable solution for it and us that is better than the Carolingian settlement that is being imposed by the eurozone and the European Union on an Ireland that deserves better.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has three minutes, as we must finish at 4 o’clock.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, I shall oppose the money resolution and I shall do my best to amend the Bill should it reach Committee because I think it is bad for the House.
What we are not talking about in this debate is whether we should lend money to Ireland or not. Instead, we are talking about whether we should double our loan to Ireland. Whether or not the Bill is passed today, this country will be lending the Republic of Ireland 3.5 billion quid, and if the Bill is passed, that loan will go up to 7 billion quid. My constituents in Kettering are saying to me, “Philip, we are having all these public sector cuts and despite the Government’s best efforts the national debt is going to double over the term of the coalition Government; what on earth are you doing lending money to the Irish Republic?”, and I share their view. Yes, we should play our part in the loans through the IMF, but we should not be entering into a secondary bilateral arrangement because the truth is not so much that we are lending money to the Irish Republic as that we are lending money to the European Central Bank. We are increasing our exposure to the eurozone at a time when it is in increasing crisis. Given that we decided a long time ago that we wanted nothing to do with the euro, that is a backward step.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me say on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition that we welcome the debate, in which plenty of views have been expressed from different parts of the Chamber on what is an incredibly important matter. Many Members in all parts of the House—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee—have voiced, perfectly reasonably, their anxieties about the loan to Ireland.
Clearly these are troubled times for the world economy and for the eurozone, and we must sincerely hope that we will not find ourselves here again. The Opposition recognise that there are interdependencies between Britain and the Irish nation in respect of economic trade, direct relationships between our banks and financial investments across Ireland. Moreover, it is our only land-bordered nation state. We therefore have a duty to support the principle and spirit of the legislation, because a failing Irish economy would create harm here in the United Kingdom.
Chris Leslie
I think we shall have to take the issues as they come before us. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s anxieties, but, on balance, given the choices that we face, we consider it incumbent on us, as a responsible Opposition, to support the Government on Second Reading.
Let me make a couple of points—briefly, because I am conscious of the time and the need for us to debate the amendments, not least those that I have tabled in respect of clause 2.
The events in Ireland remind us starkly of the principal facts that Ministers have, I am afraid, preferred to hide hitherto. First, the credit crunch was a worldwide, international crisis, not simply something in the United Kingdom. Secondly, the failures of banks that gambled excessively not just with our money but with the money of the Irish people and others are at the root of our present predicament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done well in spinning the line that it was all the fault of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister—that he was somehow personally responsible for single-handedly causing the credit crunch in the UK before jetting off to Washington and starting the banking collapse there, then flying to Ireland via Spain, Portugal, Greece and the rest of the developed world, spreading banking catastrophe from continent to continent. However, the Bill—perhaps uncomfortably for the Chancellor—reminds us of the ridiculousness of the coalition’s revisionism, and reminds us that the rewriting of history can occur only if we believe in the gullibility of the public, as I suspect the Chancellor does. Although the Government think that may be able to fool all of the people all of the time, the truth is now overwhelmingly obvious, and proves beyond doubt that the greed of profiteering bankers has required the poor, beleaguered taxpayer, here as well as across Ireland and Europe, to bail them out of the mess that they created.
I am afraid that we heard no apology in the Chancellor’s hour-long, technical speech, and no expression of regret in respect of his free-market deregulatory exaltations of the “shining example” shown by the Irish economy. Perhaps that was an error, but sadly he did not acknowledge it. We are not convinced, either, that the Chancellor stands chastened or reflective in regard to his ill-judged comments about the Irish economic miracle”. Perhaps even we could have expected him to have some conception of the risks posed by the simple “austerity at all costs” principle underpinning his economic policies, but that was not there either.
Fundamentally, the problem is this: if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not understand the causes of the deficit, he is certainly not the right person to fix it. My constituents, like those of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), find it difficult to understand how, given that we were supposedly on the brink of bankruptcy, we can find £3.2 billion for the Irish loan, but nothing for Sheffield Forgemasters.
Sadly, however, we must recognise that the measures before us today are a result of the fragility of the worldwide economy. We hope that, eventually, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister will step up and show a little more leadership, especially in Europe, rather than using bail-outs and loans as sticking plaster. We hope that they will pay more attention to the root causes of what is happening to the economy, and will recognise that we cannot just cross our fingers and pretend that collective austerity will do the trick in all cases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West is absolutely spot on when he talks about the inadequacy of that proposition. How will the European Union regain the market’s confidence in a longer-term trajectory back to stronger revenues and economies? Where are the growth strategies to build longer-term prosperity?
We have to accept, however, that the case for the loan to Ireland outweighs the case against it. There are risks that need dealing with, including the risk of contagion throughout the eurozone bond market. The ongoing crisis risks shrinking our export market potential in the long run, and as a consequence that risks creating losses for banks in the UK—banks of course that we own. So on balance and for those reasons, we do not oppose the Bill at this time, but in the time remaining we hope to scrutinise the detail in Committee.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
This has been a good debate about the principles underlying the Bill, and I welcome the Opposition’s support for it.
I am sorry that the shadow Chancellor is not in his place. He made a typical speech: a couple of jokes, a few quotations and then a shaky grasp of the facts. I shall not match him on jokes, but let me give the House a couple of quotations. He talked about the views on Ireland, but let me quote a former member of Labour’s shadow Cabinet, who said:
“The whole purpose is to bring the Welsh economy up to the standards of those of other countries in Europe, so that we can follow the lead of the Irish economy and become, in a matter of 10 or 20 years, one of the most successful regional economies in Europe.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 868.]
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said:
“The Irish economy has enjoyed a good deal of success over the past few years. The corporation tax regime has contributed to that, but there have been a number of other factors”.––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2007; c. 19.]
There we go: a record of Opposition Members’ hymns of praise to the Irish economy.
It struck me as remarkable, however, that the shadow Chancellor did not understand the mechanisms being used to support the Irish economy. He seemed to think that the UK would bear a higher share of the bail-out costs than other European Union members, such as France and Germany, and that they do not contribute to the IMF or to the stability mechanism. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that the UK is contributing through the IMF, the stability mechanism and a bilateral loan. Other European countries are contributing through the IMF, the stability mechanism and, if they are members of the eurozone, the stabilisation facility.
Owing to their share of the contribution to European Union funds, Germany and France are contributing more than the UK: some 27% of the contribution is through the facility. France contributes 20% through the facility, compared with our 14%. And through the mechanism, the UK’s contribution is 14%, Germany’s 20% and France’s 17%. It is a pity that the shadow Chancellor does not understand how the package actually works. The right hon. Gentleman also seemed to deny that the euro made any contribution to the crisis facing Ireland. However, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who made a very thoughtful speech about the challenges facing the European Union, punctured his view that the euro had nothing to do with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) asked whether we considered buying bank assets. We have in place an agreement by the Irish Government to repay our loan in full, but that could not have been guaranteed if we had sought to buy individual assets of Irish banks. He also asked whether Ireland could repay early without a penalty, and the answer is yes, but the Irish Government would have to make break payments.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) talked about the impact on the Northern Ireland economy of what is happening south of the border, and we recognise that. We recognise also that more work needs to be done to strengthen the Northern Irish economy, which is why we are in discussions with the Northern Ireland Office about the issues to do with enabling the Executive to set their own corporation tax rate. There is another part to that deal, however, because, if they have that power, they will need to bear the risk with the revenue and see a reduction in their block grant.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), asked how we can afford to do this, given the fiscal position that we are in. Let me make it clear that we are not paying for the loan out of revenue or capital expenditure; we are going to borrow the money. The measure will not lead to a reduction in the money we can spend in my constituency or theirs. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, we will end up making a small profit on the loan because of interest rate differentials. The loan will not affect how much can be spent in our constituencies, and if that is the only reason hon. Members are opposing the measure, I ask them to think again.
Mr Hoban
The debt is matched by an asset, which is the amount we expect to get from Ireland, and it does not impact on our deficit. We will actually make a return on the interest that will be paid.
Let me deal with three very brief points. First, there is no expectation that we will have to make further loans to Ireland in the future. Secondly, there is no reason to presume that full repayment will not be met over the term of the loan. Thirdly, ensuring Ireland’s stability is overwhelmingly in our national interest. That is why we are making the loan and this exception for Ireland. It is in our economy’s interests to ensure that the Irish economy is stable and we need to do all that we can to deliver that.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has made an announcement this afternoon in respect of fuel poverty and the Warm Front scheme, saying that it is fully allocated, may I ask whether there has been any request from a Minister to make an oral statement to the House? Many people will be concerned about the cold weather and the urgency of having work done, and they will be fearful that that work cannot be completed before 31 March.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
As the hon. Lady is aware, that is not a point of order for me, but I am sure that the message is getting through to the Secretary of State as we speak. There are other channels that she may wish to use.
Loans to Ireland Bill (Money)
Queen’s Recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Loans to Ireland Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Treasury for the purpose of the making of loans to Ireland by the United Kingdom; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mr Hoban.)
Question agreed to.
Loans to Ireland Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:27 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 243 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
‘(3A) Any loans made under this Act, and any repayment of principal or payment of interest received thereunder, shall be denominated in sterling.’.
Amendment 4, page 1, leave out lines 8 to 18.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(7A) Before determining the interest to be charged on any payments under this Act, the Treasury must specify the rate of interest by order; and the Treasury may not make such an order unless—
(a) the House of Commons has determined by resolution the rate of interest to be charged; and
(b) the order provides for that specified rate to be charged.’.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
‘(8A) All loans made under this Act shall be repaid by 8 December 2040.’.
Amendment 10, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
‘(8A) Before any loan or binding offer of a loan is made, or guarantee given, under this section, the relevant agreement must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.’.
Clause stand part.
Mr Cash
I have just abstained on Second Reading for one simple reason. I had intended to vote for it, but I remain gravely dissatisfied by the answer that I received from the Chancellor regarding the increase in the amount specified in clause 1. I do not want in any way to misrepresent what he said, but as I understood it, it was that that was all right because it was about exchange rates. However, anybody who examines clause 1 carefully will notice that subsection (4) states:
“The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater amount for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (3)”,
which is £3.25 billion.
The next two provisions simply determine whether any increase will be subject to affirmative or negative resolution. An order would be made under the negative resolution only if the increase is to do with exchange rates, but I can see nothing to say that an increase under subsection (4) would be affected by subsequent provisions. I was bound to take great exception to that. It is a serious matter, because we simply do not know what the greater amount would be. We are totally exposed, subject only to affirmative resolution, which cannot be amended. Such a measure would simply go through on a whipped vote, just as the rest of the Bill doubtless will. That is why I abstained on Second Reading.
Amendment 3 addresses the definition of “Irish loan”. I was staggered when I looked carefully at the Bill, because clause 1(2) states that “Irish loan” means simply
“a loan to Ireland by the United Kingdom.”
The background is the recent debates on economic governance, and the origins of the European financial stability mechanism and the alternative eurozone facility, which as someone pointed out is as much as €440 billion, which is easily enough to cope with the Irish situation. There is a very close interconnect at all points between the so-called bilateral loan proposed in the Bill and the mechanism that I described.
The difficulty is that there is an overall determination to do as much as possible by way of integrating with Europe when it is quite obvious to anybody that this is the time for us not only to step back, but to desegregate from the European venture. I believe very strongly that the technique that is consistently employed in all spheres of activity is to say, “We don’t like what goes on in the EU, but we can just go along with it. Alternatively, to satisfy the Eurosceptics or Eurorealists, as they prefer to be called, we can make parallel arrangements along the lines of what we would have done if we were in the eurozone.”
The research paper helpfully supplied by the Library states:
“It is worth noting that the bilateral element”—
assuming that that is what the Bill is—
“of the UK’s support is broadly equivalent to what the UK would have provided if it were part of the eurozone-only EFSF.”
In other words, we would have provided the loan anyway. The Minister may well say that that is not his intention, but that is what Library researchers believe, and they are often right.
Mr Redwood
A portion of the total loan package is contingent money for Irish banks—they may or may not need it. Is my hon. Friend worried that they could come back for even more, and that clause 1(4) could allow an extension of our loan for Irish banks?
Mr Cash
Yes I am. Treasury civil servants are exceedingly clever and may know of pitfalls, but they might not fully explain them to Ministers. Of course, the Minister takes ultimate responsibility, but the question is: what is the effect on the daily lives of the people whom we represent? That is the issue on which we have to concentrate.
Under the circumstances, I am extremely dubious about the way in which the whole thing has been put together. In particular, I would mention what I will call the mechanism, as compared with the facility. I had an exchange earlier about the mechanism with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who said, “This is all going to be done by qualified majority voting.” However, that is not the case. Within the mechanism as it is set out, the request comes from the member state; it is only the final arrangement that requires qualified majority voting. Indeed, the EU sent in the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund in flagrant contradiction of the provisions of article 3 of the regulation in question.
In fact, the EU was operating the provision as if it were already law, when it was not. That it is typical of the European Union. It keeps on telling us about the rule of law, but when it suits, it completely ignores the law. What happened was unlawful. I also believe that it was unlawful in respect of article 122, which was the legal basis used to create the mechanism. I do not need to go into detail, but article 122 concerns natural disasters, energy supply and things of that kind. Anyone who looks at article 3, article 122 and the other provisions that they mention would reasonably conclude that they should not be used for the purposes of sorting out an unmitigated mess that was created by banks, as well as by the Government of Ireland and other parts of the European Union. Therefore, I am afraid that the answer that I received from the former Chancellor—that there really was no alternative to what was done, because such decisions are reached by qualified majority voting—does not stack up. If what happened was unlawful, it should have been resisted and, because of the consequences, it should, if necessary, have been taken to the European Court.
Mr Redwood
My hon. Friend has great legal expertise. I understand that the European Union is trying to negotiate an amendment to article 122 of the treaty in order to put the matter beyond doubt. Would that be retrospective, or could that undermine the current position?
Mr Cash
That is a very good question. I doubt very much whether an attempt to make the provision retrospective would remedy the mischief.
I am afraid that the question of illegality taints the Government’s position as well, and I shall explain why—the Minister will know all the detail, because I think that he was the Minister responsible. There is provision for the European Scrutiny Committee under Standing Order No. 143 regarding scrutiny and scrutiny reserves. It so happens that the European Scrutiny Committee was not set up until November—a few weeks ago. However, I have here a table setting out the dates that shows that the date of deposit was 25 May 2010. The decision was taken on 9 May at ECOFIN, which happened to be 48 hours before the coalition was pushed through. In the case of ECOFIN’s decision on the financial stability mechanism, the table states unequivocally that there was an override of both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Lords. On both counts, the then Government and the current Government breached the scrutiny arrangements. Indeed, it is quite extraordinary that the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the documents in question, and which should have been presented much earlier, was presented on 15 July. I know that the Minister will not dispute that, because it comes from Government documents. There is a serious worry about the manner in which this matter has been manipulated.
Just before the proceedings began, we were presented with another document, which reinforces my concern. If my amendment 3 were accepted, the Bill would read: “In this Act, ‘Irish loan’ means a loan to Ireland by the United Kingdom other than a loan by virtue of any provision by or under the European Communities Act 1972.” I am very familiar with the way in which interweaving goes on, not only as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee but because, for the past 26 years, I have watched this process of integration and the manner in which, by extremely clever and adroit manoeuvring, we get further and further integrated into these arrangements. The mechanism is an open-ended invitation until 2013, as I ascertained during an exchange with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Until 2013, we are stuck with the present arrangements.
I am sometimes a bit of a Cassandra, in that I make prophecies—more like predictions—about certain events, find out that I was right and then find out that nobody took any notice until they had happened. On this occasion, I am going to say that it is extremely likely that, if Portugal gets into really deep trouble—and perhaps Spain, too—that will happen before 2013. If this greater amount is interwoven into the stabilisation mechanism, or even if it is not, the mechanism itself will entrap us in the arrangements which, although not yet permanent, will go on until 2013.
I also think that the Government are struggling a bit in relation to article 122, under which this measure was introduced—unlawfully, in my opinion—because the Commissioner responsible, a Mr Sefcovic, has stated that the Commission is still considering whether to use article 136 or article 122. Against that background, the Van Rompuy Committee is sitting and might already have concluded that it would be appropriate to have a permanent mechanism in place only under article 136, and therefore only by reference to the eurozone. That would be a plus, but it would not alter the fact that, between now and 2013, we are at risk.
I am concerned about the deficient wording in clause 1(2), because not excluding what might be done under the European Union effectively leaves it open to the European Union’s continuing to weave its way into the arrangements, despite the fact that they are described as a bilateral loan. Some people might say, “Ah, but you have to understand that when the explanatory notes talk about a bilateral loan, they mean that.” It does not say that in the Bill, however. Furthermore, we have had some unpleasant experiences with explanatory notes in the European Scrutiny Committee recently, as anyone who wants to read the report that we have just issued will see. The explanatory notes in question were positively misleading, and distorted the legal position. That is a matter that we will be pursuing in Committee, when we ask whether parliamentary sovereignty or judicial supremacy should prevail. I do not need to go into the detail of that now, but the fact that a bilateral loan is mentioned in the explanatory notes has been severely vitiated by our experience of the explanatory notes to the European Union Bill.
Stewart Hosie
Could it not simply be the case that the UK is providing a loan to Ireland in a time of need—a country that takes 7% of our exports and whose banks provide a quarter of the banking facilities in Northern Ireland? While all this is academic and interesting for those who are interested in it, could it not simply be the case that we are providing a loan to a friend in need at an important time?
Mr Cash
I happen to agree with that, which is why I did not vote against the Bill, but I must say that this is not a matter of merely academic interest, because the consequence that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, which led me to abstain, is that there is no restriction on the greater amount. I wait with enormous interest to hear whether the Minister will differ from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that, but when it is an open-ended provision for a greater amount, I would like to know what that greater amount’s limit would be.
In the context of the interlocking aspect to which I have just referred, I remain deeply concerned that the amount could be greater, and that this matter could get caught up in the complicated ongoing negotiations—I recognise that the Chancellor and his Ministers have had some very complicated negotiations. I remain worried about the direction in which we seem to be going, therefore. It would be so simple for the Government to give me either a direct assurance, which I would regard as a second-tier response, or a specific agreement to accept my amendment just to get me off their back. I would regard such an agreement as a useful way of dealing with the situation, but I bet I do not get that.
Mr Dodds
We will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, but, just to be clear, is the hon. Gentleman’s argument that the greater amount under clause 1(4) could be used to increase not only the amount of the loan to the Irish Republic, but interweaved with the financial stability mechanism to provide money for other countries? Is that his argument, or is it specifically about the loan to the Irish Republic?
Mr Cash
The provision appears to apply to the Irish component, but because of the implications of what I am saying and the interlocking aspects in the kaleidoscope, it is extremely difficult to work out exactly what is intended by such opaque words. What I am asking for is very modest: simply the removal of all doubt by making it clear that any such loan would be
“other than a loan by virtue of any provision by or under the European Communities Act 1972.”
If all doubt were to be removed in that way, it would be the end of the story and there would be no problem, so why not do it? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Another issue arises under paragraph 6 of the summary of key terms document. The paragraph covers events of default, and sub-paragraph (h) states that one event of default will be
“the Borrower”—
Ireland—
“not being or ceasing to be a member of the European Union”.
Why would such a provision be wanted if it were not integral to the fact that Ireland is a member of the European Union? I do not think I need to advance the case any further as it is very simple: if we would exclude Ireland from the arrangements by virtue of its ceasing to be, or not being, a member of the EU, that must have special significance, otherwise it would not be stated. That is another exceedingly worrying feature.
Paragraph 8 refers to the governing law, and it states:
“The credit agreement and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it will be governed by English law.”
Paragraph 9 is on enforcement, and the document’s authors have clearly thought a lot about this matter, and the more they think about it the more worried I get, because they are transposing their thinking into the provisions of the Bill and this document:
“The English courts will have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to any dispute including a dispute relating to non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with the credit agreement.”
That gets to the heart of the problem, because anything that within law is under the jurisdiction of the European Union and within the framework of the European Court under the European Communities Act 1972 cannot be excluded from that jurisdiction by such words in a document of this kind that is “for information purposes”—hence our European Scrutiny Committee report on the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the judiciary. Therefore, merely writing in such a document that something will be governed by English law and that the English courts will have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to any dispute is not worth the paper it is written on.
If it is within the European Union legal framework, that means the European Court will get its hands on it. It may be that if there was a dispute or default or any of the other difficulties that could arise from the agreement in the Bill as enacted—as I rather suppose it will be—that will in no way alter the fact that ultimately, as long as parliamentary sovereignty prevails in the light of the European Communities Act, the Supreme Court will not prevent it from falling within the framework of the European Court of Justice.
Of course, it would be open to any future parliamentary Bill to try to unravel the arrangement, but what a pity it would be if we found that the fast-track arrangements we are experiencing today led us to the situation that I have described, simply because we were not prepared to listen to the argument that could resolve the problem by excluding the European jurisdiction. The legal advisers, the Treasury officials and the Minister may well be wrong. If they are wrong, we are in deep trouble. If they are doubtful, perhaps they could listen to those of us who have been proved right on a number of past occasions.
These are my final words—not from Cassandra, but from me. When things go wrong, it is much better to have taken advice beforehand and keep ahead of the curve, rather than allowing the curve to catch up with us.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash); I very much agree with what he has been saying. He is clearly much more erudite on these matters than me, but I understand what he is saying—that today, we are making to our closest friendly neighbour country a bilateral loan which has nothing to do with the European Union and which is not part of the panoply of EU arrangements. I am happy to go along with such an arrangement.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has said many times that, if there are problems in the eurozone with the eurozone, they should be sorted out by the eurozone, not by countries outside the eurozone. I agree with him very strongly. This is a country that is our closest neighbour, with which we have deep, long historical relations—very friendly relations now, we are pleased to say. Indeed, I have many Irish constituents who are concerned about their country. We are making a friendly gesture to a neighbouring country—our nearest friendly neighbour—that happens to be in the eurozone, which we happen not to be.
We do not want to be in a situation where, if another country gets into difficulty, it says, “You made a loan to Ireland—you can make a loan to another country in the eurozone.” That would not be acceptable.
Mr Hollobone
That is exactly the danger. Under the present discussions about the permanent crisis resolution mechanism, the draft conclusions of the European Council state:
“Member States whose currency is not the euro will be associated to this work.”
So the danger is that this Bill could be a precedent for the “Loans to Portugal Bill”, the “Loans to Spain Bill” and the “Loans to Italy Bill”, which may be just round the corner.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The amendments from the hon. Member for Stone will hopefully clarify the position and change the Bill to the way we would like it to be, so that it will not have implications for other members of the eurozone.
As I have said, however, if the Irish are to recover from their situation, they must remove themselves from the eurozone, re-create the punt, depreciate their currency and bring it into line with sterling, because we are their natural trading partners. Their economy and ours are the most closely integrated, and that is the sensible thing to do. I have said that before in this Chamber, and I have said it in private to senior Irish politicians on two occasions—I must say that it was not received in a very friendly way. Nevertheless, that is the logic, and even now we are looking towards a progressive deconstruction of the eurozone, partial or complete, in the not-too-distant future.
It would be better to deconstruct the eurozone in a rational and controlled way, rather than in a disastrous crash. So I hope that the eurozone members will be sensible and start to deconstruct it as practically and sensibly as they can and not allow it just to go into a massive crisis, which will benefit nobody. Even deconstructing it through country-by-country removals will cause problems, because many other countries have money in Irish and Greek banks, so it will be devalued and people will lose. Nevertheless, it is better to do that than to allow the situation to continue and the elastic eventually to break, causing the whole thing to come crashing down.
Mr Carswell
I wish to discuss amendment 6. It commands great interest across the House, although that may be difficult to believe given the swathe of green Benches that we can see, and I hope that we will have a chance to divide the House on it. It is right that we should be looking to help Ireland and debating how to do so, not simply because of this country’s economic self-interest, but because of the close cultural ties between Britain and Ireland. It is fair to say that there is not a street in any town in this country where there are not close kith and kin connections between our two countries.
The question is whether the Bill helps us to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) spoke eloquently, making the point that this deal is not tailored to help the Republic of Ireland, but has been imposed on it. It is not a case of our passing this to bail out Ireland, so much as our passing it to bail out the euro. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has said that, and he has blogged eloquently about how the European Central Bank triggered this crisis. It began when the ECB called into question Ireland’s ability to finance loans. Why did it do so? It did so because the ECB sacrificed Ireland to staunch the haemorrhaging of confidence in the euro and deal with the growing storm around it. The ECB put preserving a paper currency without a state ahead of the well-being of millions of Irish households.
Ireland is in debt because she is a victim of a credit bubble caused by euro membership, but when we consider amendment 6 we must ask how pushing a potentially high-interest loan on a friend reduces her debts. How does extending a debt as overdraft help that debtor to repay their debts? That will dig Ireland deeper into debt. Each of the eight tranches of this loan is yet another step towards debt. It is time that we stopped digging Ireland into deeper debt. The bail-out will not reduce the debt. People sometimes talk about the bail-out as though it were a solution to debt, but it is a deepening of debt. We need to make certain that the rate of interest and the terms of this extension of Ireland’s overdraft are in her interests and those of her people. To do that, we need to make sure that we in this House have the final say over the terms of the small print.
Amendment 6 seeks to ensure that the interest on this £3.2 billion overdraft extension is kept low. The small print is certainly not definitive on the subject. The summary of terms states:
“The rate of interest payable on a loan will be at a fixed rate per annum equal to the aggregate of:
(a) the Margin; and
(b) the Sterling 7.5 year swap rate at the date of disbursement.”
We are told by the Chancellor that, at the moment, that would be 5.9% and the document suggests that figure, but it is not definitive. We need to give the House of Commons the final say on the rate, and we need a formal means to allow the House to ratify the rate of interest.
Hon. Members will have heard some discussion about how Iceland got a significantly lower rate. Why is that? Is Iceland a better friend? It is for public debate, public concern and the legislature, not technocrats in the Treasury and watery eyed officials, to decide the rate of interest that we charge our friend.
The explanatory notes have, I think, been issued so that we believe that they are close to what amendment 6 suggests. We are asking for something that is not a million miles away from the explanatory notes, so why not formalise the arrangements? Why not require the approval of an order under the affirmative procedure in the House? We have only the explanatory notes to go on—[Interruption.] I am delighted that those on the Front Bench are paying such attention. We only have the explanatory notes to go on, so why not enshrine these arrangements by order? The last time that we left EU matters to Sir Humphrey’s explanatory notes, we were, bluntly, mugged. The explanatory notes to the Bill on sovereignty—the European Union Bill—were not even defended by the Minister in Committee. It is a cause of concern that we have only the explanatory notes. We must enshrine these arrangements in legislation to make certain that we in this House, who are accountable to the taxpayers who will ultimately have to stump up for this, are satisfied with the arrangements. That would be good for us and good for Ireland, too.
Over the past seven months, we have seen what happens when the House takes its eye off the small print. We have seen what happens when we leave it to Ministers, officials and Treasury negotiators to handle the small print. For example, we have seen how non-euro member countries, such as Britain, become liable through the small print for open-ended eurozone bail-outs until 2013. That is the price we pay as a House for taking our eyes off the small print. It would be quite wrong, incidentally, to blame the previous Government for that. The deal took effect after the coalition Government came to office.
When this House took its eye off the small print on Treasury negotiations on matters European, the Government managed somehow to sign us up to a European Council document that established a common legal framework for pan-EU economic governance. I suggest that this House should not form a habit of deferring the small print to the Treasury and its officials. It is prudent to require the Government to gain the approval of this House over the interest rate.
The amendment goes to the heart of why we are here and why we have a House of Commons in the first place. It is the purpose of us as MPs—and it has been for many hundreds of years—to oversee what Ministers do with our money. That should include the terms under which they lend our money and the terms under which they make taxpayers liable for debts incurred through such financial arrangements. The amendment is reasonable and in line with what the Government are seeking to do—or claim that they are seeking to do—in the explanatory notes drafted by officials.
The amendment would ensure that Ministers thought very carefully and wisely when they entered negotiations and finalised arrangements. It would also help to restore purpose to the House, which some of us would suggest has been in the past rather supine, submissive and spineless. Ultimately, it would ensure a fairer deal for our closest friend and our closest neighbour. I hope to press the amendment to a Division and to obtain the support of Members on both sides.
Mark Durkan
On amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the amendment of itself does not preclude the fear that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) have that at some point in the future there might be a loans to Spain Bill, a loans to Portugal Bill or something similar. The amendment would not preclude the possibility of any other such bilateral loans being arranged in future. I do not believe that the amendment, which is commended to us in those terms, will serve the purpose for which it was tabled.
Mark Durkan
I know that the hon. Gentleman made that point, too, and I want to turn to it. He carefully quoted and referred to a number of points in the loan agreement, which was made available at the start of the debate. The summary of key terms refers to a number of matters, and the hon. Member for Stone seemed to say that those references alone mean that the bilateral loan is being interweaved with the wider EU and IMF support packages to Ireland. However, hon. Members should bear in mind a point that the Chancellor made on Second Reading—that one advantage of the bilateral loan arrangement is the place that it gives the UK at the table when it comes to arranging and overseeing the restructuring plan that is to take place in relation to the Irish banking sector.
The key terms include, under the heading “Other Terms”, at paragraph 1(d):
“no amendments to the facilities provided by the IMF, European Financial Stability Mechanism, the European Financial Stability Fund or Sovereign bilateral lenders or to the Memoranda of Understanding that would have a material adverse effect on the Borrower’s ability to restore its capacity to access the capital markets.”
Given that the purpose of the loan arrangement is to make sure that Ireland can go to the bond markets on its own as soon as possible and get money at competitive rates, it is clearly in the House’s interests, as the UK will be providing this loan, to make sure that the loan terms are protected against any undue terms coming from the other loans being made available in this context.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the role of the European Central Bank. We can look at the history of this situation and question the role of the ECB on a number of occasions. First, it kept interest rates very low—at times against the express wish and request of the Irish Finance Minister—which helped to contribute to the problem. Secondly, as many hon. Members have mentioned, there is the open-ended nature of the Irish Government’s guarantee to the banks. Again, the ECB seems to have been the primary body urging a guarantee of that extent. Thirdly, there is the whole issue of the need for the bail-out and the creation of circumstances in which the Irish Government have had to seek it. Again, many people have questions about the precise role and performance of the European Central Bank in all that. Hon. Members have asked serious questions about the ECB, and we know that a much bigger loan facility is being granted through the EU and the IMF, so surely the House will want to know that the terms of the bilateral loan and its operation will not jeopardise the interests or purposes for which it is being made available. It therefore makes sense for the key terms that are summarised in the document to refer to the restructuring plan that is to be undertaken in relation to the banks.
The document makes it clear that “conditions precedent” will include “finalisation by the Borrower”—namely Ireland—
“after consultation with the Lender, of a restructuring plan in relation to its banking sector with the IMF, European Commission and European Central Bank”.
That is not the interweaving that the hon. Member for Stone has discussed, but a sensible, diligent precaution on the part of the House in providing for money to be borrowed. The “Other Terms” also include at paragraph 1(c):
“no amendments to the Restructuring Plan that would have a material adverse financial impact on the UK operations of Anglo Irish Bank, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland”.
Again, it makes absolute sense for the House and the Government, who are responsible to it, to make clear cross-reference to what else is happening under the restructuring plan and to what other lenders might urge in relation to other parts of the plan in terms of key interests that the House needs to protect, including those of the banking sector in Northern Ireland and the contribution of the Irish banks to the wider UK economy.
Chris Leslie
Although most of the Opposition’s amendments relate to clause 2, these amendments deal with a number of incredibly important issues, and I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling them.
Let me take up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about amendment 6 in particular. I understand what he said about the document that was presented to us about five minutes before the start of the debate, which, I have to say, was not only unfortunate, but verging on action that I would describe as morally out of order. It has been very difficult for the Committee to assimilate rapidly what is going on in the negotiations.
However, although I understand, at first glance, my hon. Friend’s impression that amendment 6 or others might have been overtaken by events, the more I think about it, the more I feel that it would be important to have an opportunity to debate the interest rate question in particular because it has such an important bearing not only on the British taxpayer, as the organisation making the loan, but on the Irish people themselves. There are a number of circumstances that can change from time to time. What we have before us is a summary of key terms of the credit facility, which does not necessarily give us the full picture. Although we support the principle of the loan, I am slightly uncomfortable about nodding through quite technical terms without our having had even a retrospective opportunity to air the details properly. That, I think, is essentially what amendment 6 is trying to rectify. I shall say more about that shortly, but let me first deal with amendment 3, because it makes an important point.
I entirely understand the attempt by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to limit the way in which the current drafting of the Bill might affect all sorts of other unforeseen loan opportunities. He spoke of the European Union’s inveigling its way into other loan arrangements. In particular, he is worried about whether the Bill excludes what might be done under European law, because, as he sees it, this legislation leaves open opportunities for the EU to enlarge and change the mechanism, and to build on what we, at face value, know about the dimensions of the loan under discussion.
There are some interesting points about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the case of a default, and some questions probably merit further scrutiny, but I am not entirely convinced of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments or of whether his amendment to clause 1(2) would necessarily achieve much of great use. I am grateful to him, however, for at least tabling it.
We have not touched on some of the other amendments in the group. The Chancellor addressed the denomination in sterling issue in his opening comments, but the question about whether the loan should be repaid over a particular length of time is quite interesting, and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) tabled a useful amendment involving the 30-year period. The Opposition have also tabled amendments on those matters, in our case to clause 2, but our proposals are about the reports having to comment on the duration of the loan. Amendment 10, on the terms of the credit facility being open to greater debate, is quite interesting, too.
Amendment 6 looks most interesting, however. Given the drafting of this quite hurried legislation, and the unusually conspicuous absence of certain dimensions of the loan, we have a duty to pay attention to what the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) suggests. When one thinks about a loan, one should think about not just the sum of money, but the duration and the interest rate. The rate of return on the British loan is a fundamentally important fact that cannot be simply skimmed over by references in documents that are not currently official documents before the House. The Chancellor said that the Swedish and Danish bilateral loan arrangements have not yet been completed, so it is difficult for us to determine whether our prospective interest rate is more or less favourable than theirs. What would happen if there were a sudden spike in global interest rates? Where in the Bill is there any protection for the British taxpayer?
Conversely, where in the legislation is there any protection for the Irish if the current or any future Government decide to chop and change the rate from time to time, perhaps making a unilateral, Executive decision to raise the interest rate in future tranches of the loan arrangement? The Chancellor said that the interest rate will be fixed for the duration of each tranche, but there is no assurance of that in the Bill.
There is no harm in allowing the House the opportunity to debate and approve, by the affirmative procedure, a statutory instrument on the interest to be charged following the recommendation of Ministers. Our parliamentary democracy is often disregarded as some kind of rubber-stamping device, but perhaps these are good times to take back some of those safeguards, given the serious issues at hand. While Parliament votes on those moneys tonight, it must also consider taking greater ownership of the process, rather than delegating absolutely everything in absolutely every arrangement to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am certainly interested in amendment 6, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his prescience in tabling it.
Mr Hoban
Amendment 3, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) moved by, would ensure that the Bill did not apply to any loan made by the United Kingdom to Ireland under the European Communities Act 1972. Let me give him a second-tier assurance that the Bill applies only to the UK’s bilateral loan to Ireland. Any EU loan made to Ireland through the financial stability mechanism would not be a loan from the UK to Ireland and would not be subject to the Bill.
There is no interweaving or interlocking, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary. My hon. Friend referred to paragraph 6(h) of the loan agreement. I am sure he will understand that the funding Ireland gets is dependent on it being a member of both the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. If it were no longer a member, it would no longer receive the funding and therefore there would be a problem. Amendment 4 would remove the power to increase the cap on the loan and adjust the cap for exchange rate fluctuations. I hope that the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor remove the need for anyone to push that amendment further.
Amendment 6 would require the interest rate on the loan to be approved by Parliament. That is not appropriate. The interest rate for each tranche of the lending to Ireland will be a fixed rate that is set by adding a margin of 2.29% to the sterling seven-and-a-half-year swap rate at the time that the disbursement is made. That is set out in the loan agreement and gives certainty to us and to the Irish Government, who would want to have certainty when accepting and voting on this package.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) said that the amendment would enable the loan interest rate to be reduced. It could also lead to the loan interest rate being increased to the detriment of the Irish Government and their economic recovery. It is important that there is a clear, definitive statement about what the rate is. We have published the summary of key terms of the loan agreement to help colleagues understand what the rate is and how it will be set. The rate is set with the Republic and within the range of interest rates agreed with other multilateral bodies. It would be a big mistake and irresponsible of the Labour party to vote for amendment 6, because it would create uncertainty and instability where we want certainty and stability for the Irish Government. I question whether what the amendment proposes is the right thing to do. The loan rate is agreed and clear, and it is in the summary of key credit terms. The Irish Government have signed off on those key terms. That is the rate they are expecting to get. Amendment 6 would create unnecessary uncertainty and I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.
Mr Cash
For the time being, I have decided against pressing amendment 3 to a Division.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 6, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(7A) Before determining the interest to be charged on any payments under this Act, the Treasury must specify the rate of interest by order; and the Treasury may not make such an order unless—
(a) the House of Commons has determined by resolution the rate of interest to be charged; and
(b) the order provides for that specified rate to be charged.’.—(Mr Carswell.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Hoban
I beg to move manuscript amendment (a), page 2, line 16, at end insert—
‘(d) the remaining term of each Irish loan which is outstanding at the end of that period, and
(e) the original term of each Irish loan in respect of which a payment was made by the Treasury by way of an Irish loan in that period.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert
‘, and
(d) the original term for any Irish loan and remaining terms for any outstanding Irish loans.’.
Amendment 5, page 2, leave out lines 17 to 26.
Amendment 2, page 2, leave out lines 18 and 19.
Clause 2 stand part.
Mr Hoban
In dealing with the issues emerging in Ireland, we have sought to keep the House informed as much as possible about the progress that was being made as the crisis emerged, and the role that the UK Government felt they should play in helping to resolve it and responding to the Irish Government’s request for help at the end of last month. We have done that through statements to the House and the publication of the Bill last week, and to aid debate, we ensured that before today’s debate started a copy of the loan agreement was placed in the Vote Office. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that we were not able to place the summary document in the Vote Office earlier—or, indeed, to place the full signed agreement there—because negotiations are still ongoing with the Irish Government. However, the principles that have been agreed were set out in the summary of key terms.
I think hon. Members would say, “Well, it’s all very well that you’ve been transparent and open in the run-up to the loan process, but what’s the next stage? Are you going to be transparent during the life of the loan? How are you going to keep the House informed of what’s happening, whether the Irish Government are drawing down each of the eight tranches, how far they’ve got with repayments, and so on?” For that reason, we decided that there should be a clause to deal solely with reporting. It states that the Treasury will
“prepare a report about Irish loans and lay it before the House as soon as practicable after the end of that period.”
The first period will end on 31 March 2011 and a report will be published for each subsequent six-month period. The clause states that those reports will include details of
“any payments made by the Treasury by way of”
the loan, and details of
“any sums received by the Treasury in that period by way of repayment of principal or the payment of interest”
and
“the aggregate amount of principal and interest in respect of…loans which is outstanding at the end of that period.”
Mr Hoban
I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises the spirit of the new politics, but I am not quite sure where he will take the debate from there. I welcome his recognition of the Government’s flexibility. I do not know what his experience is, but my experience of opposition was that it was rare for a Government to accept an Opposition amendment even in principle. So this perhaps shows that the spirit of the new politics is now coursing through the House.
I should make some holding remarks on amendment 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) tabled. I am pleased to see him in the Chamber, because he may be able to be clearer about the thinking behind his proposal than I could.
Subsections (4) and (5) are there to ensure that the duty to report does not continue indefinitely once all loans made under the Bill have been repaid and the authority to make further loans has lapsed. The way in which my hon. Friend has drafted amendment 5 would turn the requirement to report on the loan while sums are outstanding into an open-ended requirement to report every six months ad infinitum, even once all the loans had been fully repaid. I hope that the Committee will agree that this would be unnecessary and undesirable.
Amendment 2, tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition, would do something slightly different. Whereas my hon. Friend seeks to amend clause 2 to ensure that reports appear ad infinitum, the Opposition seek to bring forward the date on which the duty to report would end, by removing the requirement to report where there were no outstanding liabilities, but where there had been repayments or payments of interest in the preceding reporting period. In effect, amendment 2 says that there should not be a report where there is no balance to be repaid at the end of the period, although payments have been received in those six months. It would seem odd to remove the need for a report on the period during which the last part of the loan was paid off. Clearly the Government should be required to report that that has happened, and that is what the Bill as drafted requires.
I hope that the Committee will accept amendment (a), and that the proposers of amendments 1, 2 and 5 will not press them to a vote.
Chris Leslie
I do not necessarily wish to pour more congratulations on to the shoulders of the Minister—that would not be doing my job correctly—but in the spirit of Christmas I have to acknowledge, albeit begrudgingly, my appreciation of manuscript amendment (a), which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has tabled. I like to imagine him poring over the Order Paper, happening upon my amendment 1 and immediately thinking, “I must accept that amendment, but the drafting is not quite right,” and therefore rewriting it in his own fair hand. However, I suspect that several dozen parliamentary draftsmen and women were involved in the process. As the Minister said, the intention was indeed to ensure that when we report every six months on what is happening with the loans, we are talking not just about the aggregate amount of the payments made and the interest, or about the sums that are returned, but about some of the other dimensions.
As the Minister said, the reporting arrangements as set out in the Bill do not exclude the ability to make the reports more comprehensive. Indeed, we ought to state at this stage that we would appreciate as much data being contained in them as possible. One piece of information that I would have found useful is the remaining term of the loan, although that is a small point; given how small it is, I am grateful that the Government have conceded it. Perhaps I should regard this as a famous victory for the Opposition.
Chris Leslie
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Just at what I thought was my moment of great glee, he took it away from me. Nevertheless, I will take some satisfaction from what the Government have decided.
I was trying to listen carefully to the Minister’s statement on amendment 2. As a lone traveller trying to amend the legislation, I might have misread the wording of clause 2, but I still do not quite understand the sequences of subsection (4), which states:
“No report is required to be prepared or laid in relation to a period if—
(a) no payments…are made…
(b) no sums…are received in the period, and
(c) no amount of principal or interest in respect of an Irish loan is outstanding at the end”.
I could not see any circumstances where paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would simultaneously apply. For example, if no amount of principal or interest were outstanding, how could there be any circumstances where, under paragraph (a), payments had been made or, under paragraph (b), sums had been received? Surely if no report is required when no amounts are outstanding, the conditions under subsections (4)(a) and (b) are redundant. Looking at the drafting of subsection (4), it would be easy to imagine the parliamentary counsel becoming entangled in an arcane discourse on ontological logic. There are several twists to the double negatives set out in the drafting.
As a layman reading subsection (4), I could not see why paragraphs (a) and (b) were necessary, when they must be concurrent with subsection (4)(c), given that (4)(c) states that there is nothing left owing, according to my reading of it. If each of the three paragraphs were alternatives, or contrasting, perhaps using the words “either” or “or”, that might make sense. They are conjoined, however, by the non-contrasting linkage “and”, suggesting that each of the three conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously, and I am not quite sure that I follow that. Perhaps the Minister needs to walk me through it one more time. I do not wish to press this matter to a vote, because I am sure that there is a higher drafting power at work here, but as I read it, I could not see any circumstances in which paragraph (c) would be true simultaneously with paragraphs (a) and (b).
In general terms the reports will be important, not least because we need to see the terms of the loan that the people of Ireland will have to repay, as well as the amounts of money that the British people will have in return for adding to our national debt. There is a whole series of other questions to which I would eventually like answers. For example, what is the aggregate amount of interest that we expect to be paid by the Irish Government, and what is the impact for us in this country?
As I have said, it is a shame that the summary of the terms of the credit facility was deposited only at the eleventh hour, and I hope that we will have another opportunity to scrutinise it at another time. For the time being, however, that was the purpose of amendment 1, and I am grateful to the Minister for his acceptance of the first amendment that we tabled.
Mr Cash
I have much the same curiosity as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). I was a bit puzzled by the drafting of this provision, and I wanted to find out what the Minister had in mind. I am not sure that he has left me any more satisfied than I was when I started out, however, because my experience over the past 26 years of the dogged fashion in which Ministers operate is that they just say, “We’re not going to make the amendment.” They do not usually explain the position satisfactorily either.
Having said that, it seems to me that if there is nothing to report, we should just not bother with the reports. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) will be necessary. It is possible that, in due course, the concerns that I raised on an earlier amendment might need to be included in the report. That was the case, for example, in relation to the reports on the Maastricht convergence criteria, despite all the footling remarks that were made during the debate on Maastricht, when we were assured that this, that and the other would not happen. When we came to the convergence reports, and got into the whole business of the golden rule, the stability and growth pact and all the other shenanigans and wriggling, we were proved right over and over again.
Chris Leslie
I just want to pick up the hon. Gentleman’s point that if there is nothing to report, there is no need to have any reports. I believe that it would be of interest to the House if, even when no payments were made, a report were still produced to set out that fact. That might seem a small point but, for example, in the unlikely event that default became an eventuality, the lack of a payment being received might be of interest. That was also part of the rationale behind deleting subsection 4(a) and (b).
Mr Cash
I think I might agree with that too, but I think that is catered for by subsection (3)(a), which says that each report must include details of
“any payments made by the Treasury”.
One could have said, “payments, if any,” but for practical purposes I think subsections (1), (2) and (3) would be sufficient. I am not particularly fussed about it; I just wanted to table a probing amendment. I got the usual stonewalling operation from the Minister. I have got used to it over the years; it makes no difference to me and it makes no difference to him.
Mark Durkan
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I found clause 2(4) a bit tortuous. However, I can see the problem with amendment 2, because if paragraphs (a) and (b) were removed and the subsection read only
“No report is required to be prepared or laid in relation to a period if…no amount of principal or interest in respect of an Irish loan is outstanding at the end of the period”,
the point at which the loan is finally discharged—when a final payment is made—could be the one point when a report would not be necessary, whereas I would have thought that that was the one point where a report would have been relevant and necessary.
I therefore understand why subsection (4) is framed as it is and why there is a conjunctive that covers all three parts. It is only when no payment is made, no sum is received, and nothing outstanding is due at the end of the period, that no report is made. Otherwise, if all three conditions are not satisfied, there will be a report, as I understand it. Given what Members have said about the scrutiny and oversight that they want the House to have, although subsection (4) reads tortuously it seems to stand, so I would not be persuaded by amendment 2.
Mr Hoban
I think the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has a second career beckoning as a parliamentary draftsman. He has summed up the situation exceptionally well.
In subsection (4) all three paragraphs—(a), (b) and (c)—have to apply if no report is to be published. If amendment 2 were made, removing paragraphs (a) and (b), payments could have been made in the period but they would not be reported if there was no balance outstanding at the end. Therefore we must ensure that all three are true before we allow no report to be published. I hope that provides clarification.
I hope I am not seen by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) as someone who seeks to stonewall his inquiries, but having imposed a duty on the Treasury to report, it is right that that duty be extinguished when the loans are repaid; otherwise someone will say, “Yes, the loans have been repaid, but your Act requires you to make those reports.” It is right that the duty to report is extinguished when the loan has been repaid, and that is simply the purpose of—
Mr Cash
Perhaps a little bit of irritation, which is not usual in my case, is beginning to burgeon, because a number of questions that I tabled weeks ago about the legal advice regarding the stabilisation mechanism still have not been answered, and when I use the word “stonewall” I mean just that. When I do not get an answer, and I am told that I will get the answer as soon as possible but I still do not get it, and I have to put in a reminder but I still do not get it, there is something going on; I know that. They do not want to disclose the legal advice; they do not want even to disclose whether in fact it was given, or when it was given. I would like to know the answer to those questions because as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. This is an intervention. It is a very long intervention. The hon. Gentleman has clarified what he meant by stonewalling, but perhaps we might leave the considerations about the European Scrutiny Committee for another day, because it is not particularly relevant to the amendment that we are discussing now.
Mr Hoban
It is right that the duty to report is extinguished when there is no principal outstanding, and that is the purpose of subsections (4) and (5).
I hope that, with that explanation, hon. Members will accept manuscript amendment (a) and will not seek to press amendments 1, 5 and 2.
Manuscript amendment (a) agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Short title, commencement and extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Bone
Can the Minister answer the following question, which has been raised several times during the debate: why is the Bill called the Loans to Ireland Bill rather than the Loans to the Republic of Ireland Bill? That seems very strange, as it gives others the impression that we are lending money to Northern Ireland as well as to southern Ireland.
Mr Hoban
That is an interesting question, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House knows because he also recently asked it. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) to clause 1(2), which defines an “Irish loan” as
“a loan to Ireland by the United Kingdom.”
Of course the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland. Therefore, the loan is clearly to what one technically might describe as the Republic of Ireland. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, in order to enable me to put that clarification on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Third Reading
Mr Hoban
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This has been a quick process; Bills are not usually dealt with so expeditiously. I thank all Members for their contributions and their co-operation during the course of today. The co-operation to enable the Bill to proceed so swiftly today has been particularly helpful because, assuming Third Reading goes according to plan, the passing of this Bill will send a clear signal that the UK is willing to play its part in the financial package to assist Ireland.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said earlier, this package of measures has been discussed in the Irish Parliament today, and it has voted in favour of it. There are further international agreements to be reached over the course of the next few days including on International Monetary Fund assistance. Our progress today helps to ensure that there is a sense of progress in achieving the right outcome in respect of financial support for Ireland.
The Bill will allow Britain to provide up to £3.25 billion in lending to Ireland as part of the wider assistance package. The package will help to recapitalise Ireland’s banks, set up a contingency reserve to deal with any future problems and cover the current shortfall in the Irish Budget. As was discussed in the debate, ensuring Ireland’s stability is very much in our interests. A final written agreement on the various terms of the loans will be forthcoming in the next few weeks, but we have sought to provide a summary of the key terms that have been agreed with the Irish Government, in order to help to inform today’s debate. It is clear from the way in which the Committee stage of the Bill proceeded that the provision of that information was helpful.
I note the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). I, too, wish that we could have supplied this information sooner, but when one is negotiating a deal with another Government, one cannot always deliver information as timeously as one would perhaps like. However, we are committed to keeping the House informed about the progress of those negotiations, and clause 2 will enable us to do so—rather, it will require us; we could have been enabled to do so anyway, through our own desire—through six-monthly reporting.
It is clear from the debate, particularly on Second Reading, that Ireland is a friend in need. Our economy is currently in a stronger position than theirs, which is why we are able to offer our support. It is clearly in our interests, because of the strong links we have with the Irish economy. Ireland is one of our key trading partners, and a strong Ireland will help to support growth, jobs and investment in the UK.
The Bill is straightforward: it gives the Treasury the power to make disbursements to the Irish Government. There is a mechanism in place to take into account any adjustments in exchange rates that emerge between 9 December and the signing of the agreement, which we expect to be within the next 30 days. We do not expect to increase our contribution beyond the €3.8 billion agreed with our international partners and the Irish Government, but there is a mechanism to do so if it is required. Again, that would be through the affirmative resolution procedure and would be voted on by all Members of Parliament. So the right safeguards are in place, and the use to which the facility will be put will also be subject to regular reporting under clause 2.
There is no doubting that this Bill is important, and I am grateful to Members from all parties for their support today—support that helped us to progress according to such an urgent timetable. I hope the Bill will now proceed to the other place and be enacted as soon as possible. I commend it to the House.
Chris Leslie
As the Minister has said, this is important legislation. We have been happy to support the spirit of the propositions before us, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, the Government were able to concede a small but beautifully formed manuscript amendment. Although the Minister perhaps has some longer-term issues in the form of disagreements that are increasingly emerging between him and his Back Benchers, by and large, there was support across the House for the Bill.
We have been clear that we will support the Government in providing help to Ireland. Ireland’s stability does matter to us: it is in our national interest as a trading partner, because of Ireland’s connections with our banks and its being our only land border. Events in Ireland remind us, though, of the inconvenient truths for the coalition in particular: first, that this was a global financial crisis; and secondly, that the banks, not Governments, were the root cause of the problem here.
The problems in Ireland make it clear how fragile the world recovery is and show how risky the Government’s gamble with growth and jobs is. Relying on exports alone delivering them is a risky economic strategy. However, going forward, Europe needs to get ahead of this crisis and the bail-out does buy time, but it does not offer a fundamental solution to the fundamental problem. In Greece, we saw markets calm temporarily, but six months later the Irish problem came to a head.
As part of the longer-term answers required, the Government have to realise that collective austerity across Europe offers countries with high debt burdens no way out. Although we of course support the Bill, we are therefore particularly anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister show greater leadership in tackling the root causes of the lack of confidence, and argue more fervently for a plan for growth and jobs across Europe and across the eurozone. We believe that that has to be the fundamental objective for the Government at this time; but we are of course happy to support Third Reading.
Mr Cash
I, too, hope that this Bill succeeds, because it is important to help Ireland. I would like to see Ireland as part of a new configuration of the European Union, rejoining this country on a different footing from the arrangements that currently prevail in the European Union. The European Union is increasingly in its death throes and I hope that this does not lead to an implosion. We have seen riots in the streets here in the United Kingdom, in Greece, in Portugal and in Italy—there were riots in Rome only yesterday. The situation is extremely grave and a lot of it results from the very point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) about growth. The plain fact is that under the current arrangements there is no growth. Until powers are repatriated we will not get the sort of oxygen into the small business community that will be able to fill the gap between the requirements of the Irish economy and those of the UK economy.
In the meantime, we are considerably exposed to the indebtedness of the Irish banks. The amount that we have made available, small as it is comparatively but great as it is from the point of view of the British taxpayer, has been justified, but that is without prejudice to my concerns. They are that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer’s explanation of how the financial stability mechanism came to be put through remains unsatisfactory. He could have referred the whole question to the European Court, because this was unlawful and remains so. I sent a note to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this very question as he was going off to an ECOFIN meeting. I regret to say that the explanatory memorandum produced by the Government on 27 July—perhaps it was 25 July —endorsed the decision taken by the former Government, and that speaks for itself.
I am also deeply worried about this business of the “greater amount” under the provisions that we have already discussed because, irrespective of what the Chancellor said about the exchange rate, the reality is that the amount of the increase is simply a matter of whether or not it is carried by the affirmative resolution. It is only when the exchange rate issue comes into play and we are therefore just dealing with a fluctuation in the amounts to be made available that we revert to using the negative resolution. Therefore, the Bill still provides that this “greater amount” is an open-ended commitment, and I hope that the Government will keep this closely under surveillance. I have heard nothing from the Front Benchers to dissuade me from that view.
Finally, we need to deal with the question of the Euro-ectoplasm and the way in which the kaleidoscope of European legislation in conjunction with all the other arrangements that have been made parallel to this so-called “bilateral loan” weave together, because there is a serious risk that the European jurisdiction applies here. I did not press my amendment to a Division for reasons relating to another vote that did not, in fact, transpire along the lines anticipated.
Be that as it may, the Bill is understandable from the point of view of the Irish economy. However, the Irish Government and the Irish banking system have to take the blame for allowing their economy to get so far out of kilter, and that point needs to be made on the Floor of this House. We are helping them, but we are doing so without prejudice to the fact that they got themselves into the same kind of mess as the Labour Government did on our economy. This is not a day for excuses or congratulation; it is a day for a bit of sober reflection. If people spend what they have not got, they end up with it catching up with them. There is a great deal to be said for prudence, but not of the former Prime Minister’s kind.
Mark Durkan
I join right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the passage of this Bill, which is a sad necessity. It has been a sad necessity for this House, and for Oireachtas Eireann, too, to undertake these arrangements for the reasons that many hon. Members have touched on in the debate.
I acknowledge the spirit in which the Chancellor and the Minister have spoken, not only today but on previous occasions and in the statements leading up to this Bill. Although this is a fast-track Bill, we have known that it is coming and that it is afoot; although in procedural terms it has been microwaved through the House, we know, understand and appreciate the background. I hope that we can have some shared hopes and confidences about what will come from it.
It is important to acknowledge that the Bill has raised questions. I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, on bonuses. This week, the Irish Minister for Finance has supervened—that was the word he used, which has been bandied about—to prevent bonuses being paid in Allied Irish bank just as it is about to benefit from this and the other loan measures. My amendment—I understand why it was not accepted—simply aimed to offer the House a chance to paravene in support of the supervention of the Irish Minister for Finance.
I am sure that, as we have been told, the Government will have a place at the table in some of the restructuring discussions. I hope that the Chancellor will ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland banking requirements will be held in due regard in the context of such restructuring. Although many of us, from all parties, have raised many issues about the banking of business in our constituencies, there is a fundamental question about the future of the business of banking in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is in the twilight zone between the British banking market and the Irish banking market. I hope that the Government will show due diligence and be protective of the needs of the Northern Ireland economy and the Northern Ireland banking sector as regards that restructuring.
We also need to recognise that there are clear UK interests at stake to do with the Irish economy and Irish banking in general. The Irish banks are not just significant players in Northern Ireland; they have significant lending in other parts of the United Kingdom, too. Of course, the UK banks lend £94 billion or more in the south of Ireland, too. For those reasons, this Bill and the debate about it reflect—to use an old phrase that was coined by Charlie Haughey in the days when he was creating Anglo-Irish engagement with Margaret Thatcher—the totality of relationships. In many ways, today’s debates and the arguments, justifications and explanations that have been given by the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers in recent weeks reflect the modern reality of the totality of relationships between these islands in economic and banking terms.
I understand the question asked earlier by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about the Bill’s title. As an Irish nationalist, I regard Ireland as the island of Ireland. My constituency of Foyle demonstrates another naming issue. It is the city of Derry or Londonderry, and so it is instead called Foyle, after the river. The issues are similar with the title “Ireland”. When I was Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland, I had to present statements and agreements on EU funds that were agreements between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Those terms struck me as odd and I could not get away with saying “between Northern Ireland and the south” because the proper title of the Irish state is Ireland. I assume that that is the explanation for the title of the Bill, uncomfortable though some of us, as profound Irish nationalists, might be with that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The Bill has, as he said, been microwaved through the House today, but the trouble with microwaved meals is that although they are quick and do a job, they are not healthy and are not of good quality. That is how I regard the Bill, but I certainly do not seek to divide the House on Third Reading. I have made it clear that I am against the Bill, but it would be wrong to claim any victory today. My remarks and those of some of my colleagues resulted in at least seven Members going through the same Lobby as me, but the Chancellor’s remarks got several hundred Members to go through the same Lobby as him, so it probably is not a good idea to divide on Third Reading.
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the coalition’s Treasury team, who are doing an exceptional job. They are the part of the coalition that is dealing with the economic crisis and we have a collection of very good Ministers here, headed by the Chancellor. It is just my opinion that we have got things wrong on this particular measure; I am very much in the minority but at least I have made my point today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Standards and Privileges
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Before I turn to the three former Members who are the subject of the motion, I wish to make a few remarks about the behaviour of the people who duped them. They would no doubt argue that they have served the public interest, but they were also taking advantage of the need of retiring MPs in the run-up to a general election to provide for their future employment. They dangled the bait in front of our former colleagues and unfortunately some of them took it. If that was not entrapment, it was something close to it, and although I do not seek to excuse the conduct of those three former Members, I think the whole House will feel some sympathy for them because of the way they were deceived.
Three former Members—Sir John Butterfill, Patricia Hewitt and Adam Ingram—were cleared by the commissioner and the Committee that I chair of any breach of the rules. Whatever we may feel about the poor judgment they showed in agreeing to take part in the bogus interviews, and however ill-judged some of the remarks made in the interviews may have been, they did not break the rules and the Committee has therefore made no recommendations about them.
The remaining three former Members did break the rules, and the Committee has recommended sanctions accordingly. I will deal with each of them in turn, because although they were all part of the same deception practised by the media, their cases are different in important respects.
Stephen Byers has made a full and I would say gracious apology. He recognises that he made claims to the bogus interviewer that were untrue, and it is evident that he deeply regrets the damage he has caused not only to his reputation but to the reputation of the House. I do not dispute the genuineness of his apology, but unfortunately the seriousness of his offence means that saying sorry is not enough. That is why the Committee has recommended that Mr Byers’s entitlement to a parliamentary pass should be suspended for two years.
The Committee also found that Geoff Hoon committed a particularly serious breach of the code which, like that of Mr Byers, brought the House and its Members generally into disrepute. As those who have read the Committee’s report and the evidence will know, Mr Hoon has not accepted this conclusion.
He argued that the code of conduct should not apply because he was discussing his private life and what he might do after he had left the House. The Committee did not accept that argument. Mr Hoon was a Member of Parliament when he attended the bogus interview, and he talked in the interview about information that he had been given while he was a Member of Parliament, so the code applied.
Secondly, Mr Hoon suggested that the meaning of what he had said to the bogus interviewer had been misinterpreted. It seemed to come down to whether he had said “this” or “it”, or perhaps neither. Some of us refreshed our memory of what he said by watching a recording of the “Dispatches” programme, and he clearly said “this”. Ultimately, however, it is not so much about the exact words that he used as about the impression that he was giving. The Committee concluded that Mr Hoon was giving the clear impression that he could brief paying clients about defence policy on the basis of his inside knowledge. That is, as we said in our report, a particularly serious breach of the code, because it brings the House and its Members into disrepute. Unlike Mr Byers, Mr Hoon has neither accepted that he breached the code nor apologised. The Committee has therefore recommended that Mr Hoon’s entitlement to a parliamentary pass should be suspended for five years. Hopefully, the apology will ensue.
The Committee found that in Richard Caborn’s case there were several minor breaches of the rules in relation to his failure to declare an interest when arranging or taking part in functions in the House. They were most likely due to carelessness on Mr Caborn’s part; there is no evidence that he deliberately set out to break the rules. Mr Caborn accepts that that was the case, and he has apologised unreservedly for those breaches.
The Committee found that Mr Caborn committed a further breach when he failed to declare a financial interest in the course of a meeting with a senior NHS official at which a proposal was raised which might have benefited the members of an organisation for which he was a paid consultant. In our judgment and that of the commissioner, that breach was also due to carelessness. There is no evidence of intent on Mr Caborn’s part. The commissioner therefore described it in his memorandum to us as “less serious” than the breaches committed by Mr Byers and Mr Hoon, but that does not mean that it was not a serious breach. It was a breach both of the rules on declaration of interests and of paragraph 12 of the code of conduct, which covers all members.
The Committee took the view that, because that was a less serious breach than those committed by the other former Members, a less severe sanction was appropriate. We could have recommended just an apology, but Mr Caborn had written to us stating that he did not accept that he should have declared his interest and did not accept that he had breached the rules. As we pointed out in our report, we could have invited the House to summon Mr Caborn to the Bar to apologise in person, but if he did not accept that he had breached the rules, it was not clear what that would achieve. We therefore agreed that Mr Caborn should also lose his privileged rights of access, and, because his was a less serious case than the others, we set the tariff at six months.
Mr Caborn wrote to me on 12 December seeking a meeting with the Committee. I consulted my colleagues on the Committee, who agreed to offer him an opportunity to give oral evidence at its meeting on 14 December. We had, of course, invited Mr Caborn and the others to give oral evidence before we produced our report, but he had declined that initial invitation. We would not normally agree to a request to give evidence after the publication of a report, but in this case we felt that it was right to grant Mr Caborn’s request to have his say, because, as a former Member, he was unable to speak in today’s debate. The transcript of his evidence, and his letter to me of 12 December, are in the Vote Office, and I hope that Members have had an opportunity to read them.
I do not propose to go through Mr Caborn’s evidence in detail, but this is the nub of it. First, we are finding against him on the basis of a rule that we ourselves say is insufficiently clear and needs reviewing. Secondly, he is being treated in the same way as those who have committed particularly serious breaches of the code of conduct.
The Committee says that the rules on lobbying need to be reviewed. The 1974 resolution refers to
“transactions or communications...with Ministers or servants of the Crown”;
the guide to the rules refers to
“correspondence and meetings with Ministers and public officials”
and the code of conduct, article 12, refers to
“any activities...with Ministers, Members and officials.”
That all needs to be brought together and tidied up, but, as the Committee’s report states:
“Mr Caborn should have had greater regard to the purpose of the rule”.
The purpose of the rule is quite clear: it is to ensure that Members are transparent in their dealings with people who might be in a position to influence public policy or the spending of public money. Mr Caborn tried in his evidence to tie the rule very tightly to people who are in a position to influence legislation, but such a narrow interpretation is not one that most of us would recognise. To sum up: yes, the rules need reviewing and clarifying, but the purpose of the rules is clear and the evidence that Mr Caborn breached the rules is, in my Committee’s view, also clear.
Turning to the Committee’s recommendation, I have already explained that we felt that a sanction was appropriate. If Mr Caborn had apologised up front, that might have been enough, depending on what he said, but the fact is that, until I received a letter from him this morning, Mr Caborn did not accept that he had breached the code and had not apologised. In his letter today, Mr Caborn writes that the Committee has “given a new interpretation” of the rules and set a new precedent. I do not accept that, but in his letter he continues:
“Your Committee have come to its conclusion which I accept and in respect to the House, apologise.”
I welcome this apology, although I am disappointed that it has come so late in the day.
An apology was sought and has been given, but that still leaves the House with a decision to take on what sanction should apply. We could, as I said earlier, have recommended that Mr Caborn be summoned to the Bar of the House for a formal reprimand. That would have been humiliating for him, and I am not sure that it would have been all that great for the House. The media would have loved it, and the pictures no doubt would have been broadcast around the world, but it would have been a bit like a public flogging, and we did not think that right or appropriate, so we did not go there.
Given that Mr Caborn is a former Member, the only real option that the House is left with is to take away his pass. He told us that losing his former Member’s pass is just like being suspended from the service of the House. With respect, it is not. A serving Member who is suspended loses his or her pay and expenses for the period of suspension and is excluded from the precincts of Parliament. All that Mr Caborn will lose is his ability to enter the building without going through the visitors’ entrance and his access to certain facilities, such as the Strangers Bar. He can still come here as a member of the public. Some might say that losing those privileges for a period of just six months is a very light punishment. Well, it is intended to be light, because we recognised that Mr Caborn did not intend to breach the rules or to bring the House or its Members generally into disrepute. In that respect, his case is different from the other two.
In the view of the Committee, its recommendations in respect of those three former Members are regrettable but necessary. They are also proportionate. Once the period of suspension of the former Members’ privileged rights of access is over, and assuming an apology has been made, they will be free to re-apply for their passes. It is painful to have to take such action against former colleagues, but by agreeing to the Committee’s proposals today, the House will send an important signal that it does not tolerate breaches of its rules.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) has clearly set out the basis for the complaints, the commissioner’s findings of fact and the Committee’s recommendations.
These debates are never easy. The House can take no pleasure in imposing sanctions on Members and former Members who have breached the code of conduct, but it is something that we must do if we are to have any hope of restoring and maintaining public faith in the House. For those former Members who have breached the code, the Committee recommends suspending their entitlement to a parliamentary photo pass for a period ranging from six months to five years. There are those outside this place who might argue that such a sanction is not tough enough. As the Committee has noted, however, the power of the House to discipline former Members once they have left this place is severely limited. In fact, the Committee is not aware of any disciplinary action having been taken against a former Member in modern times.
As these cases do not relate to the misuse of allowances, there is no money to repay and the removal of access is, in effect, the only sanction open to the House to impose. Such a sanction sends a clear message about the strength with which the House deprecates the breaches carried out in these cases. We should not lose sight of the damage that this episode has done to the reputations of the former Members who have breached the code, as they seek to establish new lives and new careers outside this place.
As the right hon. Member for Rother Valley has said, I emphasise that three of the six former Members about whom complaints were made following the clandestine recordings by The Sunday Times and “Dispatches” were cleared of any breach of the code by the commissioner. The motion makes no reference to those Members, because no sanction is required in their cases, but it is important that the record shows that not every Member who is subject to media criticism has, in fact, breached the code of conduct for MPs, however unwise their actions may have been.
In the course of these investigations, the commissioner identified three areas where he felt that the code of conduct should be reviewed. First, the paid advocacy rule prohibits a Member from being paid for participating in any proceeding or from lobbying Ministers or officials, if in doing so they would be seeking to confer an exclusive benefit on the organisation that is paying them. However, the commissioner is not confident that the rule as currently expressed has the effect of ruling out lobbying on behalf of a wider business sector of which the organisation paying the Member forms a part.
Secondly, the code of conduct does not apply to former Members, although it does apply to discussions Members have while serving in the House about what they might do after they leave. The commissioner is concerned about contacts between former Members and serving Members, Ministers and officials based on previous working relationships. An issue arose in the case of Mr Richard Caborn about the scope of the rules relating to contact with public officials. Although the rule itself refers to “Ministers and crown servants,” the guidance refers to “public officials.” That is another area the commissioner feels should be clarified. The Committee proposes that the rules regarding lobbying should be reviewed as soon as time permits. I understand that that will be a wide-ranging review conducted by the commissioner, who will report to the Committee. The Committee will, in turn, make a report to the House.
I remind the House of the measures that the Government have taken and will take to raise standards in public life. The coalition agreement sets out the Government’s commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists. We intend to take as many views as possible of those who are interested through a broad consultation on the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists, before publishing a draft Bill before the end of this Session. We will introduce legislation in the next parliamentary Session. When Ministers leave office, they will be prohibited from lobbying Government for a period of two years. They must also seek advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments about any proposed appointments or employment they wish to take up within two years of leaving office. The ministerial code is also clear that former Ministers must abide by the advice of the advisory committee. In conclusion, on behalf of the House, I thank the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, other Committee members and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for their work. I hope that the House will feel able to support its Committee.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I echo the thanks given to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and to the commissioner for their work on investigating these matters. These were very difficult issues to get to grips with. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) has said, they have arisen from the contact that former Members had with a fictitious company set up by journalists. It is worth noting that the commissioner obtained full certified transcripts of those meetings before making his report, and that he did not rely simply on the parts that had been broadcast or that had appeared in the media. I think we are all grateful for the thoroughness of the investigations that have been carried out.
It is important to put on the record the fact that the report is not concerned with whether former Members were unwise in their dealings, with whether they exaggerated their claims, or even with what they planned to do when they had left the House; it is concerned solely with whether they breached the rules while they were Members of this House. That is the only question before us. Indeed, in some cases the Committee found that Members who had been reported to the commissioner for investigation had not breached those rules, and they were exonerated through the investigation. In three cases, as we have heard, they upheld the complaints and have recommended that parliamentary passes be withdrawn for different periods.
Labour Members support the Committee’s recommendations on this matter. As has been said, however, we believe that the case involving Richard Caborn, who, it is fair to say, was and is widely respected in this House, raises some issues that need to be looked at in future. The report clearly states that
“Mr Caborn…did not bring the House and its Members generally into disrepute”.
We agree with that. However, the Committee found that he had breached the code of conduct. As the Deputy Leader of the House has said, this case raises some important issues. First, the rules need to be clarified. Members need clear rules that they can obey, in which case there is no dispute about whether they have been breached. Secondly, the definition of “a public official” needs to be the same as that in the rules, in the code and anywhere else that it is mentioned. Thirdly, there is the whole problem of what Members who are planning to leave the House may and may not do when they are planning their future careers. Again, clear guidelines are needed.
We also need to consider whether former Members should have a right of appeal. Any existing Member of this House who is subject to a report by the Standards and Privileges Committee can stand up in this Chamber and make their case; clearly, that is not possible for former Members. I welcome the fact that the Committee decided today to hear evidence from Richard Caborn, but that is something that we will perhaps need to consider formalising in future.
I, too, hope that the House will support this motion, and I look forward to a proper debate on the issues that have arisen during the investigation of these cases.
Mr Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)
Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) that I welcome all aspects of his Committee’s report apart from one, to which I will refer in a moment.
As the Deputy Leader of House has said, it is never easy for the House to discuss such matters. It is even less easy for someone to stand up and say that they do not agree with parts of a report such as this, because inevitably those comments will be picked up by whoever is out there and played against them. However, I feel absolutely obliged to do so in respect of the case of Richard Caborn. Richard Caborn is a person who gave 27 years of honourable service in this place. In the past few weeks, people from both sides of the House have told me that what he and other colleagues are going through is absolutely appalling.
What about the three former Members who were exonerated entirely? We must, as a House, look to see what they have been put through over the past few weeks and months by people outside this place. Perhaps, as the Chair intimated at the beginning of his address, we need to look at how people treat this place and how they portray it to the general populace, as that is not in the interests of the democratic process.
I turn to what the Chair of the Select Committee said in respect of Richard Caborn. The Committee’s recommendation states:
“Like the Commissioner, we accept that there is no evidence to suggest that any of these breaches were intentional. Mr Caborn did not bring the House or its Members generally into disrepute.”
As its Chair said, the Committee accepts in its conclusions that the rules and associated guidance need to be clarified and amended, and that the rules relating to lobbying must be reviewed as a matter of urgency.
I conclude as I started by reminding the House of Richard Caborn’s long years of honourable service in this place. He served at all levels of Government and served the House well—as did Sir John Butterfill, who was exonerated in this examination. Richard Caborn spent most of his working life in this place, serving the people of this country and the people of Sheffield, only to be admonished at the end of it by this place because of our lack of rules, the sting that was referred to by the Chair of the Select Committee, and that Committee’s findings, which state that he brought neither the House nor Members into disrepute. The six-month suspension that he has been given is, frankly, disproportionate to his so-called crimes. It would have been enough to say that it was unsatisfactory that he did not make a full apology to this House at an earlier stage. If we are going into the business of bringing stings performed by people outside this place to the Floor of the House and of purging our own Members, something wrong is happening.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I call Neil Parish to present a public petition. He is not here, so we will move on.
Water Supplies (Developing World)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
That the draft Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 8 November, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
After many years of campaigning on water, sanitation and hygiene, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the topic. Far too many people in the world lack safe clean water. Globally, just short of a billion people struggle without access to it. That is more than the population of Europe. In places such as Zambia, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Mozambique, I have seen personally that when clean water is not available there are minimal opportunities for good health, gaining an education, looking after crops or animals, or developing a business. If a major part of the day is taken up with walking many miles to collect water, there is no time for a child to get an education, and no time for a parent to earn a living.
Similarly, far too many people do not have decent sanitation or hygiene provision. The figures are frightening. Whereas the number of those who lack safe water is dreadful, 2.6 billion people go without access to decent sanitation. That is twice the population of China. Without decent sanitation or hygiene, the chances of a healthy life are minimal. Diarrhoea is the biggest child killer in Africa. On that continent alone, almost a million children aged under five died from diarrhoea in 2008. Worldwide, some 1.3 million infants die as a result of diarrhoea every year. Ninety per cent. of those cases are down to inadequate sanitation, unsafe water or poor hygiene.
It is clear to me that one of the most important ways in which we can help the poorest people in the world is by providing support in the areas of water, sanitation and hygiene, collectively referred to as WASH. Many of the other targets of our aid provision—education, agriculture, business development and health—need, as a starting point, people to have access to decent water, sanitation and hygiene.
I have seen at first hand the impact that help with those facilities can make. I have seen, for example, a health clinic in the bush in Ethiopia that was almost deserted because of the improvements in the health of local people following the installation of water pumps in local villages. In many other places I have seen the impact of the excellent work done by the UK-based charity WaterAid. I have even done a bit of well building for it in Zambia.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing a debate on this important subject, on which I support him. I have to declare an interest: my father spent his entire professional career as a water engineer, building and maintaining water and sanitation projects both in the UK and in many countries abroad. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to ensure the sustainability of projects in the developing world such as those provided by WaterAid, it is essential that community groups and church groups on the ground are trained to maintain the projects commenced by voluntary organisations and ensure their continuity?
Mr Foster
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Like me, she has probably seen examples of totally unsustainable aid development. In Zambia I once saw a brand-new fire engine that had been donated to Lusaka urban district council by another country. Within 24 hours nobody could use the fire engine, because its engine was designed to use a fuel that was not available in Zambia. I have seen video recorders provided by other countries with videotapes in a language that was not understood by the population. She is right: there is no point in installing a water pump without involving the villagers in learning how to maintain it and ensuring that they will be able to get parts for it. They can possibly even go further by making a small charge for the water from the pump, so that there can be paid attendants to ensure that it is well looked after and serviced, and the project is sustainable. I agree that involving local people is critical.
As I said, I have seen some excellent work by WaterAid, but many other charities such as Tearfund and Pump Aid work in the field and deserve our praise. Given the importance of that aspect of the UK’s aid work, I was pleased by the Government’s promise in the coalition agreement, which stated:
“A key aim of our aid is to make sure everyone gets access to the basics: clean water, sanitation, healthcare and education.”
Those words are encouraging, but delivering that aim will not be easy.
One of the United Nations millennium development goals is to halve, by 2015, the proportion of the world’s population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. Sadly, that goal is not going to be met. According to a UN report this year, the number missing out on proper sanitation will actually grow to 2.7 billion by 2015, if current trends continue. Although the safe water target is on track globally, there are parts of the world where it will be missed by miles, not least in sub-Saharan Africa, where it is predicted that 350 million people will remain without access to safe water.
The UN report says:
“the safety of water supplies remains a challenge and urgently needs to be addressed.”
That warning becomes even more pressing in the context of climate change. The problem is not just hotter weather, causing more frequent droughts that in turn limit access to water. Climate change also disrupts weather patterns, resulting in more frequent and powerful floods. Flooding leads to overflowing latrines, contaminated drinking water, waterborne diseases such as cholera and all kinds of other sanitation problems. The problem is extremes of water shortage and water excess, and that problem will intensify as climate change continues to progress. That is part of the reason why we need to do even more.
Rather than discuss the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and his Department, however, I wish to concentrate on what I believe the Department for International Development can do. In recent years water and sanitation have not been given the priority that I would wish them to have. As a proportion of the UK’s aid budget, spending on water and sanitation has dwindled to just 2.2%, yet if I am right, and if water and sanitation are a vital plank in delivering all our aid goals, increasing the proportion of aid money dedicated to them would be money well spent. WaterAid made that argument powerfully in its recent submission to the Department—
Mr Foster
The argument was well made by WaterAid, and I hope the Minister has had a chance to read its submission. It considers each of the millennium development goals in turn in the context of WASH.
The first goal is to eradicate poverty. The World Health Organisation estimates that for every £1 invested in WASH, £8 is generated. That is because people save time on water collection, so they can be more productive, and WASH provision limits the number of days lost to illness.
The second goal is universal primary education, but children who are busy fetching water do not have time to go to school. The education of young girls ends up suffering the most, as that task more often than not falls to them. Sanitation also has a role to play in education. Dedicated girls’ toilets and menstrual hygiene facilities are important in making schools accessible for older girls.
DFID already knows that. It published a girls’ education strategy in January 2005, which prioritised
“non-education programmes such as clean water supply and sanitation facilities”.
There were two updates on implementing this strategy—the first in December 2006 and the second in July 2009—but when I asked the Library for further reports, I came away empty-handed. I therefore hope that the Minister can tell us what progress has been made in the year and a half since the second report was published, and that he confirms that the education of girls still an important part of his Department’s programme—which brings me neatly to MDG 3, which is to promote gender equality and empowerment.
Seventy-two per cent. of water fetching is done by women and girls. The task takes up an average of 14 hours a week—I have seen it take very much longer—and distracts girls and women from education and other potentially productive activity, such as building their economic independence. That is a significant barrier to gender equality.
The fourth goal is to reduce child mortality rates. As I have already said, diarrhoea is the biggest child killer in Africa, and 90% of cases are caused by inadequate sanitation, unsafe water and poor hygiene. Poor water quality will always undermine our investment in health. We would be horrified if our own local clinics had only dirty water coming out of the taps, or if the only water available for swallowing medication was contaminated.
Clean water is a fundamental part of health, including maternal health, which is the subject of MDG 5. WASH poverty causes the most significant health risks for women. A hygienic environment for childbirth and post-natal care will increase the survival chances of mothers and newborns.
Finally, MDG 6 is to combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases. HIV/AIDS patients require more water—up to five times as much as normal water consumers—because the most common diseases caused by AIDS are diarrhoeal and skin-related. My point is not that MDG 7 and the water and sanitation goals that I mentioned earlier should be prioritised at the expense of all the others. Rather, I believe that prioritising WASH will increase our chances of delivering on both the UK’s aid pledges and the MDGs. Until we fund WASH better, our investment in health and education will be less effective: the money will only ever achieve a part of what it could otherwise achieve.
Some progress has been made. Spending on WASH has gone up slightly in recent times, and we recently became part of the Sanitation and Water for All international global partnership. I look forward to a progress report. However, that will not be enough without more UK investment, so I am calling for two things. First, by reordering or rebalancing priorities, the Department should increase the sum spent on water, sanitation and hygiene to £600 million per annum. That would lift 100 million people out of water, sanitation and hygiene poverty.
Fiona Bruce
When Governments are looking to make a real difference, they invest in huge infrastructure projects. One of the challenges that they face in doing that—as opposed to what happens when charities invest smaller amounts in, say, village wells—is to ensure that the governance of those involved in partnering in those projects is sound. I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s response to that point, but does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Foster
I entirely agree. Indeed, with the work that I have seen, particularly in Africa, I have been incredibly impressed by the way in which the various charities involved work with local communities, empowering and involving them, before ultimately moving away and leaving those local community organisations to run by themselves what has been put in place. That is important.
The hon. Lady talks about large sums, and that is the crucial point that I am trying to make. We welcome the increase in the aid budget—I will mention that briefly in my summation—but I am talking about reprioritising that money. For example, we have just increased the amount of money used to tackle malaria by £500 million. That may seem like an enormous sum going to do something important, but we know that diarrhoea causes more deaths than malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis combined, and as I said earlier, 90% of cases are caused by poor water, sanitation and hygiene. Therefore, the £600 million that I am arguing for to lift 100 million people out of that situation would be money well spent.
Secondly, water, sanitation and hygiene issues need to be mainstreamed into our wider development, public health and poverty reduction efforts. Again, that will require a big shift in thinking. We are still trying to break down the divide between sanitation and water, which is hard enough. For instance, DFID’s business plan promises that regular reports will be published on the number of sanitary facilities built or upgraded with DFID funding. Those extra data will no doubt be useful, but that promise indicates something of a silo mentality. We should not be thinking in terms of either water or sanitation. That is why I am asking for enough money to bring those things together.
However, I also think that we should go further. Such issues should become an important part of our strategies for dealing with infant mortality, maternal health and other global issues. Departmental advisers working on water and sanitation should be properly linked to colleagues working on health or poverty reduction. We should be breaking down the sectoral divides that still exist in the aid world. In all, we need a truly integrated approach—for instance, by ensuring that new schools are always built with suitable hygiene and sanitation facilities; or, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) suggested, by recognising the importance of transparency and accountability when a Government make decisions about major capital projects and services, such as their water systems. All that depends on facilitating and encouraging better co-operation between those in different sectors.
All of us in this House should be proud of the way in which our country contributes directly, and through international organisations, to help alleviate poverty and ill health in some of the poorest countries in the world. We should be proud of our commitment to increase further the money spent on aid. However, we need to ensure that we get the best possible value for that money. We need to ensure that the way in which it is spent provides the best possible route towards the reduction of poverty and ill health. That can best be done by rebalancing our aid budget in favour of water, sanitation and hygiene. A modest change in that area would reap huge rewards. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister agrees.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) for raising this topic. Achieving the millennium development goals, including the two vital targets on clean water and improved sanitation, is at the very heart of the coalition’s agenda on international development. I recognise and respect his interest in water and sanitation, and in particular his high regard for WaterAid, which we, too, consider a valued partner in our work.
Speaking personally, I am also convinced of the importance of water, sanitation and hygiene. In Hoa Binh province in Vietnam, I have seen how these simple interventions can make a remarkable difference to people’s health and opportunities. One local woman showed me the new latrine in her garden that had vastly improved her life, and told me that she had pinned up a hygiene advice sheet in her house to educate her whole family. I have also inspected at close quarters some latrines—of variable quality, I have to say—in rural Bangladesh. Indeed, I am proud to say that I am fast becoming something of a ministerial latrine expert. I commend to the House the UNICEF booklet entitled “Low-cost latrine options”, which contains an encyclopaedic list of various designs, including the Blair pit latrine. Known as a VIP latrine, it is a ventilated, improved pit, designed and used, as it happens, in Zimbabwe.
Furthermore, I am proud that the United Kingdom is the first country in the G20 to set out how we will meet our promise to spend 0.7% of our gross national income on aid from 2013. This also places a serious responsibility on us to use the money well, and water, sanitation and hygiene fit squarely within that agenda. Each pound of taxpayers’ money in this area can bring direct, tangible benefits for poor people. As many will know, we are currently reviewing all our bilateral and multilateral aid. I cannot therefore make any detailed announcements on numbers today, but we have a high level of ambition in this area and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already stated in the House that we know we will support tens of millions of people in gaining access to sanitation over the next four years.
Today I can outline seven principles of how we, the British Government, will respond to this global crisis. First, we will ensure excellence in our Department for International Development country office programming. A vital part of our efforts will be through our bilateral programmes. Our current programmes in Bangladesh will affect up to 30 million people by 2011. Our current programmes in Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria will provide up to 17 million people with access. We will also be making new commitments under the bilateral aid review. We will of course ensure that there are sufficient and qualified staff in DFID country offices to deliver our programmes. There will be close co-ordination with our climate change work, including work on water management, and we will continue to ensure an excellent humanitarian response, dealing with issues of water storage, water supply, health care in emergencies and cholera pandemics.
Secondly, we will link our work on water, sanitation and hygiene especially closely with our work on health. We cannot achieve other key millennium development goal targets in the absence of action on something as fundamental as basic water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion. Recent articles in the Public Library of Science medical journal, launched last month by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien), conclude that 2.4 million deaths each year could be prevented if people had adequate access to hygiene, sanitation and drinking water. They emphasised, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, that diarrhoea is the biggest killer of children in Africa, with about 4,000 under-5s dying every single day. Yet simply washing hands with soap can reduce the risk of diarrhoeal diseases by 42% to 47%.
This issue was once much closer to home. It was John Snow who, in London in 1854, first traced a cholera outbreak to a contaminated water source in Broad street in Soho. This very institution of Parliament was brought to a standstill in 1858 by the “great stink” of inadequate sanitation. In 1862, Florence Nightingale, through her meticulous statistical analysis, showed that high death rates in the British Army in India were actually due to poor water, sanitation and hygiene. Today, globally, we must follow in the great British tradition of investing strongly in water, sanitation and hygiene to deliver the health gains that we need. Clearly, as diarrhoea is today the main killer of children in Africa, we cannot achieve the MDG on child mortality without that, and the evidence shows it will also play a major role in improved nutritional status, as well as reductions in pneumonia, maternal and neonatal infections and preventable blindness. So we will complement and co-ordinate our direct actions on health, and our sizeable new commitments on malaria, reproductive and maternal health, with substantial and closely linked actions on water, sanitation and hygiene.
Thirdly, we will increase our focus on gender and disability. Currently in the developing world, too much time is wasted, day in and day out, collecting water. That time could be spent in other productive, caring or educational activities. Women lose out most, as they are twice as likely to fetch water and they also face indignity, and often the risk of violence, because of a lack of sanitation facilities. Clean toilets in schools can contribute to keeping girls in school, and that alone is a reason to take action. Standard designs for water and sanitation may be inaccessible for people with disabilities, but simple modifications can solve that. They can reduce stigma and the burden of care, and increase dignity and social integration. So we will support innovation and scaling up of what works, to benefit women, girls and people with disabilities.
I have already alluded to the fourth principle: ensuring cost-effectiveness and value for money. Water, sanitation and hygiene are among the most cost-effective health interventions, according to the World Bank and the World Health Organisation. Hygiene promotion comes out as just $5 per disability-adjusted life year, known as DALY, averted—a measure of the impact of the intervention on reducing sickness and death. Sanitation promotion is also within the top 10 interventions, at $10 per DALY. We will work to ensure that whether we are working through multilateral, non-government or Government partners, we further improve the value for money we are achieving with UK taxpayers’ money.
Fifthly, we will directly empower communities and help them to hold their Governments to account. The community-led sanitation programmes which the UK and others have supported, first in Bangladesh and now spreading rapidly in Asia and Africa, have shown the powerful influence of shared action. Once communities start to work together on ensuring latrines and hand-washing for all, not just the few, experience shows that they go on to work together in addressing other problems. Natural community leaders emerge and they gain confidence to do more.
We have also been supporting citizens to hold their own Governments to account. We fund a global network of southern civil society organisations, the Freshwater Action Network, in south Asia and Africa. Local groups, for example, are carrying out citizen audits to investigate whether there are latrines in schools and presenting the findings to their local Governments. Lessons on what works are being shared via the global network. The network is also taking part in regional intergovernmental conferences, bringing the views of poor people who are demanding water and sanitation directly to the decision makers, and we will continue to support and develop such innovative and empowering approaches.
The sixth principle is that we will build further evidence and test innovative approaches. We will keep building evidence regarding both the cost-effectiveness of our interventions and what really works at scale. The British Government are funding the largest research programme in the world on sanitation and hygiene in the developing countries—the SHARE consortium—bringing together leading researchers and practitioners. We are supporting a major trial in Zimbabwe, examining the link between sanitation and nutrition. Not having latrines and not washing hands can cause intestinal infections and long-term malabsorption of nutrients, and so damage the long-term growth and development of children. This research is potentially vital to achieving global targets on nutrition. We will also investigate how we can use the entrepreneurship of the local private sector for providing and maintaining water supplies. The results from these will not just inform our programming but that of other donors too and, most importantly, the investments and policies of developing countries themselves.
Finally, we will work with others in the sector to ensure a collective response to this global crisis. We know it is possible to achieve results at scale: 1.3 billion people have gained access to sanitation since 1990, but particularly in Africa our collective efforts and resources have still not been enough.
The sanitation MDG target is likely to be missed by 1 billion people, and Africa is off-track for both water and sanitation. The UK is already the largest donor to basic water and sanitation systems in low-income countries. These simple systems reach people in rural and peri-urban areas where there are the lowest levels of coverage, and so are targeted well to the poorest people. Globally however, aid to basic systems has declined from 27% to just 16% of aid in the sector over the last five years, and only 42% of the sector’s aid goes to low-income countries. I am pleased that DFID supports an annual report, known as the GLAAS report and produced by UN-Water and the World Health Organisation, giving a global picture of how aid to water and sanitation is allocated. That will help us to hold each other to account, and assist better targeting in the future.
We must be realistic. We alone cannot solve all the problems. We also need others to play their part in focusing aid resources on the people who need them most, and this is not just about aid. Developing country Governments have the leading role to play in ensuring action on water and sanitation, backing it with their own policies, programmes and resources. In this way, donors can support countries to achieve their own targets in the way that they want.
Sometimes, however, there is not the political will or capacity to develop credible investment plans. We will therefore work closely with all our partners in the sector to solve this global crisis together, including through the UK leadership role in the sanitation and water for all initiative, where we are at the forefront of helping to address some of these wider issues. This global partnership of 31 developing countries, six donor countries, nine multilaterals and development banks and countless southern and northern civil society networks has come together with the common goal of ensuring both results on the ground and accountability in respect of them. The sanitation and water for all initiative has already achieved changes that should lead to improved results in Ghana, Burkina Faso, Senegal and other countries.
We will find new ways to work jointly with other donors. Specifically, we are looking for ways to enable fragile states, and those that are most off-track on the targets, to develop the capacity and plans to ensure access to water, sanitation and hygiene. It is imperative that we find ways for these countries to attract and use the finance for achieving results at scale.
The British Government know how important this agenda is, and we have a clear picture of the needs. We are ready to play our role in a global effort, complementing our leading role on health. In the coming weeks, we will finalise our commitments across the board and our policy support to this vital area. I can already confirm, however, that the Government have great ambition in water, sanitation and hygiene, and that that will continue to be an important part of DFID’s business.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Closure of Ryedale Ward, Malton Hospital (North Yorkshire)
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Outdoor Learning
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
May I say what an honour it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and not for the first time?
I start by declaring an interest. My enthusiasm for this subject started in previous years when I was involved in the creation of a charity, the Countryside Alliance Foundation. That fuelled the fire for this debate and since then, a number of organisations have come on to my radar and helped enormously in shaping my views. I will quickly list them: the Field Studies Council, in particular its excellent staff at West Orielton in Pembrokeshire in my constituency; the National Trust, its Outdoor Britain campaign, and particularly the help of Jonathan Hughes; the English Outdoor Council; the Bushcraft Company; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; and the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom. One of the encouraging things about preparing for this debate was the common ground found between so many different organisations.
This debate is not about urban interests versus rural interests; the subject is important to everybody, wherever they come from and whatever their background and aspirations. Nor is the debate aimed at persuading urban children to go out and do things such as skin rabbits; this is about getting everybody—whether teachers or pupils—out of a classroom and into a new environment so that they can find something somewhere that excites them and in which they can excel. In short, the debate is about outdoor education, not outdoor entertainment.
When I looked into this topic, I was struck by the fact that these days only about 10% of children play outdoors, although about 40% of their parents used to do that. A survey conducted a few years ago by Country Life magazine illustrated the challenge that confronts us. A group of children was asked why, in their view, it was important that gates were closed in the countryside. The most popular answer was, “To keep the elephants in.” They were asked why it was perhaps more enjoyable to live in rural rather than urban areas, and the equally depressing, but slightly telling, response was, “There are fewer coppers.” Those are the challenges and the facts that underpin part—although not all—of this debate. We have a big mountain to climb, but we have the consensus and enthusiasm to climb it.
Emerging evidence suggests that outdoor learning meets every social target set. It is good for education, health, behaviour, community cohesion and, of course, for the natural environment. Everybody who takes part, not just those from a disadvantaged background or those who may not excel in a traditional classroom, benefits from the process. Outdoor learning teaches people, in particular teachers, to understand risk.
Depressingly, 76% of teachers turned down the opportunity to go on a field trip because of fears about health and safety. Such learning, however, is low risk and high reward, and the statistics back that up. Over a 10-year period, only 364 legal claims were tabled because of children injured at school, and only half of those cases ended in any kind of payment. On average, most local authorities paid out £293 over that period.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on a topic that I know is dear to his heart. Does he agree that the health and safety culture in this country is hugely damaging, not only in relation to this debate, but overall? A bit of common sense and some good, sensible reforms to encourage people to take reasonable risks when dealing with children, or any other matter, would be of great benefit to our education system and the people of this country.
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The difficulty with health and safety legislation is that we are trying to create a society where risk is eliminated, but no such thing is possible; risk can be limited and managed, but it cannot be eliminated. My hon. Friend highlights that point well.
In 2008, the most recent year for which we have decent figures, 53% of six to 15-year-olds did not go on a single school trip. A further depressing thought is that over the past 10 years, there has been only £4.5 million of funding for that concept. That is in stark contrast to the music manifesto, for example, which attracted £332 million of funding in 2007. About 97% of teachers believe that it is important for children to learn about the countryside within the national curriculum, and 85% of young children and their parents agree.
Some teachers cannot do what they would like because their school or local authority will not fund their cover when they take children on a trip. That is the “rarely covers” conundrum, and perhaps it goes to the heart of the debate. Under qualified teacher status 30, trainee teachers are asked only to “recognise opportunities” for out-of-classroom learning. It is a weak standard, but even that is not being reached by some initial teacher training providers.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the barriers that stops teachers having the confidence to take kids out of school and into the countryside, to pursue an education about rural life, is that they do not have access to resources and knowledge? Is he aware of the charity FACE, Farming and Countryside Education, based at Stoneleigh in Warwickshire? It offers teachers resources, knowledge and teaching aids to help them form educational lessons and partake in rural education.
Simon Hart
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware of that charity and the good work that it does. I am also aware of countless other charities that offer similar, if not identical, services.
I stated earlier that this debate was not about the town versus the countryside. Indeed it is not, and we must be careful not to fall into the trap, as I have myself, of seeing the only benefit of outdoor learning to be that of teaching urban children about rural ways. My hon. Friend’s intervention makes it clear that plenty of people are enthusiastic about reaping the benefits of outdoor learning, but cannot do so either because of insufficient funding through the charitable sector, or because of obstacles due to health and safety legislation, bureaucracy or Government funding.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, will she consider reviewing whether current teacher training provides new teachers with the skills to lead outdoor learning activities in the first place? Secondly, will she review the “rarely covers” guide to residential visits and fieldwork, and look at whether part of the pupil premium may be used for that purpose?
Emerging evidence points to the direct and indirect health benefits of outdoor learning, including personal well-being and—the latest catchphrase—“happiness.” The current gaming epidemic does not lend itself to our mission of stirring a child’s interest in the outside world. A staggering 53 computer games were released on to the market in April 2010, and it is easy to deduce that we cannot leave it to the children to discover the outside world. It is our responsibility to take them there.
Activities such as walking, cycling and riding can burn up to 380 calories an hour. Green spaces can stabilise anger in young people, which can help prevent antisocial behaviour. Outdoor education could therefore play a key role in reducing the amount of permanent and fixed exclusions for physical and verbal abuse in schools, which currently run at the eye-watering level of 300,000 cases per year.
Outdoor learning could also help to reduce the cost of youth crime and obesity, which is estimated at an even more staggering and depressing £5 billion per annum for the taxpayer to pick up. Of course, evidence is an essential prerequisite of any progress that we make on this topic. I shall start with what Ofsted had to say about it. In 2008, Ofsted published a thematic report that stated:
“When planned and implemented well, learning outside the classroom contributed significantly to raising standards and improving pupils’ personal, social and emotional development.”
It went on to recommend that schools and colleges should
“ensure that their curriculum planning includes sufficient well structured opportunities for all learners to engage in learning outside the classroom as a key, integrated element of their experience”
and
“ensure equal and full access for all learners to learning outside the classroom”.
In a similar study in 2006, the National Trust stated:
“We looked at whether schoolchildren’s learning about their local environment would influence the way they treat it.
We found that not only was this the case, but high-quality out-of-classroom learning also influenced how children behave and the lifestyle choices they make.
It shows the potential for school trips not just to change children’s lives, but the lives of whole communities.”
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the timeliness of the debate. Does he agree that in addition to the issues that he is outlining from those surveys, the battle against childhood obesity can be taken further by learning outside the classroom? It can contribute to that battle, which unfortunately as a society we do not seem to be taking seriously.
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. There are direct and indirect health benefits to be gained from this educational concept. The direct benefits are simply from getting people out of a windowless and joyless classroom environment into an environment that is more interesting and more demanding physically. That is a good thing, but outdoor education can also teach people about the value of a different and varied diet, the process of food production and the attractions of exercise and entertainment, in whatever form they might come, in open areas.
Of course that will have a positive effect. That used to be just conjecture on our part and on the part of the experts; there is now evidence to support the view that that is the case. That is what is encouraging: we are going beyond just speculating to being able genuinely to point to evidence that supports that view.
The Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families also came up trumps. It stated:
“Learning outside the classroom is important, and the Department must provide adequate funding to achieve maximum impact…there should be an individual entitlement within the National Curriculum to at least one out of school visit a term.”
On the back of those third-party endorsements, I shall pose two more questions to the Minister. Will the Government reconsider plans to include an entitlement to outdoor learning for everyone in the curriculum? Also, can outdoor learning be included as part of the Ofsted inspection protocol? There is a feeling among members of the teaching profession with whom I have contact that if it is not inspected, it is not important. It is clearly important; Ofsted and the Select Committee have said that it is important. If it is important, let us include it in the inspection protocol, so that everyone knows that it is important and we can cement that in the minds of those responsible for outdoor learning projects.
I represent a seat in west Wales and should therefore like to consider for a moment how the Welsh Assembly Government view the issue. It is encouraging that they are a few lengths ahead of Westminster on this topic. I recognise that the matter is devolved, but we can learn lessons from the Welsh Assembly in this regard. The foundation phase is the Welsh Assembly Government’s approach to learning for children aged three to seven years. My own children have benefited from initiatives such as the Forest school. That involves a perfectly non-contentious regular monthly trip into the great outdoors of Wales, which benefits children from quite a young age in many different ways. The Welsh Assembly Government recognise that. Their framework states:
“The Foundation Phase environment should promote discovery and independence and a greater emphasis on using the outdoor environment as a resource for children’s learning.”
They say that they will aim to
“Provide opportunities for children to experience the outdoor learning environment and to become active learners through the play-based Foundation Phase curriculum.”
I say to the Minister that if that is good enough for the Welsh Assembly, surely it is good enough for the UK as a whole.
To conclude my short contribution on this important topic, I shall make these points. We can now prove that outdoor education improves health, education and social benefits for children, young people and society as a whole. We can increasingly prove that if we can obtain those benefits for children and young adults, the economic benefit for the taxpayer in the long term could also be huge and well worth the investment required now.
I want to finish with two case studies. In my last job, I was involved with a project called Fishing for Schools. We took people who often had severe disadvantages and just put them in an environment that they were not used to. We used to marvel at the way in which lives could be transformed as a consequence of that simple project. We had one pupil called Zach on that programme. His teacher wrote to us after the course had finished and said:
“Zach had been suffering from bullying and was often in trouble with regard to behaviour in school, but since the course he has worked hard, been positive, behaves well and is a more mature and sensible young man—wow, what a difference.”
Alex McBarnet, founder of The Bushcraft Company, came into the world of outdoor education as a result of difficulties that he had had in traditional education. Using his own get-up-and-go spirit and his own inspirational zeal, he started his own company. He said:
“Children who struggle a bit more in the classroom have an opportunity here to shine, and you can actually watch their self esteem grow by the day, which is fabulous.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many outside bodies that can contribute to outdoor learning? One is the Countryside Alliance, which the hon. Gentleman might have an interest in. Does he see a role for such bodies, whether we are talking about the British Association for Shooting and Conservation or the Countryside Alliance, that could help to benefit young people?
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman makes a point that he knows I will approve of—and I had deliberately not been making it, for exactly that reason. I think that any way in which we can take young people into interesting, challenging, different and adventurous environments and teach them skills that they do not know and introduce them to ways of life, people and communities that they may not usually have any contact with, must be good.
The more of that we can do, the better. I do not say that just as someone who had a personal and professional interest in it, and to some extent still does. I say it because I have seen many examples of people who have benefited. They are not just rural or urban or suburban people, or people from poor backgrounds or rich backgrounds. Everyone who has had the fantastic privilege of coming into contact with the outside world, whether formally or informally, has come away feeling that they have gained something that traditional education could not provide to them. We all have a social responsibility to encourage youth in that respect, but we need help from central Government to break down the barriers that sometimes prevent us from being able to do that.
That leads nicely to my final question to the Minister. I and other hon. Members and organisations out there in the real world think that outdoor learning could bring benefits to the nation and benefits to people who sometimes struggle, through no fault of their own—and often through no fault of their local authority’s or the Government’s—to obtain benefits from the type of education system that we have.
We have a golden opportunity now to improve the lives of people in a number of communities through a few simple initiatives. Of course, that requires funding, but it does not require obscene levels of funding. In fact, it is not funding but an investment, because the downstream economic consequences of doing it will be profoundly beneficial to the nation. It will save us millions of pounds in the long term if we get it right.
I hope that the Minister will grant an audience with herself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not only for hon. Members who may be interested in the issue but for representatives of the wide range of outside bodies that have contributed to the debate and made strides in the right direction. If we could get together early in the new year to see whether we could convert what at the moment is a struggling dream into a deliverable reality, this debate will have been a worthwhile use of our Wednesday morning.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing the debate on this hugely important matter. It is timely, as it was only about three weeks ago that I was on Goole moor, in my constituency, meeting Natural England to highlight the opportunities for our local schools on that nationally important nature reserve. Following that, I have worked with our fantastic head teacher at Goole high school to find innovative ways of using the moor and the site for educational and health purposes.
As a former school teacher, I would like to appeal to the Minister over the Ofsted framework; if something is going into the framework, can there be a one-in, one-out principle or, preferably, a one-in, two-out principle? There are huge pressures on teachers already from the inspection regime, and, due to how the profession is structured, naturally, we tend to teach towards Ofsted, rather than the young people whose education we are there to enhance. I make that small appeal to the Minister.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire on his knowledge of the teacher training process. Although trainee teachers are required to prove that they can organise and undertake a trip as part of their postgraduate certificate in education, it is normally a well structured trip to a museum, so they do not come away from the training with particular skills in organising trips outside. There are so many pressures on teachers in terms of advice, risk assessments, and so on, that it can be incredibly difficult to organise trips outside the classroom.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. One problem is the cost of minibus insurance for teachers. If something could be done about that, it would make a considerable difference. It often costs more than £1,000, and is a particular barrier to short trips to local open spaces.
Andrew Percy
That is absolutely key, because there are huge costs, and other pressures such as extra staff. When I was training as a history teacher and doing my final teaching practice at Endeavour high school in Hull, we were studying the industrial revolution. The area I taught in had a fantastic outside resource in its buildings from the industrial revolution period. I simply wanted to take my class of year 8s outside to look at some of those buildings, but I was told that I would have to do a risk assessment and get three members of staff, because there were 30 kids in the class and the ratio has to be 1:10. By the end of the day, those kids were running home across those same streets and past those same buildings, but we did not go out and ended up sitting in the classroom looking at pictures instead. Although the teaching profession can certainly do more to enhance outside learning, we need the structures in place to support them and we need to remove some of the pressures. Following some of the sensationalised reports in the press about school trips, my former union advised us not to take them, which, again, is a reaction to all this bureaucracy.
Outdoor education has a particular role for excluded children and children with special needs. As any teacher has to, I have worked with children from across the spectrum. It was often the most challenging children who benefited most from being taken outside the formal school setting—where they were still learning. I referred to this during my maiden speech; it is expensive to deliver education outside the classroom, but, for those children, the value of doing so cannot be quantified. I have seen kids go off on particular courses outside the classroom and come back significantly changed, so that education has a particular role. As the Minister is about to undertake a review into special and additional needs, I hope that that can be taken into account.
With a change in curriculum, the Government have, rightly, outlined how we intend to move to more vocational or joint pathways. There are huge benefits and opportunities not only for visits but to get skills outside school. I was talking to Natural England on the nationally important nature reserve—I will plug it once again—about potentially putting a curriculum together, which kids could access from our local schools, on countryside management. There are not only health benefits, which my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire rightly highlighted, but educational benefits.
Mr Spencer
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has funded a higher-level entry scheme, which includes educational visits to farms by schools? I understand that the scheme is now closed to new entrants. May I take this opportunity to encourage the Minister to pressure DEFRA to clarify whether that scheme is indeed closed to new entrants?
Andrew Percy
I am happy to be a conduit for my hon. Friend’s point. I am sure that, through me, the Minister has heard him and will respond appropriately.
I close by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire again on securing the debate. It is an important area, and it is pleasing to see that so many Members from both sides of the House have attended, particularly my hon. Friends. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Thank you for allowing me to make a small contribution to the debate, Mr Benton.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a privilege to contribute to the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing the debate and on his excellent contribution, which enhances the subject.
My hon. Friend touched on the foundation phase and the different approach taken in Wales. I want to spend a little time on my experience in that area. I declare an interest in that my son was one of the first children to go through the foundation phase in Wales under the new education structure for key stage 1. It has had an impact and influence on him and on education and the wider community in Wales.
By way of background, it is worth underlining that key stage 1, or the foundation stage as we refer to it, requires 50% of teaching time to be spent outside the classroom. My hon. Friend and others referred to visits to farms, museums or other outside extracurricular activities. They are important, but the point of the foundation phase is to mainstream outdoor learning as part of the education structure. That throws up lots of problems and issues that need resolving, which I shall come on to in a moment.
It is important to underline the significant benefits that children have drawn from the new approach to learning: social skills, their interaction with each other, their individual approach to risk and personal management, the innovation that it allows children to explore and express, and how it helps—although it is too early to assess its contribution—with the challenges of inactivity and obesity, as has been mentioned. It is also about lifestyle and leadership that allows children and teachers to develop. Those are some benefits that the new approach has brought to children, particularly in an environment where computer gaming seems to be the obvious choice and parents, naturally, worry in a different way about children playing outside than they did when we were growing up.
Teachers, as well as children, obviously benefit as well. I am told that some teachers feel claustrophobic because they are kept in the classroom no matter what the weather. They are stuck there, particularly on wet days when the children are not even free to go outside during break time. The new approach has allowed the teachers to innovate, try new approaches and use the environment around them. It is important to say that that is not only true in rural schools, but in urban schools that have been able to adapt learning practice and curriculum to respond to the environment. The children and teachers have been able to react in a first-class way to those demands.
I should add that there have also been benefits for parents, schools and governors in general. The stipulation that 50% of teaching time should be spent outside the classroom has enabled more people to access schools in higher demand. Current guidance limits the number of pupils in classrooms, but I am familiar with a number of admission appeals. In that respect, I should declare an interest in that my wife, who is an education lawyer, has represented children who wanted to gain access to a particular school. The National Assembly for Wales guidance to teachers relates directly to the floor space available and to the number of children who can go to a particular school. However, if, as my wife has argued, children spend half their time outside the classroom, the guidance is out of date and needs to be changed, because it can be argued that half the classroom is outside. That has been accepted in some admission appeals.
As I suggested, the 50% target has thrown up problems that have not been fully resolved. There was a significant need for capital spend, because we needed to ensure that classrooms had better access to the outdoors. There was also a need for investment in wet-weather gear. This might come as something of a surprise, but it is not always sunny in Wales, and if we are to achieve the 50% target, investment in effective, proper wet-weather gear is essential. I regret to have to draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, at some schools, it was the parent teacher association that raised the money to deliver that gear. We have talked about having outdoor learning in prosperous and more deprived communities, but it is essential that the same wet-weather equipment is made available to everyone.
The target has also raised challenges and questions in relation to teacher training. My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire highlighted the need for such training to reflect the demands of modern parents and pupils.
I want to close by asking how we take the culture of outdoor learning forward into key stage 2 and beyond. Without question, it has become central to learning in key stage 1.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am learning today about the difference between Welsh and English education for youngsters. Many things that would be decided by a school, or at least by a county council, in England are decided at national level in Wales. Is the English approach of making decisions at local level not more sensible?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is fair to say that education structures in Wales are far more centralised than those in England. Of course, it is up to the devolved Administration to decide how best to deliver education, but it is regrettable that some of the freedoms that are to be offered to schools in England will not be offered to those in Wales. That aside, my point in highlighting the merits and benefits of the foundation phase in key stage 1 is that it has allowed teachers and pupils to express themselves and to learn in different ways. I would encourage free schools, whose numbers will increase in England, to learn from the benefits and merits of the different approach taken in Wales.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that an aspiration to carry out 50% of learning outside the classroom could be met without that direction from the Government in the curriculum?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but, yes, I do think that that is possible. In free schools in England, greater power will be devolved to the head teachers and governors, who will be able to decide how best to approach these issues. The rigid 50% approach taken in Wales may not be right for their school, depending on its environment, its location and its children’s needs, which that school can better reflect.
My point in highlighting the merits and benefits of the different approach taken in Wales is that it has made outdoor learning central to education at key stage 1. That has significant advantages, and I hope that free schools in England will look at that approach and apply it to their pupils’ needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole reflected on the requirements of children with special educational needs and on how outdoor learning can better reflect them. Surely, the way in which a school wants to approach outdoor learning will depend on the nature of children’s special educational needs. Although the model in Wales is centralised, and I would disapprove of that, the thrust of outdoor learning at key stage 1 is beneficial overall. Should teachers and governors be given the freedom to introduce such a scheme under the system in England, they could adapt it, and that would be much more beneficial in terms of meeting their pupils’ needs.
In closing, I underline the need to advance the approach taken in key stage 1 and to underline its benefits, although there will be drawbacks, which we will need to learn about. We also need to understand how outdoor learning should be approached in key stages 2 and 3. Outdoor learning is central to education in key stage 1, and it would simply be wrong to cut it at key stage 2. It needs to make that transition so that we can meet the needs of older children. I take on board the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire about the essential need to have outdoor learning throughout education, rather than just at key stage 1.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing this debate on such an important subject. I also congratulate other hon. Friends on their contributions.
Many children and teachers in my constituency and in the county of Worcestershire benefit from outdoor education. As my hon. Friend made clear, the benefits are substantial. We do not live in a classroom, and it is vital that education provides children with the tools and skills they need for real life. Outdoor education recognises the fact that we live, not in the controlled environment of a classroom, but on a living, breathing planet. As we seek to give future generations a better understanding of issues such as climate change and pollution, learning outdoors gives children a greater appreciation of the importance of our natural environment. Crucially, some skills, such as teamwork, leadership and an appreciation of risk, are far more effectively developed through outdoor education than they ever can be in a classroom.
Coming from an urban constituency in a rural county, I know that outdoor education has a further advantage for the children of my city of Worcester. It teaches them to appreciate the wonderful countryside around them and to understand better the way in which it works and the opportunities that it offers. For centuries, Worcester has been a county town, and the interaction between city and countryside was automatic. In the age of supermarkets, television and video games, however, things are not always that way. Without outdoor education projects, many children in my constituency who live within a mile or two of wonderful woods and fields would quite literally never visit them. The Wii Fit and “The X Factor” are a powerful draw away from the benefits of the outdoors, and parents who are themselves working flat out to support their families are not always able to take their children into the countryside as much as they would like.
Fortunately, Worcestershire long ago realised the benefits of outdoor education and was an early adopter of the forest school scheme, which is enjoyed at many of our primary schools. Having talked to pupils and teachers at schools from Cherry Orchard and Perry Wood to Dines Green, Gorse Hill primary and Lyppard Grange, I have heard countless stories of the enjoyment and benefit that the scheme brings. More important than the stories, however, is the experience itself. In the case of outdoor learning, seeing really is believing. Seeing the excitement of children who are taken out of the classroom and into the natural environment for the first time, one can see how outdoor learning helps to engage some of the most difficult and easily distracted pupils. Seeing the way in which children learn new respect for teachers who can show them physical skills and relish the opportunity to escape the confines of the classroom, one can immediately understand why forest school status is an important tool for retention at many local primaries.
However, outdoor learning is not, and should not be, restricted to the primary sector. At Tudor Grange academy, in the heart of Warndon, outdoor learning is being developed as a key tool and a key opportunity for engaging students. This new academy serves a large population that will benefit from the pupil premium. It replaced a school that struggled for many years to engage its students and to deal with truancy, apathy and high levels of special needs.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that today’s young people, whether in primary or secondary school, have great awareness of the environment, climate change, litter control, recycling and such things? Does he agree—I think from his remarks that he would—that more needs to be done, and what is already happening needs to be continued?
Mr Walker
Absolutely. I completely agree. Through outdoor learning we can give people more of an opportunity to understand those things even better. That is one reason why it is a positive benefit.
Through outdoor learning, the new and energetic leadership of Tudor Grange has found a way to engage some of the most difficult pupils and provide a pathway to work for some of those who were simply uninterested in an academic education. By taking pupils out of the classroom for part of their day and engaging them in work and learning outdoors, staff have found that behaviour is much improved on their return to the classroom. Pupils who would previously disrupt academic classes are prepared to get down to work in maths and English much better, having spent part of the day outside. A local employer, Cobb House fisheries, has given the academy access to its resources, and the environment is used for forestry, animal husbandry, angling and orienteering. It forms part of a year 12 access to work programme but it also provides an environment for engaging 30 at-risk students who have a bespoke curriculum utilising outdoor education as their key hook.
The academy also works closely with a local farm, and a group of very vulnerable students has achieved the BTEC certificate in agriculture there in one year. The students are now doing a BTEC countryside and environment course as part of their programme. Those students are making significant progress in their literacy and numeracy from a very low baseline. They were not engaging with a mainstream curriculum before, and two students on that route had not attended school for two years before the academy opened the courses. They are now in year 11 and on track to achieve the equivalent of a minimum of six GCSEs, with improved attendance and better results across the board.
Outdoor learning at Tudor Grange extends to a cadet force branch and a course in public services, which is proving particularly popular in the academy with students who presented with extreme behavioural difficulties. The course includes a lot of personal health and fitness units, and local residents are now familiar with the sight of groups from the academy running in units around Worcester as part of their training drills. The principal tells me: “This is developing tenacity and determination in students we would never have attached such attributes to before”.
Speaking of the benefits of outdoor learning in Worcestershire, it would be remiss of me not to mention some of the wonderful work that goes on beyond the boundaries of my constituency. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) and for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) would no doubt speak passionately about the excellent schools in their constituencies that provide fantastic opportunities for outdoor learning. However, they are kept away from this debate by ministerial and Select Committee responsibilities respectively. I would like to give a couple of examples of how the positive influence of schools in their patches has been felt as far afield as my own constituency.
Top Barn farm, just beyond my boundaries, is a hugely inspiring centre for outdoor learning and a test base for the care farming movement. Hon. Members will be aware of that movement, and some may feel that it is beyond the scope of the debate, but the work that is being done there, to bring, in particular, children with special needs on to a farming environment, and ensure that they can benefit from learning opportunities there, deserves a mention.
Another institution that I visited recently, which hugely impressed me, was the Madresfield early years centre in west Worcestershire. That wonderful school—my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire was there on Friday—is the product of a vision for outdoor learning and the boundless energy of its founder Alice Bennett, a farmer’s wife who has devoted her life to bringing outdoor learning into a farming environment. It brings children on to the farm as their learning environment and caters for a broad cross-section of society, from those receiving state support and living in social housing to the children of the grandest houses of the area. Each child has at least two half days a week out of doors and children are encouraged to engage with the environment, take constant exercise and relish the opportunities offered by the countryside.
Perhaps I should conclude with the words of the very inspiring head teacher, who recently returned from a visit to Denmark, where she was looking at how outdoor learning is integrated into the system there. She concluded that
“outdoor education should be a human right. Its benefits in motivation and engagement, teaching co-operation and leadership, fitness gain and better attitude are beyond question.”
She also spoke of the miracles that happen outside with special needs children. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the miraculous benefits of outdoor learning for her forthcoming Green Paper on special needs education.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Benton. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) for securing this important debate. Perhaps I should declare an interest: like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I used to be a teacher. I was a teacher for 12 years and am still a member of my union, the NASUWT.
I very much endorse what other hon. Members have said, which is that this is not simply a debate about rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire has a proud record of championing rural areas, and I concur with him on many of those issues, but he was right to make the point that outdoor education is about urban schools as well.
I start with a couple of anecdotes. One of the most successful field trips I ever organised involved leading a group of children from a deprived school in north Devon down to the city of Plymouth. It was an excellent day’s work that examined the architecture, the effect of the Blitz, the new buildings that went up in Plymouth, the naval town and the economy of the area. Those children would not have experienced that—it is a long way from Barnstaple to Plymouth—had we not given them the opportunity.
Closer to home, I think of the scheme that we embarked on in Powys. We set up a partnership scheme between a local organic farm and our school. We acquired a plot of land and visited each term. Every child in that small village school visited the farm every year, nurtured the plot and grew vegetables. They took the vegetables back to school to make meals.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the need for farmers to play a role in outdoor learning. What worries me is the fact that so many schoolchildren do not understand where their food comes from. That is quite frightening, especially when, if we ask some schoolchildren where their potatoes or chips come from, they say, “McDonald’s”. Does my hon. Friend think that the National Farmers Union and farmers need to play a key role in such education, and in improving understanding of where food comes from?
Mr Williams
Absolutely. One of the benefits of the project that I was involved in was that we considered the seasonality of fruit and vegetables. I think that it is assumed that because children live in a rural area they have automatic access to farms and to schemes of the kind that the NFU and others, such as the Farmers Union of Wales, have put forward. That assumption should not be made. That is why the debate is important, for getting some clear guidelines. It is beginning to seem a little like a Welsh debate—I am proud of that, but I shall not stray on to devolved matters.
Every year at the school where I taught we took the year 5 and 6 children to stay at an outdoor pursuit centre in Montgomeryshire, where they could do kayaking, orienteering, rock climbing, mountain walks and canoeing—the very kinds of activities from which many children with special needs, who were not high achievers in the classroom, really gained. We were teaching concepts of teamwork, collaborative work and team building. Those were important opportunities for the children.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
The point that my hon. Friend makes about the outdoor pursuit centre is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made the point that health and safety is an issue when taking children out of the classroom, and such outdoor pursuit centres have health and safety covered; they have the skills to deal with pupils safely and give them the experiences that have been described.
Mr Williams
I agree very much. One of the nice things for a teacher organising such trips was that there was no need to get embroiled in the bureaucracy of organising a risk assessment; it had already been done by trained professionals.
This is a core debate, not a peripheral thing. It is not a trendy lefty debate about the effectiveness of group work or topic work—debates that have happened in the past. It is about enhancing learning in the classroom, teaching in context, teaching in the real world and broadening horizons in the strongest way. As I reflect on my education, I recall that the only such opportunity that I had in secondary school—there was little in primary school—was the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme. That is a great scheme, with great opportunities for young people, but very much curtailed and limited.
Was there, in the three schools where I taught, always a dedicated member of staff with expertise, responsible for developing the outdoor curriculum? If there was, in some instances it was not very visible. Should we give more prominence to outdoor education in initial teacher training? I did a PGCE course, from which I benefited; I gained my qualification and enjoyed my 12 years in the classroom, but there were limitations with respect to outdoor education.
To repeat a question that has been put to the Minister, is the initial teacher training that we provide giving teachers the skills that they need to lead outdoor learning? It is all very well talking about identifying opportunities; teachers sit there developing their lesson plans and identifying opportunities. It is a matter of whether those opportunities for outdoor learning can be delivered. It is not about burdening the curriculum. I agree with the direction of travel: it is about scaling down the curriculum.
Years ago, I worked as a researcher in the other place. When the national curriculum was introduced in 1988, I remember the huge number of representations from different organisations in favour of including subjects in the national curriculum. That was an over-burdening experience.
I also remember, years later when I was in the classroom, the minutiae of detail directed from the centre about how I should deliver a numeracy hour and a literacy hour, down to the five minutes of a plenary session at the end. We are moving away from that over-prescriptive period. There is consensus among all who have spoken so far that we are seeking to build meaningful cross-curricular links in key areas of the curriculum—notably geography, history and science—for which outdoor activities are appropriate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire mentioned, the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families produced its report in April 2010. I want to draw on three of its conclusions. First, the report talked of the ability of families to pay, or their inability to pay, for trips and the deterrent to schools in offering opportunities to pupils. At one school where I taught, there was a blanket policy. We could not countenance any outlandish trips, because we knew that the parents in the deprived wards of that area would be unable even to subsidise their children’s trips.
The Select Committee recognised the principle of subsidies for children from low-income families for school trips, and I think that that should be endorsed. The report also talked about an individual entitlement within the national curriculum to at least one school visit each term. That is integral to the curriculum that needs to be delivered. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that individual entitlement to outdoor education.
Mr Andrew Turner
I draw attention to another thing. When I was a teacher, it was perfectly acceptable for one member of staff to take one class into town. What has happened since then?
Mr Mark Williams
My hon. Friend is right. The answer came from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole when he talked about the one-to-10 rule. That is very hard, and it is also sometimes hard to engage parents to become involved in outdoor pursuits. We think of a captive audience of parents eager to accompany their children on trips, but that is not always the case.
There is a fundamental need for schools to have a policy on learning outside the classroom. As I said, it is not just a matter of having a policy, with words in readiness for the Ofsted or Estyn inspections; it is about being able to deliver. The Government do recognise the importance of outdoor learning—as, to their credit, did the last Government. It is important for the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom to get on with the job. I regret that the Select Committee’s recommendations on additional resources and Government regulation and monitoring guidance were not accepted.
We had a little spirited debate about Welsh Assembly Government policy. I do not want regulation and rules to be over-prescriptive, but we do need some clear guidelines from the centre. Most professionals in most of the schools I have been involved with fully recognise the importance of that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) mentioned. They are delivering the foundation stage with great effectiveness—I have two young children experiencing the foundation stage now. However, that is not always the case across England and elsewhere in the UK. We need those rules and that guidance.
I will not repeat all the figures about the effectiveness of outdoor education mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. I do, however, want to say something about the risk-averse culture developing in our country, and the characterisation of many children’s lives as “home to school and back home again”—from the classroom to the sitting room, or wherever the TVs are in the house.
I do not agree with everything that the much-maligned Lord Young says—far from it. However, his work “Common Sense, Common Safety” was important. It was a welcome attempt to rebalance the risk-averse culture in the country that has considerably damaged the tradition of school trips, with teachers and schools inevitably concerned about liability if things go wrong.
I remember the frustration and bureaucracy of trying to organise trips. It is not surprising that 76% of teachers identify health and safety risk assessments as the main barrier to delivering outdoor learning. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Despite the few but tragic cases where things have gone wrong, there has to be a measure of sensible risk assessment. Action should be taken where negligent behaviour occurs, but we must do all we can to rebalance the system.
In his foreword to Lord Young’s report, the Prime Minister states that we need to
“focus regulations where they are most needed; with a new system that is proportionate, not bureaucratic; that treats adults like adults and reinstates some common…trust”.
Some of us may disagree about what that constitutes, but I hope we can all agree with the sentiment.
The Department for Education launched its “Learning Outside the Classroom” manifesto in 2006. That report highlighted research on the way the brain works. Reading it took me back to teacher training and some of the lectures and seminars I participated in. The research showed that learners can be re-engaged with the world as they experience it, known as “authentic learning”.
That is particularly important when we look at the sciences. The Field Studies Council has seen a decline in the number of people studying secondary science visiting their residential centres across the country, with a drop of 18% between 2008 and 2010. We need to engage with the people who have the potential interest, if it can be captured and promoted in a positive way. It was a sad reflection that only 47% of six to 15-year-olds went on a visit to the countryside with their school in 2008. I am not going to talk about the foundation stage in Wales, other than to say that it has been a huge success.
There is much in the Government’s agenda that suggests that they are keen to encourage more activity. They are keen on volunteering and we have had Lord Young’s review. I hope the Minister will be able to outline what steps are being taken to ensure that more outdoor learning can take place at schools and translate support into concrete achievement.
One final point: I want to commend the young artisans scheme in Ceredigion, in the Penparcau ward of Aberystwyth. It is a deprived area—we have deprived wards in rural Wales as others do across the country. That scheme has largely worked with low achievers and people with special needs, taking the craft, design and technology curriculum out of the classroom. It takes youngsters from years 5 and 6 to work with employers and local colleges, out of the conventional classroom, so that the young people can see links with the real world. It is a pioneering scheme that has been going for years. Later, as 16-year-olds, some participants have found decent gainful employment on the back of an outdoors education policy.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker—there are two people standing—I should say that I propose to start the wind-ups no later than 10.40 am.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I will be brief to ensure that every hon. Member who wants to contribute can do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on bringing this excellent and positive debate to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) declared an interest because he has one child going through the school foundation stage in Wales. I have twin boys and another three children going through the educational system in Wales, so I, too, need to declare an interest. When we talk about the educational benefits of outdoor activities, we in Wales are very fortunate. I do not want to dominate the debate by referring to Wales again, but as a child I used to go to the Urdd Gobaith Cymru centre in Llangrannog in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). When I was slightly older, I went to the centre at Glan Llyn, where I learned canoeing and white-water rafting. The terrible thing is that I am now old enough to see my children getting the same experiences.
The concept of getting children into the outdoors and enjoying pursuits is important and I fully subscribe to the comments made by several hon. Members.
I wish to focus on a slightly different aspect of the importance of outdoor activities to the educational sector—its economic impact on constituencies such as mine. My constituency of Aberconwy includes a large tract of Snowdonia. The area has had to struggle to create employment and economic opportunities, and we have had to make the best of the facilities and the environment that we have. Agriculture is obviously important, as is food production and our specialist food producers, but a growing part of the economy in my part of the world has been the outdoor activity sector.
That sector is not entirely dependent on educational customers, but they allow companies to offer an all-year service, with year-round employment for young people from my constituency. I could give numerous examples— they will challenge Hansard—of organisations and companies in my part of the world that benefit from providing services to schools in all parts of the United Kingdom.
For instance, Plas y Brenin at Capel Curig is renowned as a mountaineering centre. We have an outdoor education centre at Conwy, which brings young people to the Conwy valley to enjoy white-water rafting and so forth. Tree Top Adventure offers excellent facilities at Betws-y-Coed, but it depends on school trips to allow it to offer employment every day of the week and all year round; it makes an important contribution to the economy of my constituency.
We also have specialist companies that deal with the health and safety aspects. They offer a safe environment for young people to experience the adventure and the challenges offered by the environment in areas such as mine. Snowdonia is not there only for the enjoyment of people who can afford to pay for an expensive hotel or a slightly cheaper bed and breakfast for a weekend visit. The environment of Snowdonia should be enjoyed by young people.
In addition to private sector companies offering services in my constituency and throughout Snowdonia, we have a number of other centres, including the Oaklands Centre at Capel Garmon. Oaklands is owned by Wirral borough council. It is about an hour and a half down the road from the Wirral to my constituency. Young people are brought from an industrialised area and taken to the beauty of Snowdonia where they can enjoy the challenge of getting involved in outdoor activities. The contribution made by the Oaklands centre is also economic. For instance, it employs local people to ensure that there is food on the table when the young people arrive.
Throughout Snowdonia, numerous centres are in danger of being lost because of the priorities of local authorities, which may not emphasise the importance of their contribution to the educational sector. I am therefore concerned about the future of centres such as Oaklands. They are important not only because of the opportunities that they give the young people who visit them, but because they give people in my constituency the opportunity to stay and work in a rural area, often in highly skilled positions. It needs to be said that the opportunities afforded by the outdoor activity centres in my part of the world are extremely important because of the quality of the jobs that are created. Taking responsibility for groups of young people going mountaineering or out on rivers is a highly skilled position.
I applaud the local authorities in my part of the world. We hear a lot about the need for local authorities to work across boundaries. In north-west Wales, Isle of Anglesey county council, Gwynedd county council and Conwy county borough council have come together to form the North Wales Outdoor Partnership. It was developed to give young people from that part of the world an understanding of not only the enjoyment that can be had from the environment of Snowdonia, but the economic opportunities that exist. The partnership takes young people out to enjoy mountaineering, kayaking and so on, but it also highlights the economic opportunities that can develop from becoming skilled in such activities. Numerous young people have found employment as a result of the skills gained through the partnership.
Menter Iaith Conwy, a local company, has highlighted the need to train young people to be responsible for taking people out on to the mountains. The fantastic thing is that the company is training people through the medium of Welsh or English. Again, it highlights the fact that economic opportunities are available through outdoor education.
Government spending is not necessarily the way forward for every part of the economy; those organisations and companies could develop employment opportunities in the private sector. However, the educational market is important in ensuring proper employment all year round. When such decisions are made, it is important that we take account of the economic impact of those activities on the rural economy.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I fully support this excellent debate, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). First, I shall say why I am supportive. I shall then make a plea to the Minister, which I hope will be helpful.
Many of my hon. Friends spoke of the significance of engagement. I have visited Crowdys Hill school in my constituency; it is an excellent school for children with autism and autism spectrum disorders. It is fortunate enough to have a small livestock holding on site. To see at first hand the sheer joy and engagement of the children during their hands-on involvement with nature is fantastic.
Not many schools have livestock holdings, but several have some form of nature reserve. It concerns me that many modern private finance initiative schools do not have the space. That is a real challenge, as we look forward to the next wave of schools being built.
We have the headquarters of the National Trust in my constituency. In its contribution to the debate, it says that, generation by generation, we are spending less and less time with nature and reducing our capacity to understand, respect and conserve the natural environment.
Having spoken on similar subjects before, and having been a councillor for 10 years, I know that back gardens in new-build houses are a third of the size that they were in the 1960s. Parents are concerned about letting their children venture too far, but nowadays they cannot venture out even on their own doorstep. New developments are often concrete jungles, with limited open space. That is a major concern.
The outdoors provides a wealth of leisure opportunities for a healthy, active lifestyle, and is often available at no cost. As a lead council member for leisure, I considered investing in leisure centres, and I support that. However, the outdoors gives families and people of all ages a wonderful opportunity to be active without having to spend huge amounts of money. That is why I call it the great outdoors.
I have many happy memories of growing up and charging around Arley and the Malvern hills with my classmates, doing orienteering and burning off huge amounts of energy. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) will be pleased to know that we often got lost, partly because we were not supervised, but we learned some good teambuilding skills. Certainly, my map-reading skills benefited greatly.
I touched on the subject in an intervention, but my plea is about insurance for schools. If the cost proves to be a barrier, it limits access. I believe that the Department for Education should negotiate a national insurance contract to cover all schools. Putting all those insurance renewals together would be one hell of a piece of buying power, giving potential economies of scale. That would benefit sport and many other activities for which schools need to bus children elsewhere. It would be a constructive thing for the Department to do.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing the debate.
Someone pointed out earlier that the debate had a distinctly Welsh feel. Indeed, we also heard from the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). I should mention the others who spoke, but I may struggle when pronouncing the English names of their constituencies. We heard from the Member for— was it Wore-ses-ter?—the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) contributed, and at the end we heard from the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), which I think I can pronounce properly.
All contributions to the debate were good. Indeed, I wish I had thought of the last point made by the hon. Member for North Swindon when I was a Minister. It is an excellent proposition, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I hope that I have mentioned everyone who spoke in this enjoyable debate. It reflects the fact that there is a degree of consensus on learning outside the classroom; there has been for many years.
Hon. Members have mentioned the many reasons why this is a good thing. They talked about the health benefits and practical skills that can be gained; the broadening of horizons; and the influence on behaviour, with improving relationships between pupils themselves or between teachers and pupils—adults and children. During my time as a Minister, I was keen to promote learning outside the classroom. I used to say that, for whatever reason, we have managed to raise a generation of battery-farm children and it is time to allow them to go free range. That is what we all think in this debate; we need to liberate children from the bounds of the classroom and get them to enjoy all the benefits of the great outdoors. I am a big enthusiast of that, which is why I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire on securing this debate.
Like other hon. Members here, I have also spent time as a teacher and organised field trips. I remember one particular trip to Llanbradach in the Welsh valleys where I confiscated an awful lot of cigarettes, but where we had a wonderful time. I have fond memories of the various trips that I took as a pupil, as I am sure other hon. Members have. As a teacher, I used to say that it is important to make something memorable for students; to give them something that they will remember in years to come. The things that we often remember and that have a positive influence on us are the kinds of experiences that we gain outside the classroom.
Risk, which has been raised this morning, is very important. We must get people focused on the real risks. There are risks; the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed that out. Irresponsible actions can sometimes be taken by those who supervise learning outside the classroom, but it is the real risks rather than the rare risks on which we should focus in this debate. It is essential to get that message across to teachers, governors, pupils and to everyone involved in organising learning outside the classroom.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the foundation phase in Wales, or the key stage 1 curriculum. I visited Kitchener Road primary school in my own constituency last year. Anyone who knows anything about Cardiff will know that one could not find a more urban school than the one on Kitchener Road. It is a classic Victorian primary school on a very constrained site, right next to a main road. It is a multi-ethnic school. As part of the foundation phase, the teachers found a bit of scrubland on the school site and held their forest school there. If anyone saw those children gathered around the campfire making toast on the end of a stick, they would not know that a main road was only five yards away. It is a classic example of what can be done with a bit of imagination. It did not need a great deal of resources. Yes, it was a damp day, and the children needed outdoor gear, but that was no reason for them not to go outside. It was absolutely wonderful to see them benefiting from such an experience. I am sure that many of them would not have had that experience had it not been for the fact that the curriculum was organised, as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan pointed out, to ensure that those very young children spent half their time outside.
There is a great deal of consensus in the Chamber about what we need to do and, I think, in fairness, about the fact that the previous Government made a big effort in this area. If hon. Members have done their research they will know that that is the case. I was Minister in the old Department for Children, Schools and Families, which organised and launched the “out and about package” in 2008. The quality badge scheme was designed to assure schools that organisations that are great at offering opportunities for outdoor learning, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberconwy, can meet the standards and requirements that are needed.
The Government’s response to the Select Committee report that was published just before the general election in April states:
“Under the previous Administration, significant progress was made in bringing together organisations with an interest in promoting learning outside the classroom. These organisations have worked together on guidance and support for schools and on the development of the Quality Badge accreditation scheme under the direction of a new council for learning outside the classroom.”
I give the Minister credit for that. It recognises the efforts that have been made so far to try to overcome the culture that was getting in the way of learning outside the classroom.
In preparing for today’s debate, I was a little surprised to read the briefing from the Countryside Alliance, of which the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire used to be in charge. I met the alliance the other day and we had a very good meeting about this matter. I commend the trust that the hon. Gentleman set up and its aims and what it is attempting to do. None the less, its briefing said:
“The previous government confirmed in its response, which was published at the end of October, that it does not believe outdoor education can contribute to the development of a child”.
There is, I think, a typo in there. It was not the previous Government who issued the response to the Select Committee’s report; it was this Government, who, the Countryside Alliance says, do not believe that outdoor education can contribute to the development of a child. I do not believe that that is true. I am quoting the Countryside Alliance briefing for this debate; it is not me saying this. I am sure that what it says is not the case and that the Minister will confirm that in a moment, but I can understand why the alliance might be concerned.
I have read the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report on outdoor education. It does not make good reading for members of the Select Committee, because it is tantamount to a wholesale rejection of the report. Running through the response is this ideology of laissez-faire that seems to have overtaken the Department. The thinking is that if we let everything go, do not drive anything and let schools and governors get on with it, we will suddenly, miraculously, end up with a situation—as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan believes—in which children will spend 50% of their time outside the classroom. All we need, the Government think, is a general feeling good about things, osmosis and a laissez-faire approach. However, it will not happen.
Clear guidance is needed from the centre, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out. It is important. Teachers take note of it as do governors, local authorities and providers. We must give a clear indication of what we want to see schools doing. Sometimes, we have to put resources into it and sometimes Ministers who want to get things done will have to apply a bit of stick as well to ensure that it happens on the ground. I am afraid that just wishing will not make it happen.
I will not go through all the Government’s responses to the Select Committee report, but if we look at them, we can see that most of them start with the words:
“We do not agree with the suggestion”.
For example, one of the responses states:
“We do not agree with the suggestion that an entitlement to one school visit a term should be built into the National Curriculum.”
Here is another one:
“We think this is unnecessary and is an issue which should be left to the professional judgement of teachers.”
Those are fine words and everyone welcomes them, but the Government will be judged on what actually happens on the ground and whether there is an increase in the amount of time that children spend on learning outside the classroom.
Another response states:
“We are not pursuing the previous plans for a School Report Card”—
which was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee—
“but we are looking at the performance tables with a view to providing parents with a wider range of performance information than is currently available.”
I hope that learning outside the classroom will be part of that.
Here is yet another response:
“We do not agree that schools should have to provide such information to the DfE, at a time when schools are asking us to reduce bureaucratic and data collection burdens.”
Such burdens should be reduced, but whether data are collected can send a signal to schools about what is thought to be important.
In closing, I just want to say that I am afraid that the idea that has been put forward by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds before this debate that the pupil premium can provide some funding for outdoor learning is cloud cuckoo land, because the pupil premium is a con. It does not add any additional money whatsoever in real terms to the school budget and it will be exposed when head teachers start looking at it. I can guarantee the Minister that, because of the way that the Government have played “funny figures” with school funding, she will have head teachers queuing up to tell her that the pupil premium is a con very shortly.
The Government are cutting school sport and we are still awaiting an announcement on it. I hope that the Prime Minister has not sold the country a dummy on school sport, because we are still awaiting the announcement about whether the Government will do anything to reinstate the structure of school sport, which is important if we are talking about children’s health. The School Food Trust is being abolished and we will see food standards fall as a result. We will be back to turkey twizzlers, with no proper physical education and a lottery for learning outside the classroom.
I hope that the Minister, in responding to the debate, can tell us what she will do to promote learning outside the classroom and to face down the laissez-faire ideology that has infected her Department.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I was going to say that it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate, until I heard the end-point of the speech by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). His speech began so well and ended with such nonsense, but I guess that the Opposition have to be the Opposition and demonstrate that they oppose everything.
I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing this debate on a really important topic. It is good to see Westminster Hall so full of people. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s previous role as chief executive of the Countryside Alliance and of his involvement in charitable work with that organisation to promote outdoor learning. It is really good to see that he is continuing that work now as a Member of this House.
We have had a good and well informed debate. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) gave particular detail about the situation in Wales. There were contributions from former teachers, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). We have heard about a number of examples of outdoor learning from Members’ constituencies. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) spoke about forest schools. I was very interested to hear about the particular examples given by the hon. Members for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson).
The Government absolutely believe that outdoor learning is vital and provides so many opportunities for young people to expand their horizons and to put learning into context, so that they can actually see what is happening and are not just learning the theory. Moreover, outdoor learning provides opportunities to break down barriers. It is very easy for someone to fulfil a role if they go into the same place and perform the same function every day. However, when a group of people are taken out of that place and put somewhere else, it breaks down the old traditional roles, which of course is exactly why outdoor learning has the impact that it does on behaviour. It is able suddenly to boost the confidence of many children who may not succeed in other activities in the classroom.
Many hon. Members began their contribution by declaring an interest in this sector and I should probably declare an interest too, in that my brother works for the Outward Bound Trust as a fundraiser. When I listened to him talk about the history of the trust, I was fascinated. It is perhaps worth saying something about that history as it is really relevant to the debate.
The Outward Bound Trust began as part of the war effort in 1941, so it will celebrate its 70th anniversary next year. It began because of the experience of people who had watched merchant seamen after their ships had been torpedoed. Some merchant seamen survived longer than others and it was really obvious that the ones who did not survive were the young people. So a lot of young seamen were taken out of their ships and taught survival skills and team-building exercises, and it was found that those activities had a real impact on their ability to cope in strenuous situations. After the war, the effect of that training on those particular seamen was so great that the trust decided to roll out the training to many other young people. Last year, it was able to provide 26,000 young people with opportunities for such training, much of which was funded through charitable donations.
So the Outward Bound Trust is a prime example of the organisations that many hon. Members have spoken about during the debate, from forest schools to Farming and Countryside Education, which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) spoke about. Often, those organisations have a very strong charitable arm and so they are able to take young people who could not otherwise afford those outdoor experiences and really change their perspective on life. I want to pay tribute to all the organisations, whether they are private or charitable, that do this kind of work for young people.
However, it is important to say that the Government view outdoor learning as being much wider than just that type of adventure activity. Outdoor learning is not just about getting out into the countryside, although that is absolutely vital. Many of the contributions to the debate have been about the necessity of giving children experience of the countryside. A couple of hon. Members spoke about the fact that many of our young people do not know, for example, how food is produced. All of those activities are part of outdoor learning, but they are not the only aspect. Getting out and experiencing music, theatre or the visual arts is also part of outdoor learning. Furthermore, outdoor learning is a vital part of understanding history and field trips in science and geography are all important.
Not all of those trips have to be trips to places that are a long way away. In fact, the hon. Member for Cardiff West gave the example of a school trip in his constituency that stayed very close to the school. Sometimes such activities can take place just outside the school and even occasionally within the school gates. Getting out of the classroom is what is so vital.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the previous Government’s record on outdoor learning. I absolutely acknowledge that the previous Government invested an awful lot of effort, time and money in trying to improve outdoor learning. However, as the Children, Schools and Families Committee stated very clearly in its report on outdoor learning, we are not there yet and we are a long way away from being where we need to be. Far too few young people have the opportunity for outdoor learning and there are all sorts of reasons for that, which were drawn out in the Select Committee report. I just want to refer to a few of those reasons.
I think that part of the problem is related to an overcrowded curriculum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion spoke about. There are so many compulsory elements in the curriculum that it is difficult to find the space in the day for teachers to explore outdoor activity. A number of hon. Members were trying to request that extra things should be put into the curriculum, particularly in relation to outdoor learning. In the same way that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole suggested one thing out, one thing in, I am resisting the tendency to put extra things into the curriculum. However, I can perhaps offer a word of comfort to hon. Members who raised this issue. The national curriculum review is particularly looking at what should go into the curriculum. For subjects such as science and geography, it may well be that the review looks at the particular components of outdoor learning. I do not want to pre-empt the review, but I will say that it is ongoing.
Sarah Teather
I have only three minutes left and I have quite a lot still to say, so I had better not give way just now.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire for raising issues of health and safety. I absolutely agree with him on those issues and it was helpful of him to put on record the statistics that he cited about how rare difficult events are. The Government take very seriously the report by Lord Young and it is absolutely vital that we get out the message that such difficult events are very rare and that we should take a much more common-sense approach to outdoor learning.
The Government believe that, by offering more flexible funding to schools with less ring-fencing, we have a much better chance of encouraging schools to take up opportunities for outdoor learning. For example, schools are free to spend the pupil premium on supporting particular activities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. If the priority is to hire a minibus, that might be what a school chooses to do. However, I will undertake to examine the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Swindon about an insurance scheme for schools that is bought en bloc, to see if there is anything that can be done with respect to that suggestion.
The White Paper on schools also speaks specifically about “access to live theatre” and encouraging
“the appreciation of the visual and plastic arts and work with our great museums and libraries to support their educational mission.”
That is something that the Government take very seriously.
I have mentioned history, and the understanding of citizenship is also very important, which is precisely why we support the Holocaust Educational Trust in its programme “Lessons from Auschwitz”. I have experienced that programme myself and it is a fantastic programme that offers the opportunity to change people’s perspectives. For those who have not had that experience at school, the Government are providing extra opportunities through the national citizen service, which will give young people an opportunity to experience outdoor activity first-hand at the start of that scheme and really change their lives.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire asked a number of questions. With respect to teacher training, a paper on that subject will be released next year and I will ensure that his comments about teacher training are drawn to the attention of the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who is the Minister with responsibility for schools.
With respect to the foundation stage, I will ensure that the comments that have been made about it during the debate are fed into Dame Clare Tickell’s review of the early years foundation stage.
With regard to the “rarely cover” guidance, if schools plan trips in advance that guidance should not really be an issue. However, the Department for Education is looking at the guidance.
With respect to the idea of an entitlement for one particular outdoor learning activity, I think that this process is much more about understanding outdoor learning as a part of a child’s whole learning experience. Just having one trip does not really meet the need for outdoor learning. What we need to do is to mainstream outdoor learning into the whole way that we are looking at the curriculum, which is why I made the point earlier about geography and science trips.
Pollution (Horn Lane, Acton)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. The Horn lane industrial site sits on a busy single carriageway in my constituency, connecting the Uxbridge road with the north of the constituency, which is home to the Park Royal industrial and business park and through which runs the A40. The purpose of bringing that part of the world to your attention is to highlight a long-standing problem that shows no signs of abating: the unacceptable pollution levels emanating from the Horn lane industrial site and the palpable failure of any agency to enforce legal pollution limits in the area.
It is local residents who have really upped the ante on the issue by putting it firmly on the agenda and starting to campaign for genuine action and, hopefully, an end to the pollution plight that menaces their daily lives. Ably led by a former Acton Central councillor, Vlod Barchuk, and local activist, Rosco White, SHLAP—Stop Horn Lane Pollution—has attracted considerable support from a community that, understandably, wants to hear less about monitoring pollution levels and more about active policing and enforcement.
Having consulted the Environment Agency and corresponded with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the matter, I am still a little unclear on how best to move forward and achieve genuine action on the matter. The site is the problem, because it sits uncomfortably, slap bang in the middle of a large residential community. It is surrounded on three sides by residential properties that are supported by a parade of shops and local businesses, all directly alongside the industrial site. Despite living and working along a busy road, a real sense of community exists among local residents, who feel that they are living in an area with great potential and already benefit from Acton’s excellent transport links and the easy access it offers to central London.
That ease of access makes it obvious why Horn lane was chosen to house an industrial site in the first place. It has first-rate rail links and is right on the doorstep of the Park Royal estate. The A40 is to the north and the Uxbridge road is to the south. That made sense in the past, when Horn lane was home to factories, rather than flats and houses as it is now. It must seem odd to those who work on the site that they drive their lorries, unload their skips and transfer their waste right in the heart of a residential community. To local residents, it is ridiculous that their quality of life is being impaired by that throwback, which produces literally sky-high levels of pollution.
Incidentally, although we are looking at air pollution today, the noise pollution from some of those units is also intolerable. The beeping of lorries backing up to empty their loads, the clanking of skips being unloaded and reloaded, and the general din of deafening noise produced by large vehicles moving back and forth in a confined space is also pretty awful for residents. There is no doubt that a more modern and enclosed site would limit both air and noise pollution and increase efficiency. Those units are way behind their times, another reason why they are so unsuitable for the area they remain in.
However, it is the high levels of small, carcinogenic PM1O particles that produce the really serious health problems. They are produced when the units transfer aggregates and building materials from rail to road and engage in their waste-transfer activities. PMIO particles are proven to have a range of effects on health, including effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, asthma and mortality. As the evidence that I will share shows, PM1O levels originating from the Horn lane site have consistently overshot the maximum permitted from any one location. That that is allowed to continue in a heavily populated residential area is just not on.
Monitoring of pollution levels at the Horn lane site is already in place. The Environment Agency is now comparing readings from all three of the monitoring devices at the site in the hope that the sources of the PM1O can be more precisely located. However, residents who complain about the unacceptably high levels of pollution have for years heard the familiar refrain from the Environment Agency that it is monitoring pollution from the site and will take action if the industrial units exceed the limits agreed under their operating licences. Indeed the monitoring equipment takes readings every 15 minutes, which allows pollution patterns to be identified. The readings show that both measures for pollution levels—the daily and annual average readings—far exceed the maximum levels permitted.
The European Commission has set a target that no location should have an annual average of more than 40 micrograms of PM1O particles per cubic metre. So far this year, the Horn lane site has averaged 42 micrograms per cubic metre. The EU states that in any one location there should be no more than 35 days a year when PMIO levels average more than 50 micrograms per cubic metre. That happened on 96 days in 2008, 73 days in 2009 and on 91 days so far this year. Based on those readings, in the last three years pollution levels have been more than double the agreed acceptable levels. Where is the enforcement? What is the point of all the monitoring if it does not actually lead to anything?
The lack of enforcement brings about cynicism of the worst sort among the public. Residents are told that there are acceptable levels of pollution and that anything beyond those limits incurs a penalty, but in reality those levels are breached with frightening regularity and nothing is ever done. For instance, a bell has been installed at one of the units on the Horn lane site to ring when levels rise above a certain point. At that point, all activity at the unit is supposed to cease immediately until the level drops back down. Residents say that they cannot hear the bell because there is so much noise, but the figures reveal that pollution was above the acceptable level, and yet no one has ever seen activity stopped for any period whatsoever during a working day. It is no good being told after the event that pollution levels were too high if nothing is done at the time to rectify the situation. People will just ask, “What is the point?”
In the meeting that I organised in Parliament between the Environment Agency and SHLAP, the agency’s representatives explained the great difficulties that they face in enforcing the legal pollution limits set out in the industrial units’ licensing agreements. My understanding is that the principal problem with that enforcement is that one has to go to court and prove that an individual unit is exclusively responsible for the pollution, but that is clearly impossible in the case of the Horn lane site, because a number of different potential polluters operate there at the same time. What are we to do? The public simply cannot continue to be told that there is unacceptable pollution at the site and then be informed that nothing can be done about it or that no agency is prepared to do anything about it.
The added problem at Horn lane is that it is not just the Environment Agency that is responsible for enforcing pollution levels, as some of the units come under the remit of the local authority, Ealing borough council. I am not making a partisan point, because both main parties have run the council and neither have managed to get to grips with the problem. It will always be difficult when two separate authorities are responsible for different units at the same place and when it is necessary to prove that an individual site is at fault. The situation is just too confusing.
The operators have not always been entirely open to positive discussions with their neighbours, which is unfortunate. Some residents have at times felt noticeable hostility when they have been “too active in making complaints”. It might be fair to say that since the arrival of SHLAP there is a growing recognition by those companies that the residents are now much more united and determined to get things done. For that reason, we have noticed certain improvements at the industrial site, such as proper wetting of the ground, which captures the dust before it flies into the air. It seems that that is now being done on a more regular basis, but my point is that residents should not need to dedicate their lives to the cause of getting genuine action on enforcing legal pollution limits.
The Environment Agency will be on schedule 7 of the Public Bodies Bill currently going through Parliament. If the Bill becomes law, it will be subject to review on a regular basis, and we are hoping that that will help to sharpen its approach.
Also going through Parliament is the Localism Bill, which is about returning power to the local level. It includes a general power of competence that would allow local authorities to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by law. It may well provide an opportunity for the local authority to take a more proactive approach to the problem emanating from the Horn lane site. It should be noted that the local authority did take a more proactive approach in 2006, when it brought a prosecution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That was effective in improving the unit’s performance, albeit only in moving pollution levels down from the outrageous to the unacceptable. Broadly speaking, focus and leadership have been seriously lacking in the past. The Localism Bill coupled with regular reviews of the Environment Agency’s approach might just get things going.
The real long-term answer to the problem must be to shift this small industrial remnant and to rezone the area for residential and office use. The problem has existed for too long—it is absolutely time to sort it out. The arrival of Crossrail at Acton mainline station, which is now guaranteed in the comprehensive spending review, cannot come soon enough. It will provide the perfect opportunity for complete rezoning of the area. There will be great demand for offices and residential units, and they would surely be a much more suitable way to use land in what could become an appealing location.
There have also been growing calls for Network Rail to sell off some of its valuable land assets, bearing in mind the public purse in these times of austerity. When Crossrail finally comes to Acton with a brand new station, the surrounding land owned by Network Rail will increase considerably in value. That is yet another argument for rezoning the area.
Obviously, I am not trying to put people out of business. The last thing that I want to do is to close the industrial units down, as such—I just want to move them a little. In fact, there is a perfectly sensible alternative. The Park Royal business and industrial estate is, literally, just up the road. It offers excellent access to the A40, there is still plenty of free space, and there is easy access to rail links from the estate. Surely that would be a better location for this kind of industrial activity than a heavily populated residential area.
But, of course, that is for the future. Crossrail is not due to open for business much before 2018 or 2019, and we have a problem that has to be dealt with here and now. That is why I have focused my attention today on the current needs of the Acton residents who live along Horn lane, alongside the industrial site. They need action now, not endless monitoring and statistics.
I recognise that the agencies I have spoken to want solutions, but, as I said earlier, this is about focus and leadership, and a determination to act on the information, rather than to provide all kinds of reasons for why nothing can be done. My constituents deserve much better than that, and I hope that the Minister will provide us with some helpful thoughts on a meaningful way forward. I thank him, and you, Mr Benton, for listening to our case this morning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) on raising this matter again in the House. She raised it last week in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. She has held frequent meetings and has been a prolific letter writer on behalf of her constituents, and is to be commended for her tenacity in raising an important issue for her local residents.
The emergence of SHLAP—Stop Horn Lane Pollution—is a great credit to the community. It shows strength of spirit and determination to resolve a problem that is clearly blighting the lives of local people. I will deal in detail with the circumstances later, but it is important first to set the context.
Good air quality is fundamental to health and the quality of life. The public health White Paper, which was published only last week, highlighted that. It also highlighted the important role that local authorities play in ensuring that their citizens and communities have clean air to breathe and, with other agencies and local businesses, in ensuring that pollution is kept under control and its impacts minimised.
We have seen significant improvements in air quality over many decades, but, as this case demonstrates, poor air quality continues to have an impact on peoples’ lives. Moreover, poor air quality and pollution hotspots, as in the case of Horn lane and the industrial site located there, can blight the lives of local communities significantly. The coalition Government have made a clear commitment to work towards achieving air quality pollution limits in the UK, and co-operation between the Environment Agency, local authorities and others is key to achieving that commitment.
Several points that my hon. Friend made have to be dealt with at the local level—they cannot be dealt with from the desk of a DEFRA Minister. However, she was right to say that leadership at every level is vital. I shall ensure that her powerful words are heard by the Environment Agency, and I am sure that she will ensure that they are heard by the local authority. I shall also ensure that we continue to work with her to get a proper solution to the problem.
Local communities and citizens have an important role to play in highlighting shortcomings and in drawing them to the attention of higher authorities if they cannot achieve local solutions. I am pleased, therefore, to have this opportunity to say more about the action that is being taken to deal with the matter.
This case shows that safeguarding local air quality is not a simple matter, and that many different sources can contribute to the problem. An air quality monitoring site was installed on Horn lane by the London borough of Ealing in 2005. As my hon. Friend said, it measured very high levels of dust particulates, also known as PM10, which is particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter—smaller than the width of a single human hair. PM10 is composed of dust from exhaust fumes, brakes and tyres, aggregates, which she referred to, and industrial processes such as waste management and construction and demolition works. It is not visible to the naked eye but can be monitored, and it impacts on human health, particularly that of vulnerable groups with respiratory problems.
In the case of Horn lane, there are several potential sources of PM10 close to the monitoring station, including transport from Horn lane and the nearby A40, other transport sources such as buses and trains, and pollution from the industrial site, which has several units engaged in concrete production, aggregate supply, scrap metal and waste transfer, and also heavy vehicle movements. That combination of sources adds to the load of dust and pollution and requires that several agencies work together with operators to control it.
The local authority has overall responsibility for local air quality in Ealing and for plans to improve it. The Environment Agency is responsible for ensuring that waste management sites regulated under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 do not contribute significantly to breaches of national air quality objectives. If a site is contributing to such a breach, the agency develops site action plans with the operator to achieve improvement within an agreed time scale. If improvements do not happen, the agency has the power to serve improvement notices, to stop the activity, to initiate criminal proceedings or to revoke the site’s environmental permit.
At Horn lane, the Environment Agency regulates part of the Yeoman Aggregates site, the Gowing & Pursey waste transfer site and Horn Lane Metals. Ealing council regulates one other unit and, with Transport for London, has responsibility for reducing pollution from transport sources. That is a complex picture, and I know that my hon. Friend and local residents have been concerned about how the arrangements ensure that proper controls are in place. It is right to take into account the valuable local employment provided by firms such as those operating in Horn lane, but these firms must take all reasonable steps to minimise their environmental impact.
The Environment Agency has focused particularly on Gowing & Pursey and has pressed this company over the past four years to improve its control and management of dust, especially from vehicles using the site. Both the London borough of Ealing and the Environment Agency have taken enforcement action against Gowing & Pursey. Most recently, in 2009, the agency served a notice under the environmental permitting regulations, requiring the company to supply it with air quality monitoring data. The company failed to do that, but, following the initiation of enforcement action, it is now supplying the required information.
Further legal enforcement, in principle, remains an option. However, due to the sensitive location at Horn lane, the agency believes that the best option is for all waste activities to occur within a building. I am told that the operator has started discussions with Ealing council on planning permission for this activity to take place in a building.
In addition to these actions, the agency continues to require Gowing & Pursey to monitor for particulates arising from its operations and has increased its inspection and audit frequency for all the sites that it regulates on Horn lane. The agency also carries out regular joint visits with the London borough of Ealing, so that the statutory powers available can be used to improve air quality.
My hon. Friend mentioned relocating facilities on the site. That might be the ideal solution. Planning is a matter for the local authority. I urge her to explore that option—I know that she is doing that—to ensure that in the medium term, at least, a solution can be achieved, leading to different zoning, so that all the benefits that she sees coming forward from a development such as Crossrail can be integrated and factored into a plan dealing with the inappropriate activities that take place so close to so many people’s homes.
Since 2006, levels of particulate matter pollution have declined from an annual average of more than 217 micrograms per cubic metre to 75 micrograms per cubic metre most recently. This is a significant improvement and the data are publicly available if further details are wanted. I am sure that that is of no comfort to the members of SHLAP, who just want this matter resolved and are not particularly fascinated by the details of the data. Although pollution has reduced, all the parties involved recognise that levels are still too high and further improvements are needed.
I understand that the area manager for the Environment Agency met my hon. Friend and the community representatives she mentioned. From that meeting, it was agreed that the agency would continue to monitor air quality around the site to pinpoint the source and would make frequent unannounced visits to ensure that the site was operating in line with its permitting requirements.
I will take away the points raised by my hon. Friend about the pollution alarm and will personally ensure that the Environment Agency requires that, if a site licence requirement says that once the alarm is triggered activities must cease until pollutants reach an acceptable level, and if that is not happening and it is within the means of the Environment Agency to solve the problem—not some other agency—action will be taken.
The agency also agreed to facilitate a meeting with the operators and the community to explore further control measures. I understand that that meeting has yet to take place. This co-operative and transparent approach is important to provide assurance to the local community that action is being taken to improve matters, particularly in this case, where a number of sources could be contributing to breaches of air quality objectives. It is only possible to take enforcement action once the most significant source has been isolated. Although the majority of particulates that are causing problems may or may not be coming from one major source, they might not be coming exclusively from there. It is important that we get the full picture.
As can be seen, this is a complex matter and it is necessary for the local authority, the Environment Agency and others to work together to identify pollution sources. They must also ensure that the responsible operators on the site take suitable measures to improve air quality and monitor levels of pollution. Both the local authority and the agency have taken enforcement action and air pollution has reduced over the years since this engagement, but everyone would agree that more improvements are necessary.
I encourage local residents to continue their dialogue with the Environment Agency and the London borough of Ealing; to keep this site under close scrutiny; and to work with the operators to identify further improvements.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for turning a spotlight on this issue and championing the concerns of local residents. They should know how hard and assiduously their Member of Parliament works for them, dealing with important problems for people living in that area.
Financial Support (Students)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a privilege to have this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I am pleased to see so many hon. Members here to talk about an important issue. I will try to keep my speech brief, so that everybody can get in to make their points and, more importantly, to ask questions.
I asked for this debate for two reasons. First, we need to highlight the effect that the decision to scrap the education maintenance allowance will have on young people throughout the country. Secondly, we need answers about how the proposed financial support scheme, the enhanced discretionary learner support fund, will work.
Last week in the main Chamber, a vote was carried that will allow university tuition fees to rise up to £9,000 in a year to plug the gaping hole in the higher education budget left by the Government’s 80% cut. I voted against that rise with other Opposition Members. The Government fail to grasp that, by cutting EMA, many young people from poorer backgrounds, particularly in constituencies such as mine, will never reach the level at which they will be able even to consider attending university. Taken together, the tuition fee increase and the scrapping of EMA are a heavy blow to young people in constituencies such as mine.
The EMA keeps many young people in Erith and Thamesmead in college or sixth form—and in some cases, it has to be said, on the straight and narrow. Their families rely on payments to cover the costs of attending college, including transport and books, and they often help top up the family budget. One of my constituents, Trudy Mackie, wrote to me recently, saying:
“I am a single parent”,
living in Thamesmead,
“and have worked full time since leaving school myself. I have managed to purchase my own home and save a little money while supporting my daughter throughout her school life…She was identified as gifted and talented, as a school student likely to do well with support, and we have hoped and aimed for her to go to university for a long time on that basis. We are very concerned about the scrapping of the EMA and how this will affect our budgets. This…really does help my daughter to do extracurricular activities”
that enhance her education, such as
“theatre trips and additional lectures…Our household will struggle without this money.”
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
My constituent, Timar Misghina, a student, said precisely the sorts of things that my hon. Friend has just quoted. Tellingly, she said that EMA not only helps with books, transport and clothing, but helps to get her through her studies with fewer worries. It is important that, when people are trying to study, they and their families are not in a state of constant worry about money.
Teresa Pearce
I agree. It makes a difference if people know that they can concentrate on their education without worrying about the bus fare.
Some 43% of students at Bexley college and 38% of students at Greenwich college—the two largest colleges serving my constituency—receive EMA, the vast majority receiving the higher rate of £30 a week. Some argue that this money does not have an effect, but the principal of Bexley college, Danny Ridgeway, has confirmed that, in the past two academic years, students at his college in receipt of EMA have been more likely to pass their course than their colleagues who have not received EMA support. I believe that this positive outcome is linked to the attendance requirement attached to EMA payments.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
On that point, I received an e-mail from the principal of Hugh Baird college in Bootle, telling me that 84% of young people at the college currently receive EMA. She says that it is clear that the EMA has become a key part of family income and that its discontinuation is very likely to impact on the participation rate locally. In addition, a study in Merseyside colleges shows that the results of those on EMA are 7% higher than those of people who do not receive it.
Teresa Pearce
I agree. More importantly, Danny Ridgeway, the principal of Bexley college, agrees. He says:
“It is our view that the conditions that link payment to attendance and completion of work have been a motivator to help these students to success and progress”.
At this stage, we do not know whether the Government’s plans for enhanced discretionary learner support will have a similar attendance requirement. Will the Minister tell me whether it will?
The Government’s current line is that many students would have stayed in education anyway and that EMA is therefore a dead-weight. When the Minister makes this point—I am sure that he will—I would be grateful if he commented on the following points. First, research underpinning the dead-weight assertion was flawed, because it was undertaken only among schools, when 69% of the recipients of EMA attend colleges not schools. Furthermore, a significant number of EMA recipients are black and ethnic minority, yet those surveyed were 91% white. If a survey is undertaken with an unrepresentative sample, I believe that the results are irrelevant to the debate.
Secondly, research from the Institute of Fiscal Studies showed that where EMA is available, participation in education and attainment levels increased. Does the Minister not think that those are worthwhile objectives?
Thirdly, many public policies involve a high amount of dead-weight—for example, the initiative announced in the June Budget about temporary relief from national insurance contributions for new businesses. The Treasury’s costing shows that 96% of that tax cut will go to employers who would have set up anyway and that 4% will go to employers who have set up in response to the incentives. If the sole aim of this policy is to stimulate new business, it would be regarded as 96% dead-weight. Why are employers worthy of support, while young people, who are the future of this country, are not?
Before I turn to the details of the enhanced discretionary learner support fund, I wish to discuss what will happen to those students who currently receive EMA and are mid-way through their courses.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government have based their whole case for withdrawing EMA on the research that she mentioned. The Minister will base his case on that research, saying that only a minority of students say that they would not have pursued any course at all if they had not received EMA, but that is not the sole point, is it? Surely the point is the level of sacrifice that families will have to make so that their young people can pursue education.
Does the Minister accept that if he withdraws EMA, even from those students who say that they would proceed with a course, the sacrifice that families have to make will be increased, particularly among those who need the help most—students with learning disabilities, teen parents and those from the poorest families? Does he really want to pursue that policy?
Katy Clark (in the Chair)
Order. Can I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short?
Teresa Pearce
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point.
Students who receive EMA and are mid-way through their courses began those courses in good faith and could not have foreseen that the funding that they were promised would be withdrawn later. On 25 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education, urging him to ensure that students would continue to receive EMA for the duration of their courses. We have not yet had a clear response from him, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what is to happen to those students, particularly given the recent confusion between written answers and information appearing on Government websites.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on 15 November, the Minister said that £174 million would be set aside for EMA in 2011-12, the next school year. Yet the Directgov website states:
“If you currently get EMA you will continue to receive it for the rest of this academic year, but you will not receive it next academic year”.
I would be grateful if the Minister clarified which is the correct answer.
EMA keeps young people focused on their studies, as other hon. Members have mentioned, meaning that they do not have to take on part-time jobs to see them through their education. Long gone are the days when students could get Saturday jobs to do that, because those jobs are often taken by middle-aged women. The jobs just are not there.
In a letter that I received yesterday, the Minister says that
“the expectation that young people will remain in education or training post-16 is much stronger…than…when EMA was introduced. Already, 96 per cent of 16 year olds and 94 per cent of 17 year olds participate in education, employment or training. Attitudes to staying on in education post-16 have changed.”
I totally agree with the Minister, but that change is precisely because of EMA.
The Government have indicated that future decisions on who will receive payments will be made at individual institutions. The coalition Government say that that is because the school or college is closer to students and can make better judgments, but those very institutions are opposing the withdrawal of EMA. If the Minister trusts their judgment about the administration of the enhanced discretionary learners support fund, perhaps he will tell us why he does not trust their judgment on the value of EMA as a whole.
I would like answers to the following questions. Will the new scheme take account of travel costs? A written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan shows that the last time the Government assessed the average travel costs per student was in 2003. How will we know what the costs are now if the figures are eight years old?
Will the enhanced discretionary learners support fund even include travel costs? At the moment, it does not. What safety net will be in place if too many students need funding, but not enough money is available locally to fund them? Will that mean less funding per student, will allocation be on a first come, first served basis, will students have to parade their poverty to see who is at the front of the queue, or will more funding be made available? If a college does not use all its grant, what will happen to the surplus? My constituency could be considered to be an area with a high level of student need, and those questions are important to me and the people who sent me here.
Katy Clark (in the Chair)
Order. I have received written indications from 12 Back-Bench Members who wish to speak, and I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind when making their contributions.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Ms Clark, to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank you for calling me. I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I will try to keep my comments brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this undoubtedly important debate today, and I note that members of the public are also present. The debate is especially important given last week’s prominent and controversial debate on higher education, so it is extremely timely to discuss financial support for students over the age of 16.
I want to make my position clear. I strongly believe that it is right for some form of financial assistance to be targeted at those aged 16 to 18 from the poorest backgrounds. That is really important. The key components of any post-16 education debate should focus on the education maintenance allowance. That has always been the case, and I want to focus my comments on that.
I am sure that some hon. Members here will have received a lot of correspondence about the matter. I have certainly seen a lot, and the principals of Askham Bryan and York colleges in my constituency have raised the issue. Among all concerned groups, there is a real fear that the loss of the weekly allowance will lead to the poorest abandoning their courses, and perhaps not starting them in the first place. That is an entirely understandable concern. However, I stress that the issue is not simplistic or clear cut. The impression portrayed in some corners suggests that the choice is between EMA and the end of all financial assistance to 16 to 18-year-olds. That is quite wrong. I suggest that the majority—I include myself—stand in the middle on this sensitive issue.
Joan Ruddock
What does the hon. Gentleman think will be the consequence of students not knowing whether they are eligible for EMA? There might be a grant, but they would not know. When it comes to choosing a further education college, such as Lewisham college in my constituency, eligible students can get the money and have some certainty. They can make a real choice about where they take their education. What is the future?
Julian Sturdy
I accept the right hon. Lady’s point. There is no doubt that we must ensure that the policy is clear. That has not always been the case, which is why I want to speak up. However, I broadly support the policy, and I will go into the reasons later. We must make sure that information is clear because it is important for young people to have it at their fingertips so that they can make the critical decisions that will affect their future lives. The right hon. Lady makes a valid point.
A matter that has already been touched on is that Government research shows that 90% of EMA spending is dead-weight, going to students who would have stayed in education regardless of the scheme. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead touched on that, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I share the Government’s view that taxpayers’ money deserves far greater respect. If EMA is truly only needed by just 12% of those who receive it—
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
My constituency is in the 19th most deprived local authority area in England. On the dead-weight issue—I do not accept the survey’s figures—does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration about the way the argument is made? If young people say that despite abolition of EMA they will remain in education, that is being used against them. I met a group of students this morning who said that they would do whatever it takes to stay in education because that is their future, even if abolition of EMA means that they cannot have lunch for a few days a week at least, or pay for transport and will have to walk to college instead. The issue is not just about people being put off and abolition of EMA deterring young people from going into further education. A member of Lambeth youth council, Stephen, is sitting behind me and can back me up on that. For those who choose to stay in education regardless, the abolition of EMA will subject them to extreme hardship.
Katy Clark (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief.
Julian Sturdy
There is no doubt that there must be support for the poorest and most deprived areas to help young people into education, and I will come to that. Government policy allows for that, but the question is whether the money is best used and targeted at people who fall outside and are at the top end of the threshold. Perhaps it is not.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Is the issue not about fairness? In my constituency, many children live in deprived areas with no state sixth-form provision. Support should be effectively targeted. Am I not right in thinking that that is what the Government intend to do?
Julian Sturdy
Absolutely, and that is what I want to go on to. For me, the fundamental point is ensuring that the money gets through to the people who really need it, and ensuring that they can make the decisions that could change their lives.
Bill Esterson
The issue of how to tell who really needs EMA to attend college has been raised with me by a number of college principals. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts—I hope that the Minister will also address the point—on how college principals are supposed to identify who really needs support, and who to withdraw it from and who to leave it with under the new arrangements? What will be the basis for those decisions? There is an estimate that 10% of students will drop out. How will they be identified?
Julian Sturdy
If I am correct—I hope the Minister will highlight this point—we are saying that we will give college principals the power to allocate funding. It is about devolving local decisions to local people and I will speak further about that later in my remarks. I am looking at this issue from the point of view of those in my constituency, including the two principals who have contacted me. I believe that such people are best placed to take such decisions because they have local knowledge, which is important. I am not present just to speak in support of the Government—I do broadly support them, but I have some concerns that I shall outline in more detail.
The flaws in the central administration of EMA are well known. Last year alone, the running costs of the scheme totalled a staggering £35.8 million. That is of concern and I welcome news of the increased discretionary learner support funds that will replace the EMA. That support will be targeted more directly towards those from the lowest income households to ensure that accessibility to post-16 study remains viable and attractive for all students. That is the crucial part of the policy.
I welcome the decision to localise the distribution of the learner support funds by empowering local colleges and educational providers to carry out that administrative role. That process will hopefully save money that should be going to students in the first place. Some will argue that such a transfer of responsibility will increase the workload for colleges, but in my view it is right for local education providers to use their local knowledge to tailor the support offered to young people in their specific areas. That is a local and flexible solution to the problems of poor and costly administration.
I am generally supportive of the measures outlined by the coalition but I hold two reservations about the new system. First, I am concerned about ending the scheme for those students who will be only half-way through their courses by next summer. I support the new system, but I believe that it would be better for those already receiving EMA payments to see the initial agreements honoured. My second concern, which has been raised already, relates to transport. Many students who attend colleges across York and North Yorkshire rely on EMA to help meet their travel costs. Many have £10 automatically withdrawn from their allowance in return for a free bus pass. Given the likelihood of cuts to local authority transport subsidies, I would be interested to know whether the Government are considering the introduction of any transport-related financial assistance for full-time 16 to18-year-old students. In essence, however, I hope that all of us in the Chamber today share the same goal to protect and enhance the accessibility to education that our 16 to 18-year-olds currently enjoy and deserve. That is a noble and worthwhile ambition, and countless colleagues across the coalition genuinely share that vision.
The choice is not merely between EMA on one hand and no financial support whatsoever for 16 to 18-year-olds on the other. If that were the case, it would be quite wrong. Instead, an unwavering commitment to those who face genuine financial barriers to participation can be delivered through a more localised and efficient scheme, and that is why I broadly support what the coalition Government are doing.
Katy Clark (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they must stand if they wish to speak.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and welcome the fact that there is a show of strength here today. That will give some heart to those students sitting in the audience or watching the debate on the television who will have been horrified to hear themselves described as dead-weight by some hon. Members. Hon. Members from all parties should be careful in the way that they talk about this important issue. Those students and their financial support are not dead-weight in any sense. They are not dead-weight in the offensive way in which such language is used, and neither are they dead-weight based on the evidence. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) when she pointed out that the study on which the Government have based most of their evidence is highly unrepresentative of her constituency and of mine, and of most of those students who rely on EMA to finish their courses and ensure that they do not suffer extreme hardship as a result.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that before the EMA was introduced it was trialled in Hackney, which had an amazingly successful response and a much higher take-up of college places? That has now led to a much higher take-up of university places and the scheme has proved a success all along the way in what is Britain’s poorest borough. Does she think that the Government study ought to look at places such as Hackney that have a much longer experience of such schemes, rather than looking at other places and coming up with those rather curious figures? EMA is the gateway to higher education, is it not?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend; I was not aware that the scheme had been piloted first in Hackney. I urge the Minister to take heed of those words and also look at places such as Wigan where the scheme has had considerable success. My hon. Friend touched on an incredibly important point. Last Friday I went to my local college, Winstanley college, and heard from students. They said that not only was EMA incredibly important for them to get through college, but that they were now facing the double whammy of thinking that even if they get through college and face considerable hardship in order to do that, they will then have to pay incredibly high tuition fees. Those students feel that barriers are being put in their way over and again, and many of them are wondering whether it is worth enduring such a level of hardship because even if they get the opportunity of going to university, that will not be a realistic option. We must consider that point.
A vast range of research shows that EMA has actually been incredibly successful. I have examples from the Manchester college, CfBT education trust, the Learning and Skills Council and Wigan and Leigh college, which sent me an incredibly powerful set of evidence based on surveys and interviews with students. The point made powerfully by students and the principal of that college was that EMA is not only about alleviating hardship, but it is a bargain between the state and the students. That bargain says that if someone works hard and tries hard, it does not matter what sort of background they come from and they deserve to do well and be supported. It is outrageous that those students should now be asked to face financial hardship in order to achieve at the same level as their peers. It is also outrageous that 50% of students who receive EMA in my local college have a 99% retention rate, yet they are now being told by the Government that it does not matter that they have stayed on, worked hard and kept their side of the bargain. That is particularly urgent for those students who are in their first year of college. They have recently been told in responses to questions asked by myself and my hon. Friends, that they will now lose their EMA halfway through their course. Of the 1,000 students currently in the first year of study at Wigan and Leigh college, 75% say that they will drop out at the end of this year. That is horrifying, and I hope that the Minister will listen to that.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Apart from Askham Bryan campus in Guisborough, and Prior Pursglove college and neighbouring FE colleges in Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, a number of small and medium-sized enterprises are concerned about the withdrawal of EMA. EMA funds a number of apprenticeships in engineering and other skilled trades that have traditionally been sceptical and scared of investing in apprenticeships, unlike bigger former companies such as Imperial Chemistry Industries and British Steel in Teesside. The new SMEs have not been as proactive, and are only now beginning to increase the number of apprenticeships. By getting rid of the EMA, we may undermine those skill programmes.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree with him. One of the worst things that we saw under the previous Conservative Government was that a range of young people throughout the country were left with no sense of hope for the future. Seeing people without hope for the future is devastating, but seeing young people without hope for the future is even worse. We must not return to that situation.
I have three final points. First, colleges urgently need to know what will replace the EMA. The details of the discretionary learner support fund are sketchy. Colleges need to know whether, in reality, this will be a £500 million cut. Yesterday, the Secretary of State, appearing before the Select Committee on Education, could not confirm the position to hon. Members.
We need to know urgently whether travel costs will be taken into account and what else the discretionary hardship fund will be able to cover. In my constituency, like many other constituencies, travel is one of the prohibitive factors to attending college. Despite a number of people living in the town centre, Wigan is essentially a rural seat, and students would not be able to travel to college without the EMA.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The travel situation in Somerset is exactly the same, but there are aspects to rural education that are even more critical. Towns such as Shepton Mallet and Glastonbury do not have sixth forms attached to their schools. Therefore there is no option for students but to travel. There are schools that do have sixth forms, but they do not cover the full range of subjects, so people such as my daughter, who wanted to study environmental science and politics, had to travel to Bridgwater college, which is some distance away. Cutting the EMA will place serious restrictions on the courses that young people can study.
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady is passionate about this issue and has raised it many times. I would like to echo her comments.
There is compelling evidence that the EMA pumps millions of pounds into local economies throughout the country. In my Wigan constituency, where people are losing jobs and homes, and particularly in former coalfield areas, where, despite significant investment, the legacy of those times remains, the EMA could not be more important. The policy is short-sighted from that perspective.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the IFS study published yesterday. It points out that savings in the short term simply do not make sense, because if we invested in our young people in the short term, we would more than recoup that in the long term.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I was very interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) had to say about the pilot in Hackney, because as a young education officer 25 years ago in Gateshead, I was managing a service that was delivering EMAs. It was paid for by the local authority. The young people who received EMAs then are now the parents of the schoolchildren in Gateshead, who, as the Secretary of State often points out, are outperforming similar children under similar authorities across the country. The EMA is not only about student support. It is a gateway to higher education. It is about investing in the local community. Indeed, it is a long-term investment in standards.
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend . Many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall end by saying that it is precisely in such difficult economic times that we should be investing in our young people and sending a very strong signal to them that they matter and their futures matter. I urge the Minister to think again.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Thank you for allowing me to speak, Ms Clark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing the debate just before the end of the year at such a timely point in the Government’s decision-making cycle.
Before the comprehensive spending review, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister, urging him to retain the EMA. There are two excellent colleges in my constituency: a sixth-form college, King Edward’s, where 35% of students receive the EMA, and a very good further education college, Stourbridge college, where 63% of students receive it. I wrote to the Minister to express my concern that the withdrawal of that benefit would deter students from poorer backgrounds from continuing their education, so I well understand the points that have been made in the debate.
I accept that we are in a very different situation, economically and in terms of raising the compulsory leaving age for those in full-time education to 18, from the position that applied when the EMA was introduced, almost a decade ago. My purpose in taking part in the debate is not to seek to change the decision to replace the EMA with a more targeted, enhanced discretionary fund, but to bring to this Chamber the views and concerns about the successor arrangements expressed to me by staff and students of both the colleges that I mentioned.
Last week, during the debate on tuition fees, I was lobbied by Kim Hughes, president of the student union at Dudley college. Dudley college is not in my constituency, but a lot of students studying there reside in my constituency, so it was a pleasure to meet Kim and her accompanying member of staff, Natasha Millward, who approached the mass lobby of Parliament in the true democratic spirit, seeking to inform me, as one of the Members whom they visited, in a proper manner. I was indeed informed about things that I had not previously realised concerning the enhanced discretionary fund proposals.
I shall explain the main concerns that Kim Hughes and Natasha Millward raised with me. First, the rules governing the existing learner support fund exclude the use of moneys from that fund to pay for travel, which is the point that almost every hon. Member in the debate so far has made. Secondly, they raised the issue of the increased burden on colleges in administering an enhanced form of the learner support fund at a time when colleges, like every other public sector organisation, are being expected to reduce their administrative costs.
I am particularly grateful to the principal of King Edward’s college, Sharon Phillips, for questioning this week a random sample of students who attend the college. I appreciate the fact that the students took part and gave such honest feedback. Just 10% of those interviewed said that they thought that they would not have attended college if they had been unable to claim the EMA. I accept the point made by some hon. Members that that is not necessarily the only way in which we should judge whether the other 90% were suitable candidates for the EMA, but I do believe that it is a relevant point and it backs up the research already mentioned in the debate.
Some students who took part in the interviews suggested that the system has been open to abuse and that one way of dealing with that would be to substitute vouchers or free travel passes for the payment. Vouchers would add too much of an administrative burden, but we already administer a system of travel passes for older people, so surely it is not beyond our wit to administer them to young people from poorer backgrounds. That could be a way round the administrative burden falling exclusively on colleges.
The students made other points, and I want to bring to the Minister’s attention the principal’s comment on the findings from her research. Although only 10% of her students told her that they would have been unable to attend college without the EMA, she felt that recruitment by colleges in less affluent areas might be disproportionately hit by the withdrawal of the EMA.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. My point follows on from the one made by the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) about rurality, because that is where things get disproportionately out of sync. Even if there are vouchers or whatever, these children will not have a chance, and places such as Bridgwater college will lose a vast number of students, as will Strode college in the Wells constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the matter needs to be reconsidered completely where rurality is in play?
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am not sure that we are in a position now to revisit the entire proposal to replace the EMA with the enhanced learner support fund. I very much appreciate his intention to do that, but the challenge for the Minister is to ensure that the replacement arrangements are adequate and err on the side of generosity to ensure that students from poorer backgrounds can continue to access further education.
Let me conclude by reinforcing the three messages that I want the Government to consider as they move forward. First, the enhanced discretionary fund should be revised to allow recipients to spend part of their remuneration on travel to and from college. That is particularly important, and I think that I am right in saying that every Member who has contributed so far has mentioned it.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Lady must be aware that among Ken Livingstone’s many achievements while Mayor of London was the provision of free bus travel for students. That has encouraged many students to stay on at college, and it has greatly assisted them. Might not other local authorities and transport areas think of following suit?
Margot James
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am well aware of the former Mayor’s generous travel schemes. Consideration should be given to allowing students—young people from poorer backgrounds—to have similar free travel passes. I would certainly support that proposal.
Let me return to the other two points that I wanted to make to the Minister. Colleges are closer than central Government to their students, and they are therefore better placed to decide who is in real need of financial support, but the additional administrative burden that the change will place on them needs to be acknowledged, and there needs to be some practical support.
Finally, I mentioned that I would like the Government to err on the side of generosity in the replacement arrangements and to increase significantly the money that we invest in enhancing the learner support fund. A greater proportion of students from less affluent parts of our country and less affluent backgrounds who really are in need will then gain some benefit. I trust that the Minister will recommend those enhanced arrangements to Parliament as soon as possible in the new year.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing the debate—its timing could not have been better.
I will focus my remarks on EMA and, more appropriately, on the Government’s intention to scrap it. EMA is absolutely crucial for my constituents. Removing it will damage the hopes and aspirations of young people across the country, but the effect will be particularly bad in my constituency. The present policy represents yet another damaging U-turn by this Government; it is another Lib Dem let-down and a massive betrayal of the hopes and dreams of young people. It sends a resounding message to 16-year-olds who aspire to improve their lives. It leaves talent unfound and unnurtured, while reinforcing poverty traps and dividing further those who are fortunate from those who are not.
Before I develop those points further, it is important to highlight EMA’s success. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was right to say that it was piloted in Hackney. That was in 1999, and EMA was launched across England in 2004. Research by the Responsive College Unit found that it encouraged 18,500 young people to participate in further education in the first year it was rolled out nationally. Those young people would not have had that financial support or that incentive to enter further education were it not for EMA. Similar research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that young people who receive EMA go on to achieve the qualifications required to succeed in life. The percentage of learners receiving EMA who achieve level 2 qualifications has increased by approximately 6%, with specific improvements in ethnic and minority groups.
The facts are clear: this policy was an absolute success, and we should make no mistake about that. To suggest otherwise is completely misleading. EMA truly encouraged young people to go on to achieve what they deserved and desired. It boosted attainment among those facing the biggest challenges in life and enabled them to succeed.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend add one important element to that—confidence? EMA gave young people confidence.
Karl Turner
I absolutely agree. I am sure that that point will be reiterated time and again throughout the debate.
The Minister is well aware of the facts and of EMA’s successes. So, for that matter, are the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education. Before the election, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were quick to deliver assurances that EMA would be protected. Referring to the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the Secretary of State, in a Guardian question and answer session on 2 March, stated:
“Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”
That was not true.
Speaking of education maintenance allowances, the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister—he is never one to miss an opportunity—said,
“no we don’t have any plans to get rid of them.”
Seven months is a long time in politics. What message is the coalition sending to young people about politics and our society? Sixteen to 18-year-olds across the country are being told that education is for those who can afford it, while those who cannot, need not apply.
Given EMA’s successes and the help that it has offered thousands of young people, the current proposal raises the question of whether the Government are comfortable punishing the disadvantaged.
Karl Turner
Not at the moment.
The message is clear. Young people have felt the brute force of this economic vandalism. This generation of young people have had the cruellest introduction to the world of politics. They have barely dipped their toe in the water, but they have been hit by wave after wave of ignored pledges, broken promises and closed ears. The coalition has defined politics for an entire generation in terms of distrust, and the coalition parties will not easily be forgiven. The scrapping of EMA leaves us in a situation where talent will be stunted due to inadequate means. Just under 5,000 young people in Hull will be locked out of further education and, therefore, higher education, and they will have any aspiration quashed.
As I said at the outset, my constituents are particularly affected. Gary, who lives on the Longhill estate in east Hull, cannot afford to pay for his textbooks, stationery or travel, but his EMA allows him to.
Karl Turner
Not at the moment. Many hon. Members are eager to speak, so you will forgive me, Ms Clark, if I do not give way.
Debbie, who lives on Bransholme, does not have the luxury of ambitious parents. She says her parents do not understand the value of further education. She says that they cannot afford to, and will not, pay for her to study, but that EMA does just that. Darren lives on Greatfield estate. His parents are among the lowest 10% of earners in the country, earning just less than £16,000 a year. He needs to pay board, but he cannot afford to. However, his EMA allows him to contribute to the family pot. EMA allows individuals to break through the boundaries and access further education. It puts an end to generation after generation of young people being locked out of further education. It truly enables social mobility.
It is illogical that, on the one hand, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is emphasising the importance of breaking the cycle of welfare dependency, while, on the other, the Education Secretary is removing the support that would enable young people to do better for themselves. If we want families to break free from welfare traps, surely it is important that we instil in our young people a thirst for education, and underline the importance of that. Offering students EMA provides them with an incentive and support to help them along the way. If Gary is without his EMA he will be without his A-levels, and therefore without his physics degree. The domino effect continues. Science and the state will be without that young talent. Can the Government honestly say that they will withdraw their support for Debbie to complete her course, denying her the chance of achieving her true potential? What about Darren, who will no longer be able to complete his NVQ in fashion design? Should he be locked out because he simply cannot afford to do the course without financial support?
I have not even mentioned the unprecedented hike in tuition fees. Even those who are lucky enough to make it through further education will have a mountain to climb on the other side as they face the prospect of £9,000-a-year fees. Let us imagine the situation, in which any of the 16-year-olds whom I have mentioned managed to complete access-to-university courses without support, but then are faced with the prospect of convincing their parents, who are of modest backgrounds, that they are about to embark on a three-year degree course that will cost them £27,00—and no doubt an awful lot more, when accommodation and living are taken into account. I know what my parents would have said to me. I left school at 16 with few qualifications. I ran a business for a while and eventually, when I was financially stable, I went off to do A-levels before completing a law degree. I eventually qualified as a barrister in 2005 at the age of 34. When I was nearing the end of pupillage, I was possibly the most elderly pupil at the Bar; so I know what a struggle it is to get educated.
I have no doubt that without the Labour Government’s lifelong learning agenda I would never have had the academic success and confidence to reach the dizzy heights of membership of the Bar, and of being elected to this place. We should make no mistake. The Government’s policy on further and higher education is not progressive. It is shamefully regressive. It effectively does away with further and higher education for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The Government are more than happy for further and higher education to become the privilege of the few. Those who can afford an education will pay for it and those who cannot simply will not have one. That is the reality of the Government agenda. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I appear angry, but the subject makes me extremely annoyed. The Government will not easily be forgiven by those young people, who are locked out of further and higher education.
EMA is important not only to the family and the student; it has a wider social benefit. Why do the Government insist on washing their hands of post-16 education, leaving the next generation unable to get access to the qualifications that they require to improve their lives? We hear a lot of talk from the Government about fairness. Is this fair? Is it productive, or is not it narrow-minded, ideological, regressive and wholly flawed? I know where I stand. I ask the Minister to look again and to think very carefully about the choices that are being made, and about the aspirations of our constituents. I ask him to put the brakes on and allow Gary, Debbie and Darren, my constituents who have bothered and troubled themselves to e-mail me about their stories, the chance to improve their situations for the benefit of us all. I cannot support the Government’s attempts to create a divide in the education system between those well off enough to pay and those less fortunate, who cannot. For those reasons I will actively oppose the Government every step of the way.
Katy Clark (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that a considerable number still want to speak; the shorter the contributions, the more I can call.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing the debate and introducing it in measured terms that addressed the issues—unlike, perhaps, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who would not take an intervention from the Government side but was happy to repeat the same two points endlessly. I do not think he really took the debate any further forward.
I have concerns about a change from EMA to a college-based system, as, of course, do many students. My constituency has five secondary schools, four of which have sixth forms. That is the model on which much education has been delivered in such market towns. Of course, we also have an excellent and large dispersed Cornwall college group, including Duchy college in my constituency, which I visited on Friday, and several other campuses throughout the peninsula, which deliver a huge range of vocational and academic courses that are vital to the future of the young people concerned.
We must consider the situation we are in. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East was very clear about where he stood and about wanting to condemn and attack the Government, but I did not hear a lot about options for doing anything different. That is what we have to consider about the present situation. I should be quite happy to enter into a debate if we heard exactly what his Government would have done. In the run-up to the election, they talked about the cuts they would have to make if they were re-elected, but of course there is no detail about where those cuts or changes would have come from.
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman can look at Hansard and see how everyone in the Chamber voted. I think we should stick to the debate that we are having today.
The key question for me is how we are using money that should be targeted at the people who need it most. I have had e-mails from constituents who are very concerned, and I accept that there will be some people whose plans for the future will be affected and who will need to think very carefully about what they can do. I shall return to the issue of transport, which is crucial, particularly in an area such as mine.
I have had e-mails from a constituent in Camelford, whose daughter and son get EMA for their education and feel that it is not enough. There is a transport element to getting to the college, and other costs. They believe that they need greater support to secure that. However, they are also aware of other people in the town—and I accept that this is anecdotal—who they feel do very nicely, go on all sorts of holidays and have a wonderful time, and are still in receipt of EMA. That suggests to me that there are, as happens in all areas, some people who are getting support that would perhaps be better targeted at those who need it most.
The Government’s response to the issue is, understandably, to consider the overall budget; but it is also to think about targeting. There are concerns, in a college group such as Cornwall college group, that some people have come into education in the past few years because support is available. I do not accept the argument of dead-weight, but we must also accept that there are people who get EMA who would have gone into further education at 16.
Dan Rogerson
I shall give way in a moment, but I want to finish the point. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead was keen to point out that there are perhaps other benefits to the support, rather than just whether someone would attend. That is an important consideration, but the primary one, and what most of the debate has focused on—particularly the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East—is people not being in education at all and getting out entirely.
Whether people in receipt of EMA may attend a bit more because it has the attendance component is a separate issue. The hon. Gentleman levelled the charge at the Government that people will just not receive education; they will just not go. I do not accept that, because the Government system will have to, and will, address—or if it does not, a lot of Members on this side will want to know why—those people on the margin, where there is an effect on the decision whether to attend.
Dan Rogerson
I have already agreed that I will give way to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
Joan Ruddock
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. EMA was also piloted in my constituency, so would he accept from me that there is a dimension with which he will be less familiar than I am—ethnic minorities? At Lewisham college, half the students pursuing FE courses are from ethnic minorities and 45% of students are on EMA. He may like to acknowledge that there is a special reason why it has created new advantages and encouragement to people who might have been less inclined to stay on at school.
Dan Rogerson
I welcome the right hon. Lady’s intervention. There will be significant other factors in areas different from our own, despite proximity and good public transport. They will be issues such as the ability of families to offer support. In my area, there are issues such as whether young people can physically get to education, which is why transport is crucial for me.
Dan Rogerson
I shall give way to my hon. Friend, and then bring my remarks to a close so that others can speak.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Following the point made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), I have real concerns about where the Government are going on this—let me put my hands up and say that clearly. The Government have to get this right, otherwise lots of people, in all our communities, will not choose to go to FE college at 16 or 17. The viability of some FE colleges will be threatened if we do not get this right.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) agree that, before making any decisions, the Government need not only a national profile, but to know the impact of the policy by local authority area? We need to look at the ethnic mix and at the socio-economic background of the families involved, to see where the youngsters come from. Are they single-parent families, families with no parent earning or families with parents and more than one child or young person in education? They are all factors, and we need the information before any sensible, methodological decision is made.
Dan Rogerson
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is right: we need to be confident that the system the Government are moving to and adopting is fit for purpose and provides a framework in which colleges can operate. That point was made in an earlier intervention as well. How will colleges take the decisions? In what framework will they operate? That is important.
I would like to question the Minister on transport and on ensuring that, in an area such as rural north Cornwall, choice will not be restricted simply by the inability of young people to access the courses they can access at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) said. I hope the Minister and his colleagues will take into account all local factors when they look at the system, which will have different impacts in different areas. If the total budget is reduced, as, unfortunately, it has to be, we should have a system that is targeted effectively and ensures that people are not deprived of the educational opportunities that will mean so much to them in future.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing the debate. I shall try to keep my comments brief, because I know that others wish to speak.
The discretionary learners support fund is a mere 13% of the money provided under the educational maintenance allowance. Do the Government estimate that the number of people in need of financial support through further education is only 13% of what it once was or are Members arguing, as has been suggested, that youngsters will still go to college, but they will go impoverished?
Nearly 19,000 students in Lancashire rely on the EMA to give families the financial flexibility that allows them to continue to study. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who is no longer in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), noted that students in receipt of EMA outperformed other students—by 7% in Sefton and 6% in Hull East, I think. In areas such as my constituency, the EMA often means the difference between going on to further study and not doing so.
Stephen Carlisle, the principal of Accrington and Rossendale college, which is our local college, told me that he is expecting a big drop in numbers. He believes the withdrawal of the EMA
“will impact on the ability of poorer students to go to college”.
The college will have to use its already stretched budget to help those disadvantaged students because, as Mr Carlisle said:
“We can’t cast them aside and just educate those who can afford to go”.
Graham Jones
I will not give way. I want to make some progress, because there are other Members who wish to speak. I do not have a lot of comments to make.
The experience in the college reflects the comments of a lot of other principals; it is not only Mr Carlisle who is expressing that opinion, and when it comes from the educational establishment, I think we should listen.
I could suggest that, in reality, the figure set aside for the new fund was plucked out of thin air and does not reflect any proven need. One might go as far as to say that it is nothing more than a token attempt to ease the pain of taking money from those who need it. However, this is just one part of a wider attack on education. If the Government are so keen to show adherence to the Browne report, why are they ignoring one of its main recommendations—the increase in university participation by 10%—by scrapping a policy that has been shown to increase attendance?
Even by the estimate, which the Government accepted, of the National Foundation for Educational Research, the EMA accounted for 12% of those who attended university. They are people who otherwise may not have gone. The trebling of tuition fees has already made meeting Lord Browne’s 10% increase in participation unlikely, and scrapping the EMA will make it extremely difficult.
Government Members ask what the alternative is; I think the alternative is simple. The cuts are too fast, too deep and they go too far, as we, on this side of the House, have stated. That is a basis for rejecting the proposal. To sum up, the discretionary learners support fund is a token attempt to give a facelift to a counter-intuitive policy.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
During the conference recess, I took the opportunity to visit the sixth forms in my constituency. Many of the students I met were underwhelmed by EMA. Many felt that it was unfair because it was poorly targeted, and many told me stories of friends who spent the money inappropriately. Overwhelmingly, the students felt that the priority, particularly in my very rural constituency, was getting to college in the first place. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made the point that in London students already benefit from free travel passes. In a rural constituency such as Devon, that would be extremely difficult for the council to implement.
I would like the students in my constituency, who attend excellent colleges such as KEVICC—King Edward VI community college—South Devon college and Paignton community college, to be able physically to get to them in the first place. The students were asking for free or greatly subsidised travel. I call on the Minister to respond to the point that many hon. Members have made today and make transport part of a much enhanced programme of support arrangements—particularly for disadvantaged students, such as those from low-income families, for whom that really makes a difference in helping them to get to college. They do use the allowance for that.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing the debate. I shall take a couple of minutes to give voice to some of the students I met on Monday at the Manchester college Benchill campus in my constituency. Manchester college has 6,000 students aged 16 to 19, 60% of whom claim EMA. They told me about the practical benefits that EMA brings them. It means that they can pay for their bus fares, food at college, books and equipment.
Some of the young men, who were explaining the training that they were doing for trades, told me that they need to build up a kit while they are studying, which can cost as much as £600. Those are real, substantial costs, which the EMA is helping to offset. They all feared the burden that they may become to their parents, particularly bearing in mind that many of them have brothers and sisters who, when the EMA is gone, will face the same dilemmas. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy): we should stop using the dead-weight cost expression—it is not any way to describe hard-working students.
With regard to staying on, the majority of students told me that without EMA they would still have gone to college. Some of them would not. All, without exception, said that without EMA they would not have studied as successfully, because they would have been under more pressure to take on part-time work, and would have had the wrong balance between studying and the rest of their lives.
EMA makes an incredible difference to how students are able to focus and concentrate on their studies, settle into work on their courses and achieve a great deal. I urge the Minister to think again about this policy; it is even more destructive to the hopes and ambitions of my young constituents than the decision that the Government put through last week.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this important and timely debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who has had to leave. I know she has been trying for some time to secure the debate, together with our hon. Friend.
Both hon. Friends are proven great champions of young people from low-income backgrounds. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the strong arguments that we have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan is also a prolific tabler of parliamentary questions, and I commend her for her persistence on this issue; I only wish that Ministers would get into the spirit of open democracy and answer some of the questions more promptly.
This has been a good-natured and high-quality debate, considering the passion that the subject evokes, especially in our party. The debate is not yet over, so perhaps I should not speak too soon. However, I will try to stay within that spirit. We have had some strong speeches, although probably not as many as we would have liked, as a number of hon. Members have not been able to speak. I hope the Minister will take that on board and perhaps ask whether this matter should be debated on the Floor of the House in Government time.
Those who have spoken include: the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), for Stourbridge (Margot James) and for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson); my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones); and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who was very brief, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). There were some excellent contributions and I am sorry that I do not have time to go through them all in detail.
We have had a lot of debate on EMA this week, including the “Save EMA” national campaign day in Westminster and around the country, when 60,000 young people sent a clear message to the Government that this policy is unfair. Yesterday, we had an extremely embarrassing report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies—referred to by some hon. Friends—which laid bare the ridiculously weak evidence base the Government use to support their position.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
In mentioning the IFS, my hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that the Government spent a lot of time insisting on the NFER study, which focuses only on participation. EMA, does she not agree, has four main purposes—participation, attendance, attainment and supporting the well-being of people from disadvantaged backgrounds in education? Those things have not been evaluated properly, though the IFS study reported yesterday started to do so.
Mrs Hodgson
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, one which I hope the Minister and Government will consider before coming forward with an announcement in this regard.
This morning we had a very good seminar in the Boothroyd room, at which young people, teachers and administrators from across the country—including Becky, Codie, John and Jordan from Hylton skills campus in my constituency—talked to politicians about what scrapping EMA will mean to them. It was a shame that the Minister could not be there. With respect to all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, it would have been much more valuable for the Minister to have heard first-hand what young people and those who work with them say to those of us willing to listen, about how much impact this choice will have on the lives of people from the poorest backgrounds.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I wanted to put that question to the Minister, had I had the opportunity to speak. How many colleges have the Government spoken to about this policy? I spoke recently to staff from Newcastle college, which carried out a survey of all its EMA recipients, 85% of whom use it for transport costs. I was alarmed to hear it stated in this debate that EMA is regularly and widely abused. That is not the experience of colleges that I have spoken to.
Mrs Hodgson
That was definitely not the experience that Members heard from students this morning. We heard some powerful and at times very moving contributions. Many students told us how EMA is barely enough at the moment to cover their travel costs and their lunch. A young man called Luke told us of his peers who could not eat before or at college because their money did not go far enough. How many more will be in that position when EMA is removed? We know that eating well leads to better attainment. Even though the Minister and his colleagues scrapped the extension to free school meals, he must acknowledge the scientific evidence.
We heard from the principal of Lambeth college that EMA had led to a rise in participation and achievement and a fall in drop-outs. We heard from Cath and Alex, who had brought the young people all the way down from my constituency in Sunderland, that EMA helps young people with financial planning, which reduces the likelihood of their getting into debt in later life. We heard from a student who had dropped out of school in year 8, but was now studying towards GCSE-level qualifications because of EMA. We heard from a young single mother, who could only attend college and take her child to the crèche because of EMA. We also heard from all the staff that EMA was helping young people.
The most poignant moment was a comment from John, who with his peers had got up at 4 am to come down from Sunderland for the meeting. He sat there until the end, then said:
“Sharon said on Friday that I should follow my dreams. EMA gives me the chance to follow my dreams, and if you take it away, I don’t know what I’ll do.”
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I will be brief. I wanted to share an example from my constituency. Kyle Simpson is a young Olympic hopeful training alongside Rebecca Adlington. He says EMA makes such a difference. His mum contributes to his training fees, and EMA enables him to go to college and have a little bit of money for transport, food and something of a social life, when he is not training and competing in swimming competitions.
Mrs Hodgson
That is another very good example. Many of the young people I met today were in their first year of study, and had undertaken to stay on in the sixth form or college on the understanding that that support would remain for the full two years. Why would they think otherwise?
After all, the man who painted himself as a modern, trustworthy leader of the Conservative party went around telling people that EMA was safe. In March, the current Education Secretary told the Guardian—in the nicest possible terms, as is his way—that his predecessor was a liar for suggesting that a Conservative Government would scrap EMA. In June, the very Minister sent here today to defend this policy put his commitment to the future of EMA on the parliamentary record.
Imagine the surprise of these young people at finding out that a promise from any of these men is not worth the paper it is written on. If the Minister and his colleagues in the Conservative party were as committed as they say they are to the principle of helping working-class kids access further education, why have they now turned their backs on them?
In the last debate on this subject, I heard the Government and the Minister, as well as some Government Back Benchers here, repeatedly trot out the line that 90% of EMA recipients are what they call “dead-weight”. We might hear it again in the Minister’s response—I hope not—despite the fact that we have heard plenty of contradictory evidence over the last hour. They should not be referred to in that manner.
I have a lot of respect for the Minister but, frankly, I find it disgusting to hear him and his colleagues talk about ambitious but poor young people as dead-weight. Never mind the fact that without EMA they might have to work every evening and weekend just to afford bus fares, food and books, because they want to better themselves. Because they want to better themselves, he believes that they are undeserving of support.
I do not know about the Minister, but I have actually bothered to go to my local colleges, as have hon. Friends to theirs, and speak to young people who receive EMA. The Minister says that nine out 10 of them would fall into the category of dead-weight, but I can inform him that the young people whom I visited are very much alive and working hard to better themselves, and they are angry with him. Some of them are around today, and they might try to catch his ear as he leaves. Perhaps he should prepare a response.
The Minister will undoubtedly be aware that the Hylton skills campus is part of the City of Sunderland college. Its excellent principal, Angela O’Donoghue, e-mailed me yesterday to tell me that the cuts would have a massive impact on her college. Some 70% of her students receive EMA, and 90% of those receive the full £30. How many of those young people would the Minister say are undeserving of help?
I shall bring my remarks to a close because we want to hear what the Minister has to say. I have done loads of sums—I know that people like to hear about my calculations—but I may have to save them for another day. However, I might write to the Minister and pass the benefit of those sums to him.
Richard Thorold, the principal of Gateshead college, which my son attends, wrote to me. He said:
“Whilst I accept that these are difficult times financially, I believe that financial support for young people continuing their education and training is a valuable investment towards creating a sustainable future for us all.”
The key question for the Minister is why do the Government not think so?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing today’s debate. I know that she cares passionately about supporting young people in their continuing education, a passion that I share.
One of the Government’s objectives is full participation in education, training, or employment with training, for all young people up to the age of 18. I listened to the hon. Lady carefully, and I understand the concerns of students at Bexley further education college, where 43% of students qualify for education maintenance allowance, and those at Greenwich community college, where 38% of students qualify. Nationally, 45% of students qualify for EMA, so I am aware that the decisions that we have taken affect a large number of 16 to 18-year-olds.
We need to set the debate in the context of the budget deficit. It is £156 billion this year, the highest among G20 countries.
Mr Gibb
I shall give way once I have finished this point.
The interest on accumulated Government debt to date is £42.7 billion per year, which represents 70% of the entire Department for Education budget. Unless we take serious measures to tackle the deficit, we will face a higher cost of borrowing as capital markets demand greater compensation for the heightened risk. Without the action that the Government are taking, we would ultimately face the economic crises that now confront Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal. This country was on the brink of financial crisis.
Mr Gibb
I will give way once I have finished the point.
This country took action in the emergency Budget and the spending review. As a result, that crisis has been averted. I listened to the 14 or 15 Opposition Members who spoke during the debate, and I did not hear one alternative suggestion of how to find a saving of £500 million elsewhere in the Budget. They had no answer on how to avoid financial meltdown, or how to tackle the record budget deficit that the Labour Government left for this Government to clear up. They had no answer on how to bring our economy back from the brink.
Labour’s stewardship of the economy has left young people struggling to find jobs, as employers freeze recruitment. Unless we get the economy moving again, that tragedy will persist. Not tackling the deficit will put that recovery in jeopardy. I give way to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), to see whether he can tell us how to find £500 million of savings elsewhere in the Budget.
Graham Jones
Is it not the case that it was the Government’s choice to cut so deep? Is it not the case that, before the election and afterwards, the Government accused Labour Members of not cutting deep enough? Is it not the case, therefore, that the Government chose to remove the EMA for the economic decisions that the Minister has outlined? The Opposition would not have needed to do that, nor go as far, because, as the Minister says, we would not have cut the deficit so fast.
Mr Gibb
The economy would have suffered as a result.
EMA costs £560 million a year. As we heard, it has been in existence for about six years; it was rolled out nationally in 2004, following a pilot. It was successful in raising participation rates among 16-year-olds from 87% in 2004 to 96% this year. As a consequence, attitudes among 16-year-olds to staying on in education have changed. When the National Foundation for Educational Research questioned recipients of EMA, it found that 90% would have stayed on in education regardless of whether they received EMA.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he accept that the two strands of the allowance are becoming intermixed? There is the role of the allowance in persuading people to stay on, and there is the role of the allowance in enabling people to stay on who might otherwise not be able to afford to do so.
A briefing from the Conservative Councillors’ Association points out that the staying-on age will be raised, but that will not happen until 2015. What worries people such as the principal of Brockenhurst college in my constituency is that the EMA will stop in September 2011. In the limited time that remains, I hope that my hon. Friend will focus on the transition arrangements, which are of great concern to us all.
Katy Clark (in the Chair)
I remind Members that interventions should be short.
Mr Gibb
I shall come to that point in a moment.
The fact is that 90% of recipients of EMA would have stayed on in education regardless. Given that evidence, the fact that we have a major budget deficit crisis and the fact that the programme costs so much each year, it was clearly going to be a candidate for major reform.
Mr Gibb
I am sorry, but I cannot give way as I have only four minutes left.
In reaching the decision to end EMA, we were of course concerned that the 10% of recipients whom the evidence said would have been put off from staying in education but for the money might then drop out of education. We believe that a payment designed as an incentive to participate—a point hinted at by my hon. Friend—is no longer the way to ensure that those facing real financial barriers to participation get the support that they need. That point was made well by my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) and for York Outer (Julian Sturdy).
We therefore decided to use a proportion of that £560 million to increase the value of the discretionary learner support fund. Final decisions about the quantum of that extra funding still have to be taken, but we have already spoken of increasing the value of that fund by up to three times its current value, which stands at £25.4 million. A fund of that size would enable 100,000 young people to receive £760 each year. Those 100,000 students represent about 15% of those young people who receive EMA, which is more than the 10% about whom we are particularly concerned who might not stay on in education. The figure of £760 is more than the average annual EMA paid in 2009-10 of £730, and only slightly less than the £813 paid to 16-year-olds who received the full £30 a week, or the £796 paid to 17-year-olds receiving the full £30 per week.
We are erring on the side of doing all that we can to assist the poorest, as sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James). However, the Government will not set expectations on how much young people should receive from the enhanced discretionary fund. It will be up to schools and colleges to determine which young people should receive support under the new arrangements, and what form that support should take. In answer to a question, I can tell the House that colleges can use 5% of the fund for administration.
To help schools and colleges administer the fund, and to ensure that those young people who really need support to enable them to continue their education or training have access to the new fund, we are working with schools and colleges, and other key organisations such as the Association of Colleges, Centrepoint and the Sutton Trust, to develop a model approach that schools and colleges can choose to adopt or adapt.
In the remaining minute, I shall try to answer some of the questions raised during the debate. Many hon. Members asked about transport. Under current arrangements, discretionary support funding cannot be routinely used for transport to and from college. It is local authorities that have the statutory responsibility for making the necessary transport arrangements. However, we will consider that restriction as we develop the arrangements for enhanced discretionary learner support funding. The House can be assured on that point.
I have dealt with the question about administration. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked about the sum of £174 million. That is the estimate of what will be spent on EMA in the 2011-12 financial year, the payments being made during the 2010-11 academic year. However, it will not be available in the next academic year.
Small Manufacturing Businesses
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
This debate is about small businesses and it is also about people. In September 2005, the life of my constituent, Don Wilson, was turned upside down when his son was tragically killed in a rugby accident while serving in the British Army. Toby was just 29 when he died, and he left behind an eight-year-old daughter. Don wanted a new start and a chance to get on with something that would ease his grief. A short while later, the opportunity came along. Don had joined Loughboro Designs (UK) Ltd in July 1984 as a metal fabricator. He rose to be a foreman and worked on high-profile projects for international clients, including New York’s Mayor Bloomberg and the Saudi royal family.
Shortly after Toby’s death, Don’s boss retired and Don was given the chance to buy the company. Given everything that had happened in British industrial manufacturing over the past 25 years, it seemed like a good opportunity. Any high-skills specialist metals manufacturing company that could prosper for so long—the Loughboro name had been trading for more than 50 years—must be doing something right. Don said that when he bought the company, his whole family became involved. He said that it was a way to move forward in memory of Toby.
Not long after 2005, there was the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US that led to the credit crunch and then worldwide economic meltdown. Over 18 months, the economy in Britain contracted by 6%. It is estimated that our economy is about 10% smaller now than it would have been had the recession not taken place. Inevitably, that has had a major impact on small businesses, particularly on those that are heavily reliant on capital investment for their success, because loans for capital investment dried up. In short, the slump that began with bad lending policies by the banks has hit industrial manufacturing twice as hard because of yet more bad lending policies. Loughboro is one of many firms that is under threat. My first point is about the banks and what they should do to help companies such as Loughboro for the sake of the British economy.
In August, Loughboro’s bank, HSBC, announced half-yearly profits of more than £7 billion. That is the equivalent of nearly £1 million profit every half hour of every day, or of a brand new general hospital, such as St Helier that serves my constituency, every 10 days. Also in August, the Chancellor warned the UK’s banks that they needed to start increasing their lending to businesses. He said that the Government would
“not tolerate banks piling the pressure”
on to small firms. Moreover, the banks have an economic obligation to assist small and medium-sized businesses. However, many small businesses still find that they are unable to get the support that they need from the banks. In Loughboro’s case, despite having worked hard to reduce significantly its loan from £30,000 to £6,000, HSBC cut its overdraft facility from £25,0000 to £5,000. With new contracts due to begin in January 2011, Loughboro’s inability to increase its cash flow and invest in capital puts the future of those contracts in jeopardy.
Reading other reports from elsewhere, it is clear that firms such as Loughboro are not the only ones that are teetering on the edge partly as a result of the banks’ policies. The BBC recently highlighted the plight of a number of similar firms. For instance, Abcoma, a manufacturing company in Oldham, had predicted the economic downturn and had managed to pay off all its debts about four years ago. It complains that even though the downturn is over, it cannot get any working capital from the banks to make the machinery that it needs. That is despite the fact that it has a full order book worth some £1 million and that it wants to employ an extra 10 to 12 engineers. Abcoma says that even though the local bank manager wants to lend money for working capital, the powers above him make that almost impossible, even with security against property.
I have been in touch with the Merton chamber of commerce, which covers my constituency, about these issues. It has done a light-touch survey of its members. Although 45% think that next year will be good for business and 53% think that they will grow, 31% say that 2011 will be worse than this year and nearly half think that they might not grow. One of the key reasons for such pessimism is the banks’ policies. Some 30% of businesses say that their main challenges in 2011 will include constraints on their working capital and 16.5% complain about the difficulty of raising finances.
I thank the Merton chamber of commerce for its help, and praise it and other business organisations for the work that they do in promoting local business. I have also contacted the Federation of Small Businesses—I cannot praise it highly enough—about banks’ lending policies. It, too, made a range of very good points. As small businesses do not have the range of options that medium and large businesses have to raise finance, they rely heavily on banks for support. The FSB complains that small manufacturers have not been able to access affordable finance from the banks, and that that has been holding back the economic recovery. It also complains that many bank managers, particularly those who are distant from the firms, do not understand the manufacturing sector and do not appreciate the kind of finance that it needs from them. Many firms that want loans of only £10,000 to £20,000 are told that £35,000 is the minimum, and that adds unnecessarily to their costs.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. Small businesses are so vital to economic recovery. May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to this recent report by IfM Education and Consultancy Services on effective support for smaller manufacturing businesses? The key finding to emerge from all its studies was the common-sense one that effective support has to be carefully targeted at the particular circumstances and priorities for growth of each individual small business. Does not the experience of the firm in her constituency and the others that she talks about bear that out, and is that not something that the Government need to take on board?
Siobhain McDonagh
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. Loughboro found that its most flexible short-term access to money, through its overdrafts, was suddenly and arbitrarily cut. The FSB would like to see a broader range of affordable finance to small manufacturers to reduce the dominance of the banks—for instance by creating community development finance initiatives to help small manufacturers. The FSB also wants high street banks to create a central contact point for manufacturers so that they can be supported more effectively, and reform to the banks application systems better to understand the needs of small manufacturers.
I am sure that the expensive lobby firms and the in-house public affairs teams employed by the banks will be listening to this debate or reading it in Hansard. I urge them to tell their chief executives and their boards that they are doing themselves and our economy no favours, and that the British public will continue to hold them to blame. I call on them to listen to the points that our small businesses are making through me today.
Earlier today, nearly a month after I contacted HSBC about Loughboro, and after weeks of chasing, I had a phone call from Andy Grisdale, its head of strategy implementation for UK commercial banking. I cannot say whether it was because of this debate that I finally got the call from HSBC, but we can all draw our own conclusions. I have just been informed by Dee, my secretary, that within the last few minutes I have also received an e-mail from HSBC. I am sorry that I do not know its contents. I was on my way over here and so did not have the chance to read it.
Mr Grisdale said that the reason the bank was not prepared to offer any more money to Loughboro was that the information that it had about the company was out of date. He said that it has not had details of profit-and-loss projections or up-to-date accounts for more than a year, that the bank needs to lend responsibly, and not just throw good money after bad, and that it was not HSBC’s role to help pay off debts to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. No doubt some of those excuses are valid, but small firms are made up of human beings, and sometimes the help that they need is to do with planning ahead responsibly, and the banks have a role there, too. I therefore hope that HSBC will think again about its policy towards Loughboro and work more proactively and urgently with people such as myself to help us, rather than ignoring us or hoping that we will just go away.
If this firm goes over the edge because of a short-sighted approach to lending by banks, yet another little bit of Britain’s manufacturing industry will be gone and eight more real, live human beings will lose their jobs after a lifetime of hard work—real people such as Don Wilson, who have real families. If the worst happens, we in this House will not forget. Almost all of us have met people such as Don and we will not forget the role that banks such as HSBC play in killing their dreams, when they could play a role in keeping those dreams alive.
I think that that is a fair summary of what many Members feel about the approach of the banks at this time. However, I also want to ask the Minister what he can do to put an end to bad practice in the banking sector. It is four months since his right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the banks about their “obligations”. On the ground, however, there is little evidence of increased lending. What can this Government do to make the banks lend and what can they do to help firms directly if the banks will not help them?
Many firms fought bravely through the recession, often thanks to Government measures such as the cut in VAT, but what will be the point of that fight if, now that the economy appears to be stabilising thanks to those policies, the taps are turned off again and the manufacturing sector suffers a double-dip? I believe that there are parallels between what is happening to firms such as Loughboro and what could happen to the wider economy. Perhaps if the tap of investment is turned off too soon in an attempt to end the deficit quickly, the businesses and the human resources capacity that are needed to build a solid recovery will be killed off.
That brings me to my second point. It is not just the banks that are bringing down firms such as Loughboro. In this case, the other and more immediate villain of the piece is the inflexibility of the public purse, in the guise of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Once again, I want to take this opportunity to complain about the attitude of HMRC to dealing with Members’ concerns. Just as with HSBC, I have had great difficulty—
Siobhain McDonagh
Just as with HSBC, I have had great difficulty getting anyone at HMRC to answer my calls or respond to my messages. I called for this debate much as a result of how difficult it has been for the two organisations to deal with my constituent’s case with any sense of urgency. Perhaps if they had responded with more courtesy towards me and my constituent, the debate would not have been necessary. We have almost come to expect that the banks, with their billion-pound profits and eye-watering bonuses would behave arrogantly, as if they are untouchable masters of the universe, but it is disappointing that a public body such as HMRC has proved equally uninterested in people’s lives.
The past year has been a continuing struggle for small businesses. In the case of Loughboro, the amount owed to HMRC has been the biggest indicator of that. Over the year, its debt to the taxman has grown to around £60,000. Loughboro has been trying to negotiate with HMRC, but the bailiffs are now involved. Before the debate was announced, the bailiffs were due to go in today, to take away machinery, which would have meant the end of the business. Again, we can only speculate about whether today’s debate is the reason why the bailiffs are not going in after all—HMRC has been particularly difficult to talk to, so it has not been able to tell me.
I understand that Loughboro has written to HMRC today to offer three different payment plans: one to repay the £60,000 over nine months, another over six months and the last over just four months. The last would mean having to pay back nearly £4,000 a week, which would be difficult considering that wages, rents, suppliers and costs still have to be paid, but Loughboro was willing to try.
If HMRC does not behave reasonably, companies will not be able to continue trading. If that happens, not only would the taxman fail to get back all he is owed, but he would not get anything in future—no more tax receipts from the company or its employees—and, indeed, the taxpayer would probably end up having to pay benefits to the workers and their families. Taxpayers would also end up paying the staff statutory redundancy which, as some of them have been with Loughboro for 25 years, is likely to be around £35,000. If I had not secured the debate today, HMRC’s bailiffs could have already taken away Loughboro’s last hope, removing specialist machinery for scrap and putting people on the scrapheap, even though that would cost the taxpayer more in the long run than the machines are actually worth.
The FSB says that there are many ways in which the tax system could be improved to prevent such things from happening. Many small businesses complain that the tax system is too complex and confusing for them—it is a disincentive. The FSB wants the tax system simplified to allow more manufacturers to take advantage of the allowances and reliefs available. It also believes that there is a lack of confidence in the tax system and wants the Government to create a dedicated unit in HMRC to help small manufacturers. As people say, “Tax shouldn’t have to be taxing.”
People whose expertise is in manufacturing rather than accountancy often need help, and they should be given it. Indeed, on occasion, Governments have listened to small manufacturing businesses, to the benefit of all. The Time to Pay scheme for small businesses has been successful, and the FSB is working with HMRC to ensure that it is part of a wider shift to a friendlier approach to small businesses. Time to Pay has been crucial to thousands of businesses with limited cash flow, and more such schemes are needed.
Unfortunately, many small business owners still find the taxman very unsympathetic and obstructive. For instance, some businesses have asked HMRC if they can spread payments but are being told that, if they have paid any dividends during the year, they will be disbarred immediately from any help. That is even though they have done nothing illegal, just arranged their affairs to minimise outgoing payments, and the FSB has told me, forcefully, that that is unreasonable.
I am therefore calling on the Minister to instruct HMRC to be helpful—not to ignore MPs and their constituents, not to be uninterested in businesses that are struggling, but to be helpful. In my constituent’s case, I also ask him please to talk to HMRC and persuade it to take a pragmatic approach towards Loughboro. It might take longer to get the money, but spreading payments over a longer period could save the country money in the long run. I appreciate that the Minister’s bosses have taken a more short-sighted view with the wider economy, as they want to pay back the deficit sooner and quicker than many people believe is sensible, irrespective of the damage that might be caused. However, I hope that he can persuade HMRC to take a longer-term view with Loughboro.
I do not often get contacted by manufacturing businesses—Mitcham and Morden is not a big industrial centre. Firms such as Loughboro do not often appear on our radar, but small businesses make up 99% of the 4.8 million businesses across the UK. They employ approximately 50% of the UK work force and are responsible for almost 40% of our economic output. The manufacturing sector in the UK contributes £155 billion to the economy and employs 2.6 million people.
Even in constituencies such as Mitcham and Morden, which do not seem to be hubs of business enterprise, small firms make a big difference. For the economy to have any chance of emerging successfully from the recession and from the cuts, we depend on the success of small manufacturers, and they should be listened to by the Government. If our small manufacturing firms suffer, we all suffer. We need those firms. If companies such as Loughboro cannot be helped to survive, how will we persuade people such as Don to take them on in the future? Why would anyone want the grief? Yes, they are businesses, but they are full of human beings and, if they struggle, the cost is a human cost.
Don Wilson has already been through many difficult times in his life. He is a human being who did a good thing. He worked hard and took over a company employing local people when the previous owner retired. He kept it going and brought in new contracts. However, Don Wilson told me:
“I have had to lay men off, I have literally halved my work force and still have found it hard to continue. Some mornings, I don’t want to get up and go to work, but I think of my son and the people who are depending on me and this is what drives me on—my wife, my children, my family.”
Now that it looks as though we are coming through the worst of our economic troubles, I hope that we will not let him, his family or his employees down. They are good people, the sort that this country badly needs, and the banks, HMRC and Ministers should stand up for them, just as Members like me are standing up for them. Thank you Ms Clark, for the opportunity to put their case.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate, but also on setting out with real passion and determination how we ensure that the smallest enterprises are able to cope in difficult times. Given the Division, I think I am right, Ms Clark, in saying that I have until 4.40 pm. I want to ensure that I do not either run out of puff or get the wrong deadline and not get to the questions asked.
There are a number of broader issues, as well as the specific issue of this particular business. I would like to start with Loughboro Designs, so that I can then move on to the broader issues raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), on cash flow, tax and the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises to access finance.
Having run my own business, I understand the problems that the hon. Lady described. I was concerned to hear about the difficulties that Loughboro Designs has had, and she is absolutely right that the tragic death of Mr Wilson’s son adds to the human aspect of the case. I totally agree that we often forget that SMEs are in many ways about people far more than about cash sheets or balance sheets. The character of a business is always shaped by the character of the owner, and the difficulties on a personal level, to which she has referred, should be borne in mind.
When I learnt about the hon. Lady’s concerns, I instructed my officials to investigate the case, and they have been holding discussions with HMRC to see whether it would be possible to arrange a repayment plan for Loughboro Designs’s VAT bill. The hon. Lady highlighted some initial difficulties about contact with HMRC, which I have noted and will raise with my colleagues and officials. HMRC has been shown to be sympathetic to SMEs, and in the case of Loughboro Designs it has confirmed that it is willing in principle to conclude a further agreement under its Time to Pay initiative. It is willing, exceptionally, to receive a further payment proposal, which the business obviously will now need to draft.
Before seeing that new proposal, we cannot guarantee that it will be accepted, but I will ensure that it gets a fair hearing. In the meantime, the distraint action that the hon. Lady described will be held in abeyance. I hope that an agreement can be reached so that the company will be able to fulfil the orders that I understand it has for next January and thereafter. I hope that she will agree that those are initial, positive steps to try to unpick what is obviously a difficult problem.
My officials have also been in contact with the company’s bank, HSBC, to explore whether there is any scope for making additional lending facilities available. I share the hon. Lady’s concern that no viable company should be driven out of business unnecessarily. In that context, once the Time to Pay agreement is resolved, that will be the moment when the bank can act. We will keep in contact with her and the business, and I hope that those measures will give some comfort to her and to Mr Wilson. I also hope that that brings to the attention of Members the role of our “Real help for businesses now” team within the Department, which is able, willing and ready to help viable companies in distress.
The hon. Lady referred to the broader question of HMRC and the Time to Pay initiative, which I think is important. To be fair to HMRC, although there will inevitably be times when businesses are frustrated about discussions, it has set up the business payments support service so that companies that find themselves under pressure can quickly and easily arrange an agreement. Under that scheme, businesses can delay payment of VAT, corporation tax and other taxes to help manage short-term financial difficulties.
In that context, I take the view that cash is king. Time to Pay is about providing a lifeline for SMEs, which, more than any large business, find that tightened cash flow is the factor that drives them down and prevents them from proceeding. Interestingly, the figures available to date show that more than 370,000 such arrangements have been agreed, involving the deferral of around £6.3 billion in taxes.
I emphasise—it is a fair point to make—that Time to Pay is intended to support businesses that are fundamentally sound. The taxman clearly cannot support businesses whose financial viability is dependent on not paying taxes. That would not make sense; it would be good neither for them nor for the economy as a whole. The issue is about helping companies that are fundamentally sound, but might have a short-term problem.
The hon. Lady also mentioned how the tax system works and referred to the FSB. We agree with it that we need a simpler, more predictable and internationally competitive corporate tax regime. That is why in our first few months in government we have tried to take some positive steps. It is one of the reasons why we stopped much of the previous Government’s planned rise in national insurance contributions.
The FSB reckons that that rise could have cost about 57,000 jobs, so we have made an important change. We are also cutting the main rate of corporation tax over the next four years from 28% to 24%, so that this country will have one of the lowest rates of any major western economy. That means, particularly for manufacturers, that the balance between the corporation tax reforms and the reforms that we are planning for capital allowances will leave £250 million a year in the coffers of manufacturing businesses, which is good news. With regard to smaller firms, we are also reducing the small companies corporation tax rate to 20p, rather than increasing it to 22p, as the previous Administration planned to do.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned access to finance, which is important. Clearly, some businesses are still feeling that pressure, and as we move out of recession and into the early stages of recovery, there tends to be a tightening on the position for businesses, particularly on the availability of working capital. Our view with banking is clear: where we are presented with evidence that banks are behaving unreasonably on lending decisions or the terms and conditions related to them, we will consistently and persistently challenge the banks involved. We need to ensure that we have that evidence. Where we do, we act, and we will continue to do so.
It has been encouraging in the past six months to see the banks start to step forward with clear commitments. The British Bankers Association brought forward 17 commitments in its new proposals to help move things forward, and those words now need to become actions. The proposals include a revised lending code for small firms and a new appeals process for cases in which finance has been declined, and those proposals are especially relevant to smaller businesses. It also includes a £1.5 billion growth fund to be spread over the next 10 years, which is important for companies wishing to grow.
I suggest that the question of competition is just as important so that business have a choice. At the moment, the choice is narrow—principally four high street banks. That is why we have asked the Independent Commission on Banking to look carefully at how we can broaden that, and it will set out its initial ideas in the spring.
The hon. Lady rightly asked what the Government can do in the meantime to bridge the gap. We are taking action to extend the enterprise finance guarantee, which was rightly established under the previous Administration, and are now providing £600 million extra over the coming year. We are rolling the enterprise finance guarantee out over the next four years, which means unlocking about £2 billion extra in bank lending.
The hon. Lady also rightly referred to community development finance institutions. I am pleased to be able to tell her that on Monday I met the Community Development Finance Association and spelt out that we will not only reform the enterprise finance guarantee for existing lenders, but do so in a way that makes it easier for CDFIs to be part of it. The Government will therefore be able to underpin our lending to those small micro-businesses that, frankly, many of the banks do not reach. Those will make some important differences to some of the micro-businesses involved. We are also increasing the enterprise capital funds by around £200 million over the next four years, which will provide around £300 million in additional venture capital investments. Therefore, there is help with debt and with equity.
However, there is another aspect that I find is increasingly raised by the small business community, particularly in those areas of manufacturing where capital investment is important: the role of business angels. We are keen to see an expansion of business angels and are interested in how we can make the climate for them more investment friendly. That is why we are encouraging them, together with Capital for Enterprise Ltd, the Government’s SME investment arm, to put a bid to the regional growth fund to create a business angel co-investment fund.
Mr Andrew Smith
How helpful does the Minister think the Government’s changes to capital gains tax have been in that respect?
Mr Prisk
I think that they have been helpful. Certainly, the representations I have received indicate that the fact that the entrepreneur’s relief, which is now 10%, has been extended from £2 million to £5 million, has been welcomed by many people in the investment community and the small business community. Those reforms matter, because if we can make progress in that area, we can move forward.
I am conscious of the time and so will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I commend the hon. Lady on securing the debate and hope that the specific actions to which I have referred for supporting Loughboro Designs will progress. The Government are also trying to help with regard to tax, finance and cash flow, all of which are crucial. I hope that the developments I have mentioned will proceed, and I will be happy to talk with her after the debate and in the coming weeks to see whether further action will be necessary in the case that she has discussed or similar cases in her constituency.
Flooding (Cornwall)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I am delighted to introduce my first Westminster Hall debate with you in the Chair, Ms Clark, and I am pleased that this important debate is happening almost a month to the day since the floods hit Cornwall early in the morning on 17 November. It is a mark of how significant the events were in Cornwall that other Members of Parliament are present and hoping to make a contribution. My hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) are here. Both of their constituencies, like mine, were affected by the flooding.
At the outset, I would like to take a moment to commend the professionalism and dedication of the Cornish emergency services, Cornwall council, local town and parish councils, the Environment Agency, and local churches, chapels, clubs and residents associations which, in a typical display of Cornish solidarity, pulled together to do an outstanding job in difficult circumstances. As the extent of the damage caused by the floods became apparent, all those groups rallied together to do what they could to help.
When I spoke to people in St Austell, Polmassick, Mevagissey, Pentewan, St Blazey and Par, having seen for myself the devastation that had been caused, I heard stories about the responses of neighbours and family who provided the essentials that people needed.
It is not often that a local MP welcomes both the Prime Minister and the Prince of Wales to their constituency on the same day. It would be wrong of me not to put on the record how grateful we in Cornwall were for their time on that day and for their continued interest since then—and, indeed, for the continued interest of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On a personal level, I am grateful for the support that the Minister gave me throughout the following days and weeks.
The combined information from the Environment Agency and Cornwall council indicates that hundreds of homes and businesses were damaged. The repair bill is estimated to be tens of millions of pounds. The Environment Agency and partner organisations have been working in the affected areas on clean-up, inspecting and repairing flood defence systems, and speaking with communities to learn what they thought went wrong in the places where schemes already existed. There are particular issues in each part of my constituency, and I believe that it is worth bringing them to the attention of the House.
In St Austell, there are concerns that over-development of the hillsides surrounding the town has led to added risks of flooding in basements in the town centre. In Pentewan, a recent flood defence investment did not work as it should have. In St Blazey and Par, pumps seem not to have been turned on in a timely way, and there is the issue of the regular cleaning of culverts and storm drains, which might have eased some of the problems.
In Polmassick, the ancient bridge simply could not cope with the volume of water trying to get under it to the flood plain just beyond it. Across the constituency, the warning systems that were supposed to notify residents of problems ahead universally failed.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Although there were far fewer homes affected in my constituency, businesses and homes in Portloe on the Roseland peninsula were badly affected. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that, in the future, timely warnings of impending flood risk would help people to prepare what defences they are able to prepare.
Stephen Gilbert
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, because she could not be more accurate. There was the potential to deliver warnings, and we must ensure that when warnings are issued by statutory agencies, they are passed on to the public.
Despite the problems, steps are already being taken to facilitate the clear-up. In Mevagissey, 30 tonnes of flood debris has been cleared away. In Pentewan, a demountable defence system is being installed as a temporary defence on the beach channel to balance the tidal and fluvial flood risk in that community. In St Blazey, like other places, Cornwall council and the Environment Agency have been holding flood surgeries where local residents can share their experiences and concerns. And, of course, the Environment Agency is conducting a thorough review of the events of the few days of the flood to identify what other steps it can take.
The Environment Agency told me that approximately 3,250 homes and businesses in Cornwall were protected by schemes already in place. It is worth commending that work, which has been done over several years. Despite all that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth suggested, we can undoubtedly learn lessons from the experience in Cornwall. I shall spell out some of my concerns, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.
The first issue is about providing early warnings to residents. The Met Office issued a severe weather warning with an 80% chance of flooding at about 10.30 pm on the night of 16 November. That was some six hours before any damage had been done to homes and businesses, but the warning never made it to the majority of residents, who could have taken action to protect their property or business.
We all know that weather prediction is not an exact science, but if the emergency services and emergency responders could be notified much earlier in the day of a 20% risk of a severe flooding event, surely it behoves us as a Government to ensure that the public are made aware when the risk reaches 80%, so that they can take the measures that they deem appropriate.
The Government also need to do more to support the establishment of community flood plans, which could include dedicated flood wardens with access to state-of-the-art household defences. I was pleased to hear similar thoughts from the Secretary of State during departmental questions last week.
Taking steps to prepare for a flood will help communities to avoid damage and to keep the costs of future repairs low. It may also help those in flood risk areas to obtain insurance after the 2013 end of the insurance industry’s statement of principles. In the vast majority of cases, the insurance industry responded in a timely way, getting loss adjusters in, assessing the damage and closing claims quickly, but we need to ensure that all homes, not just in Cornwall but across the country, are able to access insurance at affordable premiums now and when the statement of principles ends in 2013.
The third and final subject I would like to raise is the need to look at the financial support that is available to local authorities when such emergency situations happen. As the Minister will know, the Bellwin scheme provides financial support to local authorities, but, in the case of Cornwall, it has become clear that the scheme might not be working in quite the way it was originally intended.
Cornwall council’s threshold for help under the scheme is 0.2% of the authority’s net budget requirement, which includes the delegated schools grant. Therefore, the threshold in cash terms is just shy of £1.5 million—that is, the money that the council must spend before central Government will step in.
Cornwall council is at a distinct disadvantage as a new unitary authority. If we were still under the old system, the burden would have fallen on two district councils with a total threshold in the region of some £60,000 before the Government stepped in, not the £1.5 million that Cornwall council has assessed the figure to be. Many would argue that the new unitary authority would have more resources and could use them in the best way, but the calculation does not seem to be in line with the costs that could be incurred, and it is certainly unfair when compared with the calculations for counties with two-tier systems.
Furthermore, as well as being a unitary authority, Cornwall is a fire and rescue authority. Again, that is atypical. In Cornwall, the costs incurred by fire and rescue are part of the unitary authority overall, and they have the effect of increasing the council’s threshold further, by some £40,000.
In summary, as a new unitary authority, and a fire and rescue authority to boot, Cornwall council seems to be treated unfairly under the Bellwin scheme. It also seems unfair to all top-tier organisations to include the delegated schools grant in the calculation. The Minister is well aware that local authorities have no control over the allocation of the schools grant; it simply passports through the council. I would ask the Minister to consider whether the Bellwin scheme should be reviewed, particularly in the light of some of the examples thrown up by the case of Cornwall.
The flooding in Cornwall last month brought to the fore the community spirit that I grew up with in Cornwall. There are lessons to be learned. We need to improve the early warning system, work with the insurance industry and look again at the threshold at which the Government step in to help local councils. These issues need to be dealt with so that we in Cornwall, as well the rest of the country, are as prepared as we can be for possible events in future.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I praise my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), for securing this debate. I also thank the Minister for the prompt communication that his Department had with me and, I am sure, my hon. Friend, when the flooding and the serious situation in Lostwithiel in my constituency first became known.
I reiterate the points that my hon. Friend made about the Bellwin formula. Cornwall’s transition to a unitary council happened a couple of years ago. Sadly, this formula is outdated. Will the Minister consider updating and reviewing it so that it does not act against unitary authorities in future incidents?
I praise the work of Cornwall council and the Environment Agency. I accept that nobody could have predicted the level of flooding that we saw in Lostwithiel, particularly, which resulted from surface flooding rather than the normal, historical flooding. It may not happen again for another 100 years, but we have to get the message out to the community, and to other communities that could be affected, to ensure not only that they put in place flood prevention measures when they get the warnings, but that at least lockable metal gates are put on doors every evening to prevent the kind of damage that we saw from happening.
Just before Christmas, many businesses in Lostwithiel were flooded when they should be preparing for a busy time, and a lot of their stock was damaged. I praise the insurance companies for sending their loss adjustors, who were working hard on the ground with people. I drove through Lostwithiel at the weekend and business is going on as usual. I praise the community for showing resilience and community spirit to ensure that business carried on as best it could as soon as possible.
I should like to hear from the Minister about the Bellwin formula, and about any ideas that he has that my hon. Friend and I can put in place to help the community prevent flooding, which is expensive—I know that there is no money to do that in these economic times—and to prevent flood damage so that if it happened again, the properties of the people of Lostwithiel might be saved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) for securing this debate, and to him and my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for their leadership in dealing with the aftermath of this incident, which is to their credit. It is also to their credit that they have generously praised many others, whom I will talk about. The good contact that we had with my hon. Friends and their understanding of the problems is noted in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am delighted that that communication worked so well.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, the intense rainfall in the early hours of 17 November had a huge impact on his constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall and for Truro and Falmouth. Such events are not unknown in the south-west. We have seen from previous flooding how resilient communities in that part of the world are. The recent flooding only reinforces that view.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were both moved by the obvious examples of good neighbourliness—the work that people were doing to support their friends and neighbours in this crisis. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the good work done by Cornwall council, the emergency services and many others. I echo every word of his praise.
The severity of the flooding came as a surprise to many, but that is not to say that the forecasts were wrong. The flood forecasting centre issued an extreme rainfall alert at 16.22 hours on 16 November, highlighting the risk of heavy rainfall overnight that may lead to surface water flooding. The main purpose of such alerts is to allow local authorities and emergency responders to prepare to respond in accordance with their multi-agency plans. I will talk in a minute about my hon. Friend’s important point on widening the recipient base of these warnings to ensure that we can get to more people when such events are predicted.
My hon. Friend made a good point about surface water flooding, which I noticed in my constituency in 2007; if we can develop flood warden schemes, similar to the neighbourhood watch scheme, that would be a useful, successful way of allowing people to do emergency resilience work to protect their homes and belongings. Not everybody is on e-mail or able to get a mobile phone signal, particularly in remote parts of the country. Nevertheless, if we can find ways to get the information to people so that they can start preparing, on a street-by-street basis or by locality, we can improve it. We are not yet where we want to be in terms of getting more people aware of flood risk. I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestions, some of which I will discuss shortly.
The Met Office issued a flash severe weather warning, as my hon. Friend said, at 22.32 hours on Tuesday 16 November. Flash warnings are issued when the Met Office has 80% or greater confidence that severe weather is expected in the following few hours. The Met Office routinely issues early warnings in advance of severe weather that is expected to lead to significant and widespread disruption. In this case, the Met Office, in consultation with the FFC and the EA, did not issue an early weather warning, as the rainfall was considered unlikely to result in widespread disruption.
In the lead-up to the event, the national and local weather forecasts on television and radio, and on the Met Office website, highlighted the risk of heavy rain and gale-force winds in the south-west. Forecasts of heavy rainfall and extreme rainfall alerts are not rare, as we all know. The total amount of rainfall in Cornwall was not as great as in other significant flooding events. However, it is important to note that the intensity of the rainfall—38 mm in one hour in some locations—was unusual and a combination of surface water, small watercourses being overwhelmed and drains not being able to cope with the intense rainfall, resulted in torrents of water flowing through the streets and into people’s homes and businesses.
Weather forecasting plays a critical role in flood-risk management and the Met Office is independently recognised as world-leading in this regard. However, it is important to manage expectations in terms of what is currently scientifically possible. Those very localised weather events are challenging to predict with a long lead time, but I am confident that the Met Office will continue to push the boundaries of what is possible. It remains as important as ever that local authorities, emergency responders, utility companies and others have well practised plans for dealing with flooding events. In Cornwall, those plans clearly worked very well. The speed of the emergency was matched by the speed of the emergency responders, for which they deserve great praise.
In the cold light of day, my hon. Friend, not unreasonably, pointed to the need for improved warnings for those who are at risk of such events. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State commented on that when they visited Cornwall in the days following the flooding. Let me stress that the Government are committed to improving their warning and information systems for all types of emergency, including flooding, and are looking at a number of options to deliver better public warnings.
The current consultation on our flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England says that the Environment Agency and the Met Office will continue to develop and improve the national flood warning service provided through their joint flood forecasting service. They will do so by providing, among other things, warnings and flood information that are geographically as specific as possible so that all who receive flood warnings will know what to do and, where possible, have enough time to take action. These are not simple tasks, and it will take time to get them absolutely right.
The extreme rainfall alert that was first issued at 16.22 would not have been issued before the Pitt review following the 2007 floods. We witnessed the welcome sight in the Met Office of meteorologists sitting next to hydrologists and being able to predict much more accurately where flooding is likely to occur, and to warn communities accordingly. We are building on that capacity and partnership working to ensure that we get better and better at getting it right. We will not get it right every time, because of the freak nature of some extreme rainfall conditions.
We would all prefer our flood management to focus on preventing extreme rainfall from causing damage to property in the first place. I do not want to play down the impact of flooding, but it is right to point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay did, that more than 3,000 properties in vulnerable areas throughout Cornwall were protected as a result of flood defence schemes. I share his concern about the failure of some flood defences, and it is imperative that, with the Environment Agency, we look at where those failures occurred, learn from them, and provide the right protection in those places as a matter of urgency.
I take the points that my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay and for South East Cornwall made about the Bellwin scheme. I may be going above my pay grade, but I represent a constituency that is part of a small unitary authority. My hon. Friends represent constituencies that are part of a relatively large unitary. When my constituency was flooded in 2007, we triggered Bellwin very quickly. Clearly, the matter is a cause for concern that I understand. Bellwin is dealt with by my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Treasury, but review is important. In the light of changing weather patterns, we must liaise at ministerial level, as the Department is doing, to ensure that Bellwin is not too blunt a tool, and that local circumstances are taken into account. However, that is a matter higher up the governmental tree.
Many of those who were affected have already done a huge amount to get their lives and businesses back in order, which is more evidence of the remarkable resilience of people in that part of the world, and of a thriving big society. The Environment Agency has been doing its bit to help clear up and provide full support for the county council. I pay tribute to the surgeries that were held last month in St Blazey, Mevagissey, Lostwithiel and Pentewan.
The Environment Agency is also working with local people to develop community flood plans in those areas. Part of the work will consider what improvements can be made to flood warnings for those communities. That is not a new concept; it already exists. Fill-in-the-blank toolkits are readily available, and are being taken up in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. I hope that we can expand the flood forums to communities that have been affected, and to communities that have not been flooded, because those are the difficult ones to reach.
Over the next few years, there will be huge technological advances. We are looking at rolling out opt-out schemes for text and telephone warnings, and there is the possibility one day, if it is not too intrusive, of a cell basis so that an emergency can be flashed to a mobile phone cell area and everyone in the area with a mobile phone receives it. That will not reach everyone, but it is a possibility, and such technologies are coming forward. We want to be at the cutting edge, not just because we want to, but because we must if we are to cope with the changing climate.
Insurance cover, and its future availability, is always a concern for those who have suffered damage from flooding. It is fair to say that the Association of British Insurers was very quick to state at the time that insurers’ first priority was to ensure that every claim was dealt with as quickly as possible. Advice was provided on its website for people who were affected. More generally, at a flood summit that I hosted on 16 September, we agreed that the Government, insurers and other stakeholders would continue to work in partnership towards 2013 when, as my hon. Friend said, the current agreement between insurers and the Government will expire.
Looking forward, we know that the risk of flooding is likely to increase. We also know that the current economic situation is very challenging and that, although the floods budget was protected as far as possible in the recent spending review, there will always be a limit to what national taxpayers can be asked to fund. Currently, the costs fall almost entirely on general taxpayers, and that constrains how much can be done, as well as creating the potential for inequity in the system. Nevertheless, DEFRA expects to spend at least £2.1 billion on flood and coastal erosion management over the next four years, and to deliver better protection to 145,000 households by March 2015.
In future, the Government would like to encourage additional local investment in flood and coastal erosion risk management in return for giving areas at risk a bigger say in the action taken. We want decisions to be made locally and voluntarily on whether and how to contribute to schemes. Government support will, of course, continue to focus on those most at risk and least able to afford to protect themselves. That is important.
These are difficult matters and we must get them right. That is why we are consulting on the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, and why it is so important. It will help us make the difficult decisions about what Government funding is used for, and how it should be allocated between the different tasks and risk management authorities. I urge everyone with an interest to have their say.
The events in Cornwall four weeks ago posed a huge challenge to individuals, communities, businesses and organisations. None of us wants that to happen again, and we must learn the lessons. But it would be naive to think that we will never face similar challenges in the future. Such events are consistent with the predictions for climate change, and are likely to occur more frequently. The good news is that the people of Cornwall have shown us again their remarkable resilience and capacity for recovery. That was shown not least in the leadership of the Members of Parliament for the constituencies where the flooding took place.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Financial Assistance for Ireland
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made available in the Vote Office copies of a summary of key terms for the credit facility for Ireland, agreed in principle with the Irish authorities, to inform debate of the Loans to Ireland Bill.
The full credit agreement is currently being negotiated between HM Treasury and Ireland and will be provided to the House in due course.
Transposition of EU Regulations
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I would like to inform the House that today I will set out a series of new principles that the Government will use when introducing European measures into UK law. Copies of the guiding principles will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. These will end so-called gold-plating so that British businesses are not put at a disadvantage relative to their European competitors.
The key to the new measures will be the principle of copying out the text of European directives directly into UK law. The direct “copy out” principle will mean that British interpretations of European law are not unfairly restricting British companies.
The new measures are part of a wider Government policy to tackle EU regulations, including: by working with business organisations to prioritise proposals in the European Commission’s legislative work plan for 2011 and beyond, working closely with other European countries to push for more outcome-focused EU regulation, and improving how evidence is used by the European Parliament and Council.
The main elements of the new Government principles are:
Work on the implementation of an EU directive should start immediately after agreement is reached in Brussels. By starting implementation work early, businesses will have more chance to influence the approach, ensuring greater certainty and early warning about its impact.
Early transposition of EU regulations will be avoided except where there are compelling reasons for earlier implementation. This will ensure that British businesses are not put at a disadvantage to their European competitors.
European directives will normally be directly copied into UK legislation, except where it would adversely affect UK interests, for example, by putting UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
A statutory duty will be placed on Ministers to conduct a review of domestic legislation implementing a European directive every five years. This will allow businesses to influence any necessary improvements based on their own practical experience of applying the rules.
Anti-Semitism Inquiry (Government Response)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I am pleased to announce that I am today laying before Parliament the coalition Government’s three-year-on response to the all party parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism (Command Paper Cm 7991).
In May 2008 the previous Government published a progress report on the 35 recommendations in the all party parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism. Since coming into office the coalition Government undertook to report back to Parliament on further progress in implementing the inquiry’s recommendations.
We believe the best way to tackle anti-Semitism is through effective implementation of strong legislation against racial and religious discrimination and racially and religiously motivated crime. This must be underpinned by policies and strategies which support an integrated society where people are able to take part in society to the full; get on well together and are treated fairly.
We have made significant progress against the 35 recommendations made by the all party parliamentary inquiry’s constructive and comprehensive report through the cross-Government working group to tackle anti-Semitism which brings together civil servants from across Whitehall and members of the three major Jewish community organisations.
We have ensured that there is now agreement for all police forces to record anti-Semitic hate crimes and the first disaggregated statistics were published in November. Another key success has been the agreement by the Department for Education to fund counter-terrorism security needs of Jewish faith schools within the state sector.
Despite the progress outlined in the report, there is no room for complacency and we will continue to take practical, effective action to stamp out anti-Semitism whenever and wherever it occurs. We are committed to increasing the number of hate crimes brought to justice, tackling anti-Semitism on university campuses, and challenging hate crime and extremism on the internet. We have agreed to continue our support of the cross-Government working group to tackle anti-Semitism and will report back to Parliament on any further progress.
Sustainable Communities Act and Barrier Busting
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I am today announcing ways the Government will further redistribute power from Westminster and Whitehall to people, neighbourhoods, communities and local institutions.
Sustainable Communities Act 2007
The Secretary of State has today issued decisions on whether to implement proposals submitted by local authorities under the Sustainable Communities Act. The Government are grateful to the Local Government Association for undertaking the role of “selector”, and shortlisting 199 proposals in December 2009. The Secretary of State has examined all the requests for assistance contained within the proposals in the light of the spending review and the coalition agreement and, in accordance with the Act, discussed them with the selector.
I am pleased that the Government will take action to implement, or implement in part, 37% of requests. We will also work with councils on 25% of requests to explore the issues more closely, or explain how existing powers can achieve the desired outcome.
The Secretary of State has today invited all local authorities to once again submit proposals under the Sustainable Communities Act. The invitation will be placed on the Department’s website. The Government intend to revise the role of the selector in the light of this invitation, and will update the House in the new year.
I have placed copies of the Secretary of State’s decisions under the Sustainable Communities Act and his invitation to submit further proposals in the Library of the House.
Barrier busters to remove barriers to local action
I have today launched an online portal to make it easier for councils, community groups, local institutions and individuals to highlight bureaucratic barriers stopping them from taking action they believe would improve their area.
The online portal, available at: http://barrierbusting. communities.gov.uk will also make it easier for councils to submit proposals under the Sustainable Communities Act. Councils will be able to submit directly to the Secretary of State rather than an external selector, and at a time of their choosing—not a centrally imposed deadline.
I have established a specialised team within the Department for Communities and Local Government who will work with those who submit requests for assistance through the portal, and will try to remove the barrier identified.
This online portal will ensure that our commitment to decentralising power is made as transparent as possible. Members of the public will be able to see how we are dealing with requests, and hold us to account accordingly.
EU Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
The EU Foreign Affairs Council met in Defence Ministers formation on 9 December 2010 in Brussels. I represented the UK for the morning sessions but had to return to London before lunch when the UK was represented by Mr Tim Barrow, the UK ambassador to the Political and Security Committee.
The agenda items covered were as follows:
Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) in Defence Ministers Formation
The Council adopted conclusions on military capability development. These can be found at the following website:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/118347.pdf.
Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
Baroness Ashton stressed the need for improved co-operation in developing capabilities in Europe in a time of budget cuts. There was strong support from member states for increased effort in pooling and sharing, and I emphasised that this needed to be driven by voluntary national commitments to pragmatic solutions, using the example of the recent UK/France agreement. I also expressed a preference to revert to the traditional format of Defence Ministers and Foreign Ministers meeting together in the FAC to discuss common foreign security policy and common security and defence policy as a linked set of issues.
I made clear that, in the current economic climate, with most member states including the UK reducing their defence budgets, I could not agree to an increase in the budget of the European Defence Agency (EDA) for 2011. The Council subsequently agreed to freeze the EDA budget for 2011 at the same level as 2010 (€30.5 million).
The Council agreed a 2010 report from the Baroness Ashton, head of the EDA, in addition to the 2011 EDA work guidelines.
EDA Steering Board
An EDA steering board at Defence Ministers level was held in the margins of the Council. Ministers discussed the appointment of the next EDA executive, and agreed a further period of consultation on Baroness Ashton’s proposal. The steering board also took note of the agency’s ongoing work on pooling and sharing.
Informal Meeting with NATO Secretary General Rasmussen
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen briefed Ministers on the Lisbon summit and on the importance of improving the EU/NATO relationship, including in the field of capability development. This built on recent closer working in areas of counter-IEDs and medical support. Ministers agreed on the need for closer co-operation between the EU and NATO.
Informal FAC Session on operations
Ministers discussed CSDP military operations over lunch, and were briefed by the three operation commanders. Major General Howes (Op ATALANTA) stressed the need for changing the risk/reward ratio for pirates, and Ministers discussed the need for regional capacity building. Colonel Elul (EU Training Mission Somalia) briefed that training was going well, but that the reintegration of trainees in Mogadishu remained a challenge. General McColl (Operation ALTHEA) informed Ministers that the security environment remained stable in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Ministers debated the need for the EU to remain in an executive role, and Ambassador Tim Barrow (UK ambassador to the Political and Security Committee), representing the UK, noted that the UN had recently renewed its mandate for a further 12 months.
Strategic Defence and Security Review - Royal Navy
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
The White Paper “Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence Review” (Cm 7948), presented to the House on 19 October 2010, explained the Government’s intention to make certain changes to the armed forces in order to deliver the force structure we require for the future and to help address the legacy of unaffordability in the defence budget. I am now able to explain more fully those changes that affect the Royal Navy’s surface fleet.
We announced that the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal would be decommissioned and accordingly, she will finally be withdrawn from service at the end of this month. We also announced that we would decommission either her sister ship HMS Illustrious or the landing platform helicopter HMS Ocean following a short study into which of these two ships was better able to provide the capability we require over the next few years. This work has now been completed and we have decided that HMS Ocean should be retained to provide our landing platform helicopter capability for the longer-term. HMS Illustrious will be withdrawn from service in 2014, once HMS Ocean has emerged from a planned refit and been returned to a fully operational state. This will ensure that we retain the ability to deliver an amphibious intervention force from the sea and maintain an experienced crew to support the later introduction into service of the new Queen Elizabeth class carrier.
The White Paper also explained that four frigates would be withdrawn from service in 2011. These are the remaining Type 22 frigates HMS Chatham, Campbeltown, Cumberland and Cornwall. Chatham will be withdrawn from service at the end of January 2011 and Campbeltown and Cumberland will follow on 1 April. HMS Cornwall will be withdrawn at the end of April once she has returned from her current operational deployment to the Indian Ocean.
Other changes affect the Navy’s amphibious ships. The Bay class amphibious support ship to be decommissioned will be RFA Largs Bay. She will be withdrawn from service in April 2011. One of our two landing platforms dock will in future be placed at extended readiness while the other is held at high readiness for operations. From November 2011 the high readiness ship will be HMS Bulwark, and on current plans this will change to HMS Albion in late 2016 when Bulwark enters a refit period.
The final changes affect the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The White Paper said that there would be a fleet of resupply and refuelling vessels scaled to meet the Royal Navy’s requirements. With a smaller surface fleet these requirements are correspondingly lower, and hence we have decided to withdraw from service from April 2011 the auxiliary oiler RFA Bayleaf and the auxiliary oiler replenishment RFA Fort George.
Fuel Poverty
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
Today I am announcing that the budget for the Warm Front scheme in England is fully allocated for this financial year. The budget was set in the 2007 spending review and subsequently updated in last year’s pre-Budget report. From today the scheme is fully subscribed and will be unable to take new applications for the remainder of the current year. The scheme has a substantial order book of work that will take to at least March 2011 to complete. I am also announcing the publication of a consultation on the eligibility for Warm Front measures.
Refusal of new applications under the Warm Front Scheme for England
The Warm Front scheme provides a range of energy efficiency and heating measures to vulnerable private sector households in England who are in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Due to high demand for the Warm Front scheme throughout the year the available budget for 2010-11 has now been fully allocated and it is unable to take new applications.
All existing qualifying applications already taken by the scheme manager will be fully honoured and the 76,000 heating and insulation jobs awaiting installation will be completed as far as possible by the end of March 2011. This is only a temporary measure. The scheme will be able to approve new applications in the next financial year.
Warm Front Consultation
Warm Front is one of our key tools for tackling fuel poverty among private sector households in England. The scheme was introduced in 2000 and has helped more than 2 million households vulnerable to fuel poverty with a range of heating, insulation and other energy efficiency measures.
As part of the spending review 2010, the Government announced that we will continue to fund the Warm Front programme for the next two years. With a smaller programme budget it means that it is an appropriate time to consider whether the scope for Warm Front assistance should be revised to better focus support on those in fuel poverty or vulnerable to fuel poverty.
This is the purpose of plans set out today in our consultation. The aim is to improve the cost-effectiveness of the scheme by ensuring that Warm Front will be a better targeted programme to help the most vulnerable receive support in the form of free or subsidised heating and insulation measures.
The Warm Front consultation will run until 9 February 2011 and can be found at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/warm front/warm front.aspx.
The consultation document will also be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.
Environment Council
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I will represent the UK at the Environment Council in Brussels on 20 December.
At this Council, the Belgian presidency will seek political agreement on the regulation concerning the placing on the market of biocidal products. The presidency will also present a progress report on the recast of the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment and a progress report on the proposal for a regulation regarding the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.
The presidency will further seek the adoption of Council conclusions on sustainable materials management and sustainable production and consumption, improving environmental policy instruments and the outcome of and follow-up to the 10th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the convention on biological diversity in Nagoya.
There will also be an exchange of views on the outcome of and follow-up to the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN convention on climate change and the 6th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto protocol.
There may be an agenda item on the regulation setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles, as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles.
The following topics will be covered under “any other business”:
Information from the Commission on the Commission communications on practical implementation of the EU biofuels and bioliquids sustainability scheme and counting rules for biofuels, and on voluntary schemes and default values in the EU biofuels and bioliquids sustainability scheme;
Information from the presidency on the main environmental events organised by the Belgian presidency;
Information from the Lithuanian delegation on nuclear installations planned in the EU neighbourhood (Kaliningrad region and Belarus);
Information from the Belgian delegation on the implementation of directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe with particular regard to PM 10 particles;
Information from the Greek delegation on the outcome of the Mediterranean climate change initiative;
Information from the Portuguese delegation on directive 2008/98/EC on waste, including climate aspects in the application of the energy efficiency formula to waste energy plants and to plants in the EU outermost regions, and the strategic importance of end-of-waste status for high-quality refuse-derived fuel in the near future;
Information from the Romanian delegation on the 2nd Meeting of the Parties to the protocol on water and health to the convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes (Bucharest, 23-25 November 2010); and
Information from the Hungarian delegation on the work programme of the incoming presidency.
NHS Consultation, Operating Frameworks and PCT Revenue
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am laying before Parliament “Liberating the NHS: Legislative framework and next steps” (Cm 7993), the Government’s response to the consultation on implementing the White Paper reforms set out in “Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS”. Sir David Nicholson, the NHS chief executive, is also today publishing the NHS operating framework and revenue allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs) for 2011-12. The operating framework and revenue allocations have been placed in the Library. Copies of all documents are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
“Liberating the NHS: Legislative framework and next steps” shows how the Department has developed its plans in the light of consultation and sets out further detail on the reforms and a timetable for implementation. The document also sets out a timetable for implementation and explains how the consultation has shaped the health and social care Bill, planned for introduction in January. Overall, the document reaffirms the Government’s commitment to reforming the NHS so that it:
puts patients right at the heart of decisions made about their care;
puts clinicians in the driving seat on decisions about services; and
is focused on delivering health outcomes that are comparable with, or even better than, those of our international neighbours.
The Department received over 6,000 consultation responses from patients and members of the public, clinicians, voluntary organisations, patient representative groups, local authorities, local involvement networks (LINks), NHS organisations and staff, independent providers, pharmacists, academics, professional bodies and royal colleges, think-tanks and trade unions.
Responses contained a broad mix of support, suggestions for improvement and critical challenge. The insights and suggestions we have heard in consultation have not only strengthened our belief that the reforms are necessary but have also helped us refine our proposals in several areas. In particular, the Government have decided to:
significantly strengthen the role of health and well-being boards in local authorities, and enhance joint working arrangements through a new responsibility to develop a “joint health and well-being strategy” spanning the NHS, social care, public health and potentially other local services. Local authority and NHS commissioners will be required to have regard to this;
create a more distinct identity for Health Watch England, led by a statutory committee within the Care Quality Commission;
increase transparency in commissioning by requiring all GP consortia to have a published constitution;
change our proposal that maternity services should be commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board;
extend councils’ formal scrutiny powers to cover all NHS-funded services, and give local authorities greater freedom in how these are exercised;
phase the timetable for giving local authorities responsibility for commissioning NHS complaints advocacy services, and allow flexibility to commission from other organisations as well as from local Health Watch;
give GP consortia a stronger role in supporting the NHS Commissioning Board to drive up quality in primary care; and create an explicit duty for all arm’s length bodies to co-operate in carrying out their functions, backed by a new mechanism for resolving disputes.
Equally important, the feedback we received through consultation has also helped us refine our approach to implementation, in order to create flexibility, empower local leadership, and support the significant cultural change and staff engagement that respondents highlighted would be needed to make our reforms a success. The Department has therefore decided to:
allow a longer and more phased transition period for completing our reforms to providers;
create a clearer, more phased approach to the introduction of GP commissioning, by setting up a programme of GP consortia pathfinders; and
accelerate the introduction of health and well-being boards through a new programme of early implementers.
To take forward these changes the Department has put in place a single, integrated programme for the whole of the transition across the health and care system. This will help sustain performance under the existing regime at the same time as building the leadership to implement the changes. Transition will occur through a carefully designed and managed process, phased over the next four years, to allow for rapid adoption, system-wide learning, and effective risk-management. It will be aided by the creation of a number of specific time-limited transitional vehicles, with a focus on sustaining capability and capacity.
Alongside “Liberating the NHS: Legislative framework and next steps”, the NHS chief executive, David Nicholson, has today published the NHS operating framework for 2011-12, which sets out the priorities for the next year. This includes how the NHS will go through a strong and stable transition over the next year to begin to deliver the vision of the White Paper. By the end of 2011-12 we expect NHS organisations to have made significant progress in moving towards a more liberated NHS. Organisations should be working across traditional boundaries to improve the quality of patient care while maintaining the quality and safety of NHS services.
I have also written today to every hon. Member in England detailing their PCT’s allocations for 2011-12, which PCTs will use to deliver our vision for reform and our national priorities as set out in the operating framework.
Total revenue investment in the NHS in 2011-12 will grow to over £102 billion. The allocations I am announcing today will provide PCTs with £89 billion to spend on the local front-line services that matter most, an increase of £2.6 billion, or 3%. This funding includes an increase of £1.9 billion in PCT recurrent allocations (including £150 million for re-ablement), £69 million in primary dental services, pharmaceutical services and general ophthalmic services non-recurrent allocations, and £648 million to support joint working between health and social care.
The recurrent allocations are based upon a revised weighted capitation formula that includes improvements, such as a new mental health formula. This lays the groundwork for the switch to allocations to GP consortia and local authorities from the NHS Commissioning Board and Public Health England respectively for 2013-14. These organisational changes will free the NHS from political interference, support the transfer of decision making and responsibility for local health services to the front line, and ensure that public health programmes are safeguarded.
PCTs and local authorities will use the funding for re-ablement and joint working to agree a work plan based on local joint strategic needs assessments to deliver services which may include current services, in particular telecare, re-ablement packages and home adaptations.
The allocations announced today place PCTs in a strong position to deliver the coalition Government’s vision for reform, as originally set out in “Liberating the NHS” and today reaffirmed in “Liberating the NHS: Legislative framework and next steps”. and our national priorities, today set out in the NHS operating framework.
Pakistan Floods
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I would like to update the House on the Pakistan floods and the UK Government’s response to the ongoing emergency relief and early recovery needs of the critically affected population.
Four months after the onset of the floods, the situation remains deeply challenging. The majority of the 14 million people who were displaced by the floods have returned to their areas of origin, apart from in Sindh province. But with homes, farms and villages badly damaged, they will need humanitarian relief for months to come and help to restore livelihoods and basic services, particularly education and health, in the affected areas.
The situation in Sindh remains critical. Up to 350,000 families remain displaced by protracted flooding on the right bank of the Indus in northern Sindh. These people are hard to reach and will need humanitarian relief well into next year—especially shelter, with winter setting in across Pakistan.
In this context, I am pleased to inform the House of further UK Government support for relief and recovery efforts since I last updated the House on 12 October. These include:
Providing safe drinking water, sanitation services, basic health care, basic household items and shelter to some 305,000 people in Sindh and Punjab through Handicap International, Oxfam, and CARE for a total cost of £5.5 million.
Providing emergency shelter for 180,000 people in the worst affected areas of Sindh, through a £1.7 million grant to Concern.
Assisting 25,000 people in Sindh to build permanent homes to replace those destroyed in the floods, through a £1.8 million grant to UNHABITAT.
Supporting a disease early-warning system and provision of essential health services to over 500,000 people in the areas worst affected by the floods for the next six months, through a contribution of £2 million to the World Health Organisation’s most recent appeal.
Helping 200,000 children to resume education, through programmes costing £10 million involving Save the Children, Plan International and Hands. This will involve rehabilitation of damaged schools and provision of temporary facilities where schools have been destroyed while longer-term reconstruction is implemented.
Supporting agricultural livelihoods and the wider rural economy that will benefit approximately 1 million people. The programme will provide work opportunities, cash grants, materials, tools, seeds, skills training and technical expertise over the next nine months, through the Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies at a total cost of £20 million.
Helping over 28,000 families to acquire and look after domestic animals such as poultry, goats, and donkeys to improve nutrition and support their incomes.
All of these interventions have been appraised in detail by my Department to ensure value for money and a focus on results.
The overall DFID humanitarian programme for the flood-affected areas is proceeding well. I can report that, as of 1 December, UKAid has achieved the following; approximately:
971,390 people have been provided with drinking water
254,480 people have had access to latrines and/or washing areas
867,900 people have received hygiene kits or hygiene education
453,860 people have had access to basic health care
712,590 women and children have received supplementary or therapeutic feeding for malnutrition
540,560 people have received emergency goods packages typically including blankets, cooking equipment, jerry cans, and plastic sheeting.
504,450 people have received emergency shelter; and
71,925 people have benefited from seeds and fertilisers
These results are provisional estimates from ongoing operations where the eventual total number of beneficiaries will be significantly higher.
As a result of UK and other interventions, the risk of disease has been contained so far. But there is no room for complacency. Millions of people will remain highly vulnerable and dependent on external assistance until homes, basic services, economic infrastructure and livelihoods are re-established. My Department plans to maintain a dedicated flood response team on the ground in Pakistan for the next six to nine months, actively monitoring the situation and our programme of humanitarian relief and recovery.
Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in my written answer 25480 given on 30 Nov 2010, Official Report, column 786-88W. The response indicated that the monthly cost of press cuttings to the pensions regulator, a non-departmental public body of the Department for Work and Pensions, was nil. I can confirm that in fact the cost of press cuttings services to the pensions regulator, in each of the last 12 months is as follows:
Month | Cost (£) |
|---|---|
November 2009 | 4,646.03 |
December 2009 | 5,420.51 |
January 2010 | 4,069.37 |
February 2010 | 6,729.64 |
March 2010 | 5,712.83 |
April 2010 | 4,523.39 |
May 2010 | 3,605.27 |
June 2010 | 4,129.85 |
July 2010 | 5,235.71 |
August 2010 | 3,112.60 |
September 2010 | 1,997.09 |
October 2010 | 2,626.66 |
Grand Committee
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar)
Before the Minister moves the Motion, I remind noble Lords that the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider, rather than approve, the draft United Kingdom marine policy statement. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Draft United Kingdom Marine Policy Statement
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the draft United Kingdom Marine Policy Statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I should like to say how pleased I am to open this debate on the United Kingdom marine policy statement. Having been in the House for some 32 and a half years, I think that this is the first time that I have ever taken part in or opened a debate on a policy statement of this sort. It is nice to know that there is always something new that one can do, particularly as the marine policy statement is a landmark, not just in the implementation of marine planning but in the implementation of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 as a whole, an Act which was supported by all parties and all others—or stakeholders, as we have to call them—who were involved.
The current system for managing our seas is seen as inconsistent and failing to consider fully the cumulative impact that we have on the marine environment. Regulators and industry consider the current system to be burdensome and a barrier to economic development. The Marine and Coastal Access Act enables the introduction of marine planning—a means to move away from the old consent-led approach and towards the strategic, integrated and transparent management of our seas. The new marine planning system will be based on openness, a clear evidence base and joint working among Government, regulators, industry and communities. Our ambition is to enable economic developments in locations that maximise benefits and minimise environmental impacts and to empower coastal communities to help shape the management of their own marine resources.
The marine policy statement is also the first step in implementing marine planning. The MPS is unique in its purpose and UK status, will ensure a consistent approach to the development of marine plans across the United Kingdom and will direct decision-makers and users towards more efficient and sustainable use of marine resources. The MPS will help achieve the UK Government vision of having,
“clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas”.
The marine policy statement includes a wide range of activities and sectors, from renewable energy and oil and gas to nature conservation, fishing, recreation and tourism. The marine policy statement sets the economic, social and environmental framework that applies in the UK marine area. Within that framework, it sets out the policy context, direction and considerations that must be given to each activity when developing marine plans or taking licensing decisions.
While the marine policy statement brings together a range of policies, we are here today not to debate the individual policies but to discuss whether the draft marine policy statement is fit for purpose. We strongly believe that it is. The marine policy statement has been developed over the past four years throughout the passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Act and is a product of comprehensive joint working across Whitehall and the UK devolved Administrations.
The marine policy statement is not just a product of government but a product of all interested parties in the marine environment. Engagement has been thorough and ongoing and has been informed by a statement of public participation to explain transparently how and when contributions could be made. Regional and national stakeholder workshops have been held and a discussion paper, which was issued in March 2010, enabled stakeholders to influence the development of the marine policy statement. Officials are currently considering responses to a further consultation that closed in October 2010, and they are discussing the results directly with those stakeholders as well as with policy-makers, including in the devolved Administrations.
Crucial throughout its development has been the idea that the marine policy statement should respect the devolved nature of many aspects of marine planning and the importance of consistency being achieved. The marine policy statement does that through identifying activities to which a degree of priority should be attached. However, the statement does not say which activities should take priority over others, as that can only be determined by each Administration when considering specific geographical areas in the marine planning process.
By adopting the marine policy statement, the devolved Administrations will be able to plan holistically for their inshore and offshore marine regions, including for retained functions. A number of administrative safeguards exist to ensure effective and co-ordinated cross-border planning, and all issues will need to be agreed by the Secretary of State. The aim is for all United Kingdom Administrations to adopt jointly the marine policy statement by March 2011, when work starts in earnest on the first marine plans.
As required by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the marine policy statement and the marine planning system as a whole must contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The marine policy statement has been developed alongside an appraisal of sustainability, which assessed the likely economic, social and environmental effects of the statement and reasonable alternatives, with a view to promoting sustainable development. That extensive process means that the marine policy statement achieves the ambition set for it.
Marine plans will be developed in accordance with the marine policy statement and they, too, must contribute to sustainable development. As such, they will be subject to a sustainability appraisal, strengthened by the full engagement of national and local interested parties and integrated with terrestrial planning.
Marine planning is new and has the prospect of delivering huge benefits, yet we are the first country in the world to introduce such a comprehensive approach. In order to explain how marine planning will work, each Administration is in the process of developing guidance and working together to ensure that cross-border planning can be taken forward. In England, a consultation has just closed on the marine planning system in order to establish a baseline of understanding among stakeholders and relevant delivery organisations. The Marine Management Organisation will now be taking matters forward as it begins marine planning in spring 2011, starting with the first two plans in the east inshore and offshore areas. In 2013, our collective ambitions for the management of our seas will be a reality: the first marine plans will be in place. As the marine policy statement is finalised and marine planning unfolds, we will continue to work with and listen to stakeholders to ensure that we achieve our ambitious aims, both at national and local levels.
I look forward to this debate and to responding in due course to the various points raised. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
First, I welcome this draft marine policy statement as a concept. I also welcome the fact that it is a draft, and the reasons for that will become apparent as I continue with my comments. I particularly welcome the opportunity for a plan-led approach to marine areas. The Minister quite rightly said that the marine policy statement is a landmark. I hope that my noble friend will not take the quite critical remarks that I am about to make as criticism of the effort to move forward in this area; they are meant to be constructive criticism, because we are at a draft stage.
The marine policy statement is of course a follow-up, as the Minister said, from the Marine and Coastal Access Act, which itself followed the draft Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who will speak later, chaired the Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill with such skill. In both the Joint Committee and the subsequent discussion in both Houses, there was a very in-depth discussion on what was needed in marine areas and where the conflicts lay. There are conflicts in the environmental, social and economic demands for dredging, spawning grounds and so on. However, the draft marine policy statement does not really reflect the depth of our discussion but starts almost from a point before any of those debates took place.
In my view, a policy document should lay out the choices that need to be made and should then say which one the Government are likely to choose. The point of having a consultation on a draft policy is that people can react to the choices that are likely to be made. A policy document is, if you like, a route map that gets you from A to B by a chosen route, but it allows others to argue that a different route would be better. The draft marine policy statement is more a description of the landscape than a route map and it is quite hard to discern a firm policy in it. The Minister gave a clue as to why that might be when he talked about across-Whitehall work. I fear that, where the departments started out with a very firm view, the need to arrive at a consensus has meant that those views were watered down until we are left with, in many cases, a series of platitudes.
Only when we get to the summary of the appraisal of sustainability do some of the options start to be laid out—or even an example of what the options would be—such as in alternative proposal 6 on page 86, where the option of multiple uses is discussed. That is my first problem with the draft marine policy statement. It would be good if the Government asked departments to decide which policy would take preference. The Minister may say that that is for the more detailed marine plans, but I believe that the marine policy statement is meant to be an overarching policy document so those details should appear in the MPS.
For example, the marine policy statement talks about the integration of marine planning with terrestrial planning regimes. That integration will need to be considerable because the marine plans will apply up to mean high water, which in many cases is right up river estuaries and into some of the busiest areas of use. Therefore, shipping might need to be balanced with environmental demands such as migrating birds as well as with recreational activities and so on. The draft policy statement says:
“marine planning systems will sit alongside and interact with existing planning regimes … both systems may adapt and evolve over time”.
That is an example of a platitude. The statement needs to specify who will resolve any disagreement where those plans sit alongside but come into conflict. Will it be for the Minister to resolve the conflicts that will undoubtedly arise?
Another example might be a marina development, which may be highly desirable socially and economically but possibly undesirable in environmental terms. The terrestrial planning system—which has the biggest vote, if you like—may be vociferous while the environmental side may have much less of a voice. What happens when the two regimes cannot agree?
To take another example, a wind farm at sea might be said to concern only the marine planning system, but the amount of terrestrial servicing that such wind farms need is substantial, so the effect on terrestrial planning could be considerable. Integrated coastal zone management is a very good idea and has been a good start, but integrated coastal zone management has no powers and no resources so it will not bail us out.
Box 1 in chapter 2, which deals with the vision, lists the “high level marine objectives”, which the Minister went through. I do not know whether his order was random or particular because he started by referring to the economic and the social objectives. Does the marine policy statement have to stick with the high-level objectives as laid out in box 1, or is there room for manoeuvre? Let us remember that a lot of the drive for the marine Act came from the environmental sector and from the fact that entire species and ecosystems were being wiped out. Besides the need for a planning system for marine areas, the drive for a marine Act was to preserve and to recover a network of coherently viable ecosystems in the seas around our coast. That ambition is not realised at all in the high-level marine objectives, although Chapter 3 suggests that that issue is an important objective. I do not find much synergy between those two chapters and I wonder which takes priority.
Paragraph 2.5, “Economic and social considerations”, tries to be all things to all people. It talks about,
“building strong local communities and improving access to, and enjoyment of, their marine areas … marine planning will contribute to securing sustainable economic growth both in regeneration areas and areas that already benefit from strong local economies, by enabling the sustainable use of marine resources”.
That sounds wonderful. My problem is that those things will often come into conflict. That paragraph is one example of the starting point that I mentioned before the Act went through, which was before we came to understand that the policy could not be all things to all people. Very hard choices will have to be made.
Noble Lords who speak today will no doubt talk about some of those hard choices, but one that concerns me is marine protected areas. In any consideration of areas that represent something valuable in ecological terms—we are trying to create a network of ecologically coherent zones—some activities will have to be banned. That will not be economically or socially desirable, but it will be necessary if we are to recover the ecosystems at sea.
The other side of the argument is that we are a busy shipping nation and there are pinch-points for shipping. Something not mentioned in the document is the great intensity of shipping in the Channel, where—this is a fact, I think, that I picked up from somewhere—there are more serious accidents than anywhere else in the world. Clearly, shipping is incredibly important to this nation, so it may be that a designated environmentally protected area occasionally has to give way to shipping interests. That is the type of thing that should be laid out in a proper policy statement, which would state that, in those cases—although it would be a hard choice—a plan should come down on the side of the argument that, for example, we depend on international shipping.
I wish to make a couple of other points of detail. As regards ports and shipping, safe marine navigation is incredibly important, as I have said.
One of the best sections in the document is paragraph 3.5, “Marine aggregates”, which contains the surprising statement:
“In addition there are no practicable alternative sources to marine aggregate for the maintenance of coastal defences required for climate change adaptation”.
That sweeping statement assumes that we will continue to maintain hard coastal defences, whereas I thought that, in many cases, we are now more interested in managed retreat. The document also lists a number of potential impacts of dredging and aggregate extraction, which include,
“loss of seabed habitat; impacts on fisheries”.
However, the comprehensive list that is given does not refer to the fact that the process of extraction may by its very nature threaten coastal defences. The document states that it “may alter coastal processes”, but that is very unspecific. That may seem a small detail, but it is important, given that we are spending more and more money on coastal defences. We need to ensure that we are not defending areas on the one hand while adversely affecting them on the other.
A great deal could be said about fisheries, which I hope other noble Lords will speak about. I hope that the Minister will address my fear that the draft marine policy statement does not contain hard choices and that the problem will be rectified in the final—as opposed to the draft—statement.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate on the draft marine policy statement. I declare an interest as chair of the Living with Environmental Change partnership, which comprises a research programme of 22 funders, of which Defra is one. I am also a past chair of the advisory committee of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. The way in which this agenda has been pushed forward since the passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act is commendable. From March to May we had the pre-consultative exercise and we have now had the consultation itself. I understand that workshops on it have been held and I fully subscribe to that process. It is a good opportunity for the community to become well informed about the issue and contribute to the consultation exercise. The initial summary of responses was received in November.
The Minister asked whether the draft document was fit for purpose. My noble friend Lady Miller has explained her concern that it does not do enough to determine issues of conflict and to point out where the rub should lie. She is right to say that the document is strong on platitudes—for example, the phrase in Chapter 2, which is very commendable as far as it goes, but states:
“Marine plans will be based on a sound evidence base”.
Thank goodness for that, because if they were not we would be in trouble. The evidence base comprises not just scientific advice—this is spelt out in the report—but comes from a range of sources, including existing plans, the people who live or work in the plan area, scientists, statutory and other advisers, industry and marine users. This is all part of the evidence base. That is why I caution my noble friend Lady Miller to make sure that we do not just assume that environmental interests, which were the driver for the original Bill, are setting the agenda. However, it is perfectly accurate to say that report after report has pointed out the parlous state of our marine environment. That is why we needed legislation, and why Defra is progressing with it. The latest state of the seas report, Charting Progress 2: An assessment of the state of UK seas, reminds us, if we needed reminding, the extent to which man’s activities are impacting on the marine environment, marine species and habitats, which are under pressure, declining or damaged. That can be taken as a given; it would not be unduly contentious to say that the evidence base has already established this. My noble friend Lady Miller is right to say that we should stick that into the draft MPS and move on, while recognising that socioeconomic and other issues will be part of the evidence base.
I will refer to the evidence base that we expect will be generated by science and scientific advisers. Here, we cannot overstress the importance of long-term monitoring. It is a very unfashionable area of science. Whenever a new, attractive idea comes up that is likely to win a prize, there is never any new funding, so money is taken from an area of science that is less attractive and recycled into the new project. However, long-term data collection is the key to determining how one manages the marine environment. That is true of the terrestrial environment, too, but it is particularly true of the marine environment because there are so many variables and because we do not know a lot about large areas of it. Some surveys date back to the early 20th century. That is something that we need to redress, and it can be redressed only by expensive infrastructure and the use of remote satellites, buoys and the like. It is very important not just to maintain the data collection, but to compare it with the trajectories of previous reports.
The UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy community reports to the Marine Science Co-ordination Committee and provides a platform for addressing the research that is necessary to fill the gaps in our knowledge about how natural and anthropogenic pressures impact on marine ecosystems. If marine planning is to be successful—and we earnestly hope that it will be—it must be informed by up-to-date, nationally consistent data on a much wider variety of variables than is required for its terrestrial equivalent.
The draft MPS refers appropriately to the requirement to ensure that the process of developing marine plans must be based on an ecosystem approach—that is, an approach that ensures that the collective pressures of human activities are kept to levels that are compatible with the achievement of a good environmental status that does not compromise the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes. We do, whether on land or sea, alter the environment. An ecosystem is no longer sustainable, and we get into trouble, when its natural resilience is compromised. It is critical to be able to anticipate that tipping point. Again, it comes back to a good understanding of science and, above all, to data collection.
We need to put in place a network of ecologically coherent MPAs, including marine conservation zones, to address the threats to marine biodiversity and to deliver effective nature conservation. In order to achieve this, marine conservation zones must be identified using scientific advice of the highest quality. A marine science base and a comprehensive marine programme will be critical. I am concerned that this is going to be difficult because of the cost of maintaining marine science, and I hope the Minister can assure me that that is a threat I need not worry about.
Lastly, I would make the observation that with marine planning comes a whole new discipline for planners. It is a young discipline and it needs recruits of an appropriate technical and professional capacity. We will need more university courses to produce marine planners who understand the sort of conflicts referred to by my noble friend Lady Miller, and on a different technical level we will need national vocational qualifications for marine survey that build on the existing qualifications.
In summary, I congratulate the Government on their progress to date and on producing a marine policy statement in draft, but I hope that we do not forget the need to foster the underpinning disciplines for marine planning.
Lord Greenway
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for introducing the debate. Having been away for several days, including the weekend, I only realised on Monday that this debate was to take place and therefore, although I have had a brief look through the Government’s draft marine policy statement, I confess that I have not read it in detail. I must also confess that from what I have read, a lot of it is a little confusing and there is an awful lot of verbiage. I think that it could have been considerably simplified. That apart, on what it covers, it is reasonably comprehensive. Certainly, my friends in the marine industries are supportive of the general content. I also welcome the Minister’s words telling us that work is due to start on the marine plans in March.
In some ways the document is far-sighted, and I particularly welcome the fact that under paragraph 3.3 dealing with energy, particularly renewable energy, mention is made of the potential of tidal and wave energy. I have always been a proponent of this type of energy because energy from wind farms is to some extent overrated. I am glad that this document looks ahead because as time goes on and more development takes place, we may well find that energy, particularly that derived from tides, is much greater than anyone realises. Indeed, some people are already projecting that up to 20 per cent of the country’s energy needs could come from tidal sources. I recognise that this is an early stage in its development, but it is something that certainly we should take note of.
I turn now to references to ports and shipping, particularly in paragraph 3.4. I welcome the decision that,
“the decision-maker should take into account and seek to minimise any negative impacts on shipping activity, freedom of navigation and navigational safety. In particular, international maritime law should be respected”.
I declare a non-pecuniary interest as an Elder Brother of Trinity House. We are particularly concerned with navigational safety, so I am delighted to see that that wording is in the document. Obviously the increased development of offshore wind farms will have a possible impact on navigational safety, so it is something that we should watch very carefully. Incidentally, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned the Dover Strait. I do not have any figures to hand to contradict what she said, and certainly in days gone by the strait used to be the worst area in the world for collisions, but since measures were taken to separate the main traffic lanes going east and west or north and south, the number of collisions has reduced dramatically. I would think that there are other areas around the world which could be equally as dangerous, if not more so.
I turn now to ports. I understand that there is some concern that arguments on the potential of port development are expressed in too one-sided a way, with only a brief reference to the positive economic benefits and much more apparent weight given to possible environmental disbenefits. The ports feel that there is a need for a more even-handed approach, which brings me back to the lengthy arguments that we had during the passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, when we discussed sustainable development at great length, and how the different factions could come to an agreement. When the Marine Management Organisation starts planning, it will come across these problems and will have a lot of work on its hands.
I will say a brief word about paragraph 3.6 on marine dredging and disposal. It would be more accurate to describe this as “navigational dredging and disposal”, to make it absolutely clear that we are talking about navigational dredging. This paragraph should make reference also to the need to support existing and future port development.
I turn now to the recreational side of the boating business, covered by paragraph 3.11. The British Marine Federation represents the leisure maritime industry. It feels that there is a possible case here for separation. The boating industry refers to those who own a boat, or go in other people’s boats, for pleasure, whereas the tourism side refers to people who go on holiday to beaches and perhaps take a short trip in a boat down the coast. These are separate activities and the latter is small compared with the overall marine leisure boating industry.
Most maritime interests are concerned that the designation of marine conservation zones is being taken as a pre-emptive, stand-alone exercise that is not part of the marine planning process. They feel that it would be much better if this were dealt with in the whole marine planning process.
As I hinted a few minutes ago, marine plans will be the key at local level. That is when the nitty-gritty of this exercise will start. The Marine Management Organisation will take forward these plans and will have a tough job on its hands. All of us who were involved in the Joint Committee that looked at the Marine and Coastal Access Bill recognise this. We were also concerned that the MMO would not be properly funded. I hope that the departures of the chairman and chief executive after only a few months in post were not as a result of fiscal concerns.
This document is a good way forward. It can be tweaked a little, but I would like to see it accepted as soon as possible, and for us to get on with the planning process.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his forward-looking presentation of the document that he has given us. I congratulate this and the previous Administration on carrying forward this proposition. My noble friend Lady Miller was concerned about the difficulty of getting agreement between different departments. This document has also had to contend with the challenge of getting the agreement of the devolved Administrations. It is a triumph for the long-forgotten Joint Ministerial Committee, along with its supporting cast, which was revived to implement matters in this field. It is becoming more significant as we deal with climate change and the negotiation of the common agricultural policy. All these matters bridge the devolved Administrations.
I was very interested to hear my noble friend say that he hoped the adoption would be by March 2011. Considering that what we have today is a draft for consultation, and presumably it is simultaneously being considered by the other Administrations, this is a useful moment to air a number of issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others have done today.
Several respondents to the consultation have expressed concern about the interaction of marine planning with terrestrial planning. When earlier planning acts were drawn up and their extent was defined as England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, was there any stipulation that these measures were confined only to the terrestrial part of the United Kingdom, or could some of the provisions be taken to apply to terrestrial waters at the same time? Somebody might raise that as an argument. It has been explained to me that the planning Acts are almost entirely to do with development, and it has been drawn to my attention by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation that in Scotland the harvesting of food is exempt from the definition of development. The federation is anxious to know whether this provision would have any read-over into the maritime area, which might make a rather interesting conflict with some of the efforts to control what is being done.
On drawing up the marine plans, I would certainly associate myself with the briefing provided by the Wildlife and Countryside Link along with other links that there are arguments for the use of the precautionary principle. However, one of our difficulties, as some noble Lords have pointed out today, is that plans will cover vast areas where little detailed knowledge exists, and it will be essential that the responsible bodies take rapid steps to consolidate data in areas where they think restrictions on existing or proposed activities might be required.
I was much encouraged by the reply I received last year from the then Government on the designation of special areas of conservation. At that time it was also pointed out that there were five offshore marine sites under consideration. It would be interesting to know whether this subject has been taken forward over the following year. Can my noble friend the Minister give the Committee some idea of the timescale that the UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy—which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to—is aiming to meet? The paper says that it will provide a network by 2012. Will it also produce a general designation of our whole sea areas, or are its efforts concentrated on the areas that we think are most likely to need protection?
In terms of the precautionary principle, I would also like to see it limited to the first few years—it might be the first five years, I do not know—of any marine plan. As the document says, new areas and changes in management are to be led by a sound evidence base. However, I am again inclined to agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation in its concern that there must be a clear understanding that any sound evidence which is invoked must exceed a test of the balance of probabilities.
Perhaps the other thing that could be considered is that there should be a period for review of the plans, as knowledge and data are bound to lead to new perspectives as the whole thing goes forward. One thing that puzzled me—perhaps it is simply one’s lack of knowledge—is the stipulation that there should be protection not only for designated archaeological sites, which one can understand, but for undesignated archaeological sites. Who is to say what is an undesignated archaeological site, and who is to know what is an undesignated archaeological site?
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their progress in this matter. The marine policy statement will be critical for effective planning at all levels. Marine plans will then be developed under and guided by the marine policy statement. But marine plans are not forecast to be completed for all UK waters until at least 2020. This marine policy statement will therefore be particularly important in areas where no effective marine plans exist at the time decisions are being made in relation to marine licensing and regulating sea users. We therefore need a strong marine policy statement to guide decision-making across the UK waters.
I have a number of concerns with the document’s drafting, and any criticism should be taken in a constructive manner. First, it comprises simply a collection of existing sectoral policies and objectives and does not set any strategic direction or policy prioritisation or provide a clear steer for marine plan authorities or marine decision-makers. Secondly, it does not achieve its legislative purpose of clearly identifying policies which will ensure that the marine planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. It fails to adopt strong sustainability by recognising that ultimately all economic and social activity is dependent on the natural environment, its resources and the ecosystem services it provides. The Government’s work on the Charting Progress 2 assessment of the state of our seas needs to be referred to more extensively in the marine policy statement. It clearly illustrates how our marine environment is being utilised at an unsustainable rate, with habitats and species generally in decline. Environmental limits based on strong science need to be clearly recognised in the marine policy statement.
Thirdly, there is also a problem specific to England. The aspirational nature of the marine policy statement, which includes only high-level policy statements and objectives to allow for UK-wide application, creates a gap between the marine policy statement and marine plans and decision-making. This should be filled by some form of national strategic planning, as is proposed in Scotland and Wales. Strategic planning benefits any planning system by providing a framework for cross-boundary co-ordination, harmonisation of standards, comprehensive assessment of environmental capacity and space for public discussion of these issues.
Fourthly, the way in which reasonable alternatives have been treated in the appraisal of sustainability of the marine policy statement is not satisfactory and is not in full compliance with the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and regulations. Only the marine policy statement and no marine policy statement alternatives have been fully addressed. In reality, the appraisal of sustainability has actually assessed only one option—that is, the marine policy statement as drafted. All reasonable alternatives should be fully—“fully” is the key word—and properly assessed in compliance with the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and regulations. I could elaborate on that but time does not permit me to do so.
The marine policy statement will be critical for effective planning at all levels. It should be a policy driver and set the direction for marine planning, which the current draft does not achieve. It is not, in my opinion, sufficiently prescriptive or robust.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in the gap. Like others, I congratulate the Government on taking this process forward so soon in their term of office, following on the notable initiatives of the previous Government in this sector, including the base legislation on which these activities are built.
I have two interests, one of which is the European common fisheries policy—I have tabled an oral Question on that for Wednesday of next week, so I will not pursue that matter this afternoon—and the other of which is covered in chapter 2 of the marine policy statement, which deals with marine conservation zones and marine protected areas and what will be done to develop those in a proper and sustainable way.
I have two worries in that regard. First, I worry that a bit too much emphasis may be being given—pace my noble friends on either side of me—to recreational aspects. That point is picked up to some extent in the section on noise in chapter 2. The impact of noise on marine life is not yet fully researched or understood, but it is likely—it appears to be the case—to be very damaging indeed. We do not fully comprehend the effect of noise on marine communication systems; the impact may even be to the point of bringing some life to an end.
My second point concerns sustainable conservation of fish stocks. Much of our fishing removes from the sea the adult fish on which the future development of fish stocks depends. If we do not have the adult fish, we do not have the breeding stock. It is very important that that is fully understood.
Finally, I express the wish that any future publication should have less colour and less gloss and more direction and firm action.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the draft marine policy statement and I agree with others that it is a very useful moment to do so at the conclusion of this phase of the consultation process. This has not been a long debate, but it has been a thoughtful one. A number of challenging issues have emerged and searching questions have been asked. I will try not to ask the same questions as those asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and others, but those issues are none the less important and should be addressed for the benefit of the House.
Obviously, the marine policy statement raises issues that are important to the country as a whole. I do not know whether it is still true that the UK is the EU country with the longest coastline, but our coastline is certainly long and we all have a huge interest in the health and quality of our marine environment. There are also important economic considerations: our fishing industry, which has been mentioned; the link with food supply and food security; the important energy sector, with coastal oil and gas; and the increasingly important alternative energy sector—not just wind but tidal energy—which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. In addition, there are port activities, which have also been referred to. There is also aggregates exploitation and indeed, coastal tourism, which is important to our economy and involves access to our coasts and the enhancement of coastal and marine heritage assets.
All those are important national issues, but they are obviously issues with strong local and regional dimensions. Such issues will be of great interest to communities around the country, especially to those areas affected by, for example, offshore energy developments—either welcome or unwelcome—and will have an impact on the future health of our coastal resorts, many of which have gone through difficult economic times in the past 20 to 30 years. Those areas are interested in the issues of economic regeneration and the importance of tourism for the future.
For all those reasons, a marine planning process of the kind that we are considering is extremely important. Obviously I welcome the fact that the work that the Government are doing is very much a continuation of the work of the previous Government—as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton—and follows the welcome passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act. There is a need to ensure that that Act can be implemented as successfully as possible.
Not surprisingly, given the nature of the subject and the fact that there are diverse and sometimes conflicting interests involved, a number of concerns have been expressed in the debate that it is important to consider. As a result of the consultation, there certainly were requests for more detail on different aspects of the marine policy statement, particularly on the precautionary approach and how that will work in practice. Many speakers referred to how conflicts will be managed. Although we hope that decisions will be based on sound science, we know that that will not necessarily resolve all the conflicts on its own. How such conflicts will be managed is an important aspect.
How to link local marine plans to wider objectives, how to make effective decisions until the marine plans come in, the perceived lack of guidance for marine plan authorities and how to prioritise between different policies and activities are all matters that came up in the consultation and that need further attention in order to take forward the work.
Like other noble Lords, I have received background information for this debate from interested organisations, including the RSPB, which raised a number of issues. Again, I will not repeat those, but I hope that the Minister is aware of the submission and will respond to at least some of the points. There are a great many issues to take forward. The Minister mentioned that the marine policy statement will be adopted by March 2011, which was also referred to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. That is an ambitious timetable, which I would not dissuade the Government from but will mean that a lot of work must be done.
Some participants in the debate commented on the nature of the documentation. I rather agree with those comments. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, talked about “verbiage” and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked about the documentation providing a not-very-clear road map. I do not think that the document is very user-friendly. I am not making a party-political point, because the documentation reflects both work produced by the previous Government and work taken forward by this Government. It is important for documents to be as clear as possible for the wider public. If concerned residents of a coastal town looked at the document, they would not find it clear. Acronyms do not help, although I do not know what the alternative to them is, because it is difficult to repeat the long names of organisations. For example, it is important to realise that the HRA is not the Human Rights Act but the habitats regulations assessment. Other such acronyms need to be looked at carefully.
I gather that further meetings are planned to respond both to the issues in the marine policy statement and to the concerns that people have raised. One or two meetings that have been held were well attended, in particular by organisations. I am glad that the task of getting the message out and starting a discussion in the country is being undertaken. Most of the responses have come from organisations—which I suppose is not surprising—but many interested individuals who are perhaps involved in marine economic activities or concerned about environmental issues will also want to be involved. In the consultation summary of responses, some environmental NGOs expressed disappointment that the consultation for the scoping stage of the appraisal of sustainability was not broadened to include individuals. Perhaps that can be addressed in later discussions on the issues.
This Government, and the previous Government, both wanted the marine planning system to be, as the policy statement says,
“Participative and informed by data provided by consultees, stakeholders, regulators and relevant experts”.
I encourage the Government to go down that route. If we are to get a sense of ownership of the plans and the planning process, it will be important for the participation procedures to be as effective as possible. That includes parliamentary involvement. There will be interest in both Houses in monitoring what happens in taking forward the marine policy statement and in implementing effectively the marine planning system and other provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Act.
Obviously, the overarching principle of sustainability is something that we all feel strongly about, but the interpretation of that principle can give rise to difficulties. That is another example of where the devil is in the detail. In that regard, I know that Wildlife and Countryside Link sent us its views on the marine policy statement, and I hope its concerns can be addressed. In particular, that organisation is concerned that the MPS does not achieve its legislative purpose of clearly identifying those policies that will ensure that the marine planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, raised some of those points, which it is important that we consider.
The devolved institutions surfaced during this debate. I note that the Fisheries Minister in another place talked about the need to have good co-ordination across the UK on fisheries and marine issues. Politically, that is something of a challenge given that we have a Conservative Fisheries Minister, a Sinn Fein Minister in Northern Ireland, a Scottish National Party Minister in Scotland and a Labour Minister in Wales. However, my impression is that the process is working well, and I applaud that. Such co-ordination will be important—I say that with a personal interest, as I come from the border area of the north-east of England. I remember that, when I first became interested in fisheries issues, I had a lot to do with an organisation called the Anglo-Scottish Fish Producers Organisation, which existed because fishing on both sides of the border was rather similar and there was a common marine area. I hope that in the new system the welcome existence of devolution will not be a barrier to joint working when that is clearly in the interests of particular communities and areas in the country.
The role of the Marine Management Organisation was mentioned during the course of the debate. In an earlier debate, the Minister and I both expressed strong support for the MMO and the work that it has to carry out, but some things are slightly puzzling to me. I understand that the MMO has designated the first two planning areas—east coast inshore and east coast offshore—and is busily planning at the moment, but this is in advance of the guidance under the marine policy statement. On what policy is planning being based at the present time? That is not clear to me. People need to know what is happening now.
I wish the MMO well in its tasks, but I understand that, as well as the change in personnel that was referred to earlier in the debate, there have been changes in the teams developing MMO planning policy and strategy. I hope that some of the staffing issues in the MMO are not going to prevent the effective action that we want to see.
I shall pick up the point that was made on the funding of the MMO. When the Minister and I discussed that at an earlier stage, he said that he would keep us informed about the situation affecting the MMO’s funding. I do not know whether he can comment on the question directly put to him about whether the departure of the chief executive and the chairman was related to funding, but it would be interesting to know that. There was general consensus that, as the organisation was set up recently when we knew of the financial crisis and its implications—in a lean and, I hope, fit-for-purpose way—for it to be subjected to any deep cuts would be unacceptable. There is a good case for saying that, as its budget was set up so recently, the MMO should be able to continue with a degree of certainty about its funding level.
Time does not permit me to deal with the issues surrounding fisheries policy, which are obviously related to the marine policy statement. A couple of weeks ago a very good debate was held in Westminster Hall on the common fisheries policy, and I hope that we will get an opportunity to debate that policy in your Lordships’ House as well. There are a number of important issues—regarding the regionalisation of the policy, whether there should be a move towards catch quotas and the move towards ending the annual wrangle in the EU about quotas—that need to be addressed. I will understand if the Minister feels that it would not be relevant to address those issues today, but again I hope that we will be able to consider them in some detail, particularly as we move towards the 2012 review of the common fisheries policy, which will be a key moment.
I agree with what the marine policy statement says on heritage protection, but obviously I hope that it takes into account existing activities. Even though this might lead to complications, I agree with the statement that,
“Many heritage assets with archaeological interest in coastal and offshore areas are not currently designated as scheduled monuments or protected wreck sites but are demonstrably of equivalent significance. The absence of designation for such assets does not necessarily indicate lower significance and the marine plan authority should consider them subject to the same policy principles as designated heritage assets”.
In conclusion, the debate has shown that there is general support for the overall approach, but we would like to see clarity about the way ahead, particularly so that those who will be deeply involved in these processes know what the priorities are and how the system will work. I accept that hard choices will have to be made and that conflicts cannot easily be resolved, but ultimately we all have a strong interest in a clean and safe marine environment and in a policy that is clearly sustainable over the long term. I am very supportive of the overall approach being taken, but I hope that some of the real issues and concerns that have been raised can be properly addressed.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am very grateful for all the comments made about the marine policy statement. Obviously we will take them on board and consider them as we turn the draft into a final report. I want to say a little about the parliamentary process because the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, requested a further debate, particularly on the common fisheries policy. I can assure her that my honourable friend Mr Benyon is, I think, still in Brussels at this moment for that rather ghastly extended meeting which goes on for a number of days when these matters are discussed. I am sure that he will take a robust line on behalf of the United Kingdom. However, it is a difficult process and whether we are to debate the issues is obviously a matter for the usual channels, but no doubt the noble Baroness will put on pressure as appropriate to achieve that.
I can also say that my honourable friend Mr Benyon has been before the EFRA Select Committee, which is how this draft statement was dealt with in another place. In this House it was felt appropriate to deal with it by means of a debate in this Room. That is how we have decided to deal with such policy statements. Whether that is appropriate or whether in the future we will have committees to look at these sorts of things, again that is a matter for others.
I was also interested, because it took me back a long way, to hear the noble Baroness talk about border-related problems. I can assure her that those problems are often even more complicated than she thinks. I can remember at the time of the devolution Bill my late noble friend, the great Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, discussing with me the problems of defining the border in places such as the Solway, which I know well, as the river and the sandbanks shift here and shift there. The border, as far as I understand it, is never quite clear, and this causes great problems in terms of who regulates fishing on either side of the river. It has also led to problems with the regulation of fishing where the tributaries of some rivers entirely in Scotland will be part of the English administration, and vice versa according to which rivers they are. The noble Baroness will know about that. That is just one of the problems of devolution but it is one that we have to live with. I am sure that we can all cope with it. I shall say just a little on the questions that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about the devolved Administrations later when I come to deal with some of the points that have been raised.
I shall not address every point that has been raised because I would weary your Lordships and we would be here overlong were I to do so. However, there are a number of points that need addressing, the first of which is the whole question of the draft and what it looks like. I was grateful for the comment from my noble kinsman Lord Eden when he talked about needing less colour and less gloss in the document in front of us. I tend to agree. If we are being non-party-political then I should say that, like one or two other noble Lords, I can remember a rather good White Paper from the Labour Government in the mid-1970s called Food from Our Own Resources. That was back in the days when White Papers were produced on a smaller-sized paper—I cannot remember what size it is—and were literally just white papers. There were no photographs or gloss. Perhaps it is time, particularly in a department such as Defra, that we reverted to such an idea. I just put that forward as a suggestion. It will no doubt be vetoed and I will be told that it is far more expensive to do it that way, and that it is far cheaper to produce it, and people expect to have it, in colour. But I feed it through as an idea. If I had cross-party support from Peers, you never know, we might achieve something.
I turn to the draft itself, and I start with my noble friend Lady Miller, who talked about it needing further work. She said that it should set out options and that the Government should make clear what they tend to favour. We should also make clear that it should be a route map. She wanted the Government to face up to hard choices. I have to say to her that that is what government is all about: it is about hard choices and setting out priorities. My noble friend Lord Selborne commended the consultative process, which I think has worked very well, but he also agreed with my noble friend Lady Miller that the document is full of platitudes and needs more work. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said that there is too much verbiage—again I say that we might save a bit of money by cutting down on the verbiage—but that the document is reasonably comprehensive. Of course, there are tensions between cutting down on the verbiage and ensuring that it is comprehensive. That is just the spirit of a number of the comments that were made. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who also said that there is too much verbiage and too many acronyms—which, as someone who briefly served in the Ministry of Defence, I think are awful things. If we could get rid of acronyms, or at least if we knew what they meant, life would be a lot easier, particularly when reading some of the papers that one has to read.
I take on all those comments and criticisms. We will look at those matters when we come to produce the next version. This debate has been useful in dealing with those matters and dealing with the draft and I thank all noble Lords for their remarks. As I said, I would like to cover a number of questions, but I do not want to weary the Committee by dealing with every point raised as we would be here too long. The important thing is that we have those questions on record so that we in the department can take them on board and consider them when we produce the next version.
On the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, about the resources for the MMO—I should not slip into using acronyms, but as a group of experts we probably now all know that I mean the Marine Management Organisation—settlements on funding are still to take place, but I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the MMO is prioritising and protecting funding for marine planning. We will ensure that that continues to happen. As regards the departure of both the chairman and the chief executive, I am advised that that had nothing to do with funding. It is regrettable that those individuals had to go at the same time, but we are assured that the organisation will still be able to achieve all that it needs to do.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about the review and comprehensive monitoring of the marine plans. A new report on the plans needs to be produced every three years, in accordance with the Act. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, also asked about the issue of undesignated archaeological sites, which relates to the sites where designation is being considered but not yet completed. Clarification on that is actively being discussed by officials.
My noble friend Lord Selborne asked about the evidence base. I certainly welcome his comments and I recognise the problems. Page 26 of the marine policy statement deals with that as well as with the high-level approach to planning. On the importance of co-ordination with the devolved Administrations, I refer him to page 22. The United Kingdom marine monitoring assessment strategy will be important in closing gaps, as will the marine plans themselves. The consultation on the marine planning system in England, as well as the MPS, stressed the need for a monitoring and review process, which still needs to take place.
Turning to the questions on the devolved Administrations raised by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I accept that there are problems. The aim is for all countries jointly to adopt the marine policy statement, and we have been working closely to achieve that. We all have to work together, but in the end it is for the Secretary of State, who has a United Kingdom role on this occasion, to adopt the marine policy statement for it to be valid. If difficulties in negotiations arise, the marine policy statement can be adopted by some but not all devolved Administrations without that affecting its validity for the Administrations that adopt it. In the end, it is for the Secretary of State to make sure that adoption take place.
Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, asked about the involvement of the coastal communities in the development of the marine plans. There has been extensive engagement—I thank the noble Baroness for her supportive comments on that—which will extend into marine planning as a whole. Everyone with an interest in a marine plan will be able to get involved in its development.
I said that I would not be able to answer all the questions that have been raised, but again I stress that this is all part of the process. The current marine policy statement is a draft for consultation, so we will take all the points that have been made by noble Lords into account as we develop the policy further. I appreciate that, as the noble Baroness put it, the timetable is tight, but it is always possible to achieve things in a relatively tight timetable, particularly when, as she knows, the matter has been ongoing for a considerable time. Before the election in May, the pre-consultation paper was published in March 2010 and this draft marine policy statement was published in July. There will be more to come, and we welcome the comments of the Committee. I beg to move.
House of Lords
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012: Olympic Truce
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what preparations they are making for the implementation of the Olympic Truce at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The Government fully support the principles of tolerance and understanding, equal opportunities and fair play that underpin the Olympic Truce. As the host country, the UK will be promoting a fresh resolution calling for the continued observance of the Olympic Truce for the 2012 Games, as has every host nation since 1992.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that positive response, but is she aware that the entire purpose of the ancient Olympic Games was peace? That was underwritten by a sacred truce. Those games ran for 1,200 years, and violations were extremely rare. By contrast, the modern Olympic Games have been running for 110 years. They have been cancelled due to war three times, the subject of terrorist attacks twice and of mass boycotts five times, and the truce has been violated on virtually every occasion. What steps can Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that next time, we do things differently?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his enthusiasm and persistence in ensuring that the possibilities for an Olympic Truce are not overlooked. He will be aware that the UN resolution will not be drafted until January, and the Government will welcome proposals and ideas, including those along the lines that he suggested, which could be incorporated in the resolution. As for international peace proposals, we are of course dependent on other countries to help us to make any headway there.
Lord Addington
My Lords, have the Government thought about whether they might want to extend the idea of the Olympic Truce to all other major sporting events, or at least have some occasion when we might discuss things outside sport when we are having a sporting event?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My noble friend makes a valid point. The core of the Olympic Truce was to promote the Olympic ideals, to use sport to help promote dialogue and reconciliation, especially between nations in conflict. We could perhaps look at future sporting events to see how that could be applied to, say, Rugby League, football and various other World Cups and world events.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, has the noble Baroness considered applying the wider ideals of the Olympic Truce, such as good behaviour and citizenship, along with inclusive school sport and the inspirational nature of the Games as something that could be considered a true legacy of the Olympics?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Baroness makes a valid point. We are promoting a number of different ideas around the Olympics. They are not directly connected to the Olympic Truce but seek to involve today’s youth in different sports programmes. There is the Get Set programme sponsored by LOCOG, for example, and a project involving young people making films around the theme of truce. A lot of ideas are floating around at the moment and, as we get closer to the Games, we will need to pull them all together so that we derive a concrete legacy from the Olympics.
Lord Jopling
My Lords, is it true—this story has appeared in the press—that the budget for security for the Olympic Games in London is being severely cut? If it is true, and bearing in mind that whether or not we have a truce this extremely expensive two or three-week circus in London will be an invitation for bombs, bullets, bloodshed, blackmail and boycott—to say nothing of bogus budgets—would it not be a major folly to cut the security budget?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My noble friend makes some valid points but paints a rather depressing picture. Certainly matters of security around the Olympics are of high priority to the Government and will be dealt with in an appropriate way.
Lord Boyce
My Lords, I am interested in the Minister’s answer to the original Question about whether the Government are looking for a continuance of previous UN resolutions on the Olympic Truce. What are the Government going to do to deliver some kind of tangible result rather than fine-sounding words, which is what has happened for the past 100 years?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
As the noble and gallant Lord says, there have been a lot of fine-sounding words. It is quite difficult to look back for examples of what has happened in countries which have previously declared their support for the Olympic Truce but have found it difficult to achieve particular outcomes to demonstrate it. It is early days at the moment and we welcome ideas on how something positive can come out of our Olympic Games in 2012.
Baroness Billingham
Can the Minister reassure the House about our future Olympians—the young people of today—because we are getting conflicting messages? Can she tell us about the £162 million which was ring-fenced for school sport and about which there was much discussion? We understood that the Prime Minister was to intervene, but now we are told that he is not going to do so. Today we hear that that £162 million has disappeared. Where has it gone? How are we going to produce sportsmen and women in the future without it?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the coalition Government are committed to reviving the culture of competitive sports in schools in ways that achieve real value for the sport. The Schools Olympics is one of the programmes designed to encourage every pupil in the country to get involved in competitive sport and to give them an opportunity to do so; and to harness the power of the Olympic and Paralympic Games to inspire a generation of young people to take part in sport. There are a number of other initiatives which we hope will also contribute to that aim.
Lord Christopher
My Lords, given the importance of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, would the Minister be kind enough to tell the House what “in an appropriate way” means?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That was in reference to the security around the Olympics. Matters of security are best left to the people who have responsibility for them. The Question was about the Olympic Truce. Obviously matters of security will be relevant to that but are not directly relevant to this particular Question.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, my noble friend has said that she is open to at least considering suggestions. Would the Government be willing to consider the possibility of linking the observance of an Olympic Truce by a country with its participation in the following Olympics?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My noble friend makes an extremely interesting proposal. Given that we are at the stage of welcoming suggestions and proposals, perhaps we could have that question in writing and begin to develop some ideas around it.
Burma
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of China in the development of the infrastructure and economy of Burma and of its implications for that country and the region.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, Chinese investment in Burma is significant and growing. Major projects are under way in the oil, gas and mining sectors. We are concerned that such investment will not benefit the people of Burma due to the regime’s economic mismanagement and the prevalence of corruption and human rights abuses, including forced labour. Increased competition in the region for influence and economic opportunities in Burma has reduced pressure for genuine political reform.
Lord Elton
My Lords, in view of China’s overt economic and tacit political support for this tyrannical regime and that of North Korea, should we not now be looking with critical and anxious eyes at China’s enormous economic effort in other places, such as Africa and South America?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue because the answer is an emphatic yes. The extent of Chinese investment and trade in Latin America, Africa and south-east Asia is enormous and growing very fast indeed. We constantly urge the Beijing Government and the Chinese to match their actions and their activities with a responsible influence so that the vast sums that are poured in and the huge infrastructure that has developed can be of benefit to and not disrupt the economies in which they operate. But it is an uphill task and there is very rapid change going on in the balance of world power as a result of these developments.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Shan Women’s Action Network has recently launched the report High and Dry documenting very serious problems affecting people in the Shan state of northern Burma arising from a dam being built on the Longjiang River in China’s Yunnan Province? It highlights the need for an assessment of the impact of trans-boundary dams and shared water resource management. Could Her Majesty’s Government encourage the Chinese Government to address these matters urgently because they are seriously affecting the lives and livelihoods of people inside Burma?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, we are aware of the Shan Women’s Action Network report which has just been published and the very worrying situation it outlines where the potential stoppage of water further up the river by Chinese activity would cause grave harm. We regularly discuss environmental concerns at official level with the Chinese Government; we are particularly focused on this matter and will certainly raise it further with them.
Lord Hylton
Can the Minister confirm that China has been buying up large quantities of the best tropical hardwoods from Burma only to convert them into low-grade plywood? Is that not a bad bargain for both countries?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I cannot confirm the detail but that kind of practice is clearly highly undesirable. In our constant dialogue with the Chinese on the need for environmental responsibility, that is a matter that we will certainly raise if we are not doing so already.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, of course we all agree with the concerns which the noble Lord has expressed about the way that China behaves in Burma as well as in other parts of the world. However, as far as that region is concerned, is not the most important thing to ensure that China uses the influence that it has regionally on the Burmese regime?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think I understood the noble Baroness. Clearly, we have to seek responsible dialogue with the Chinese to ensure that they do not undermine the effect of the sanctions that we are keeping in place and which are having some effect because the generals are complaining bitterly that the sanctions put in place by the US, Australia and the EU are damaging their lifestyle and plans. So we will continue with these sanctions but we must have better co-operation from China and other countries in this matter. If that is what the noble Baroness was arguing for, I am right with her.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the slight shift in the US position, whereby it wishes to have direct negotiations with Burma to build a better relationship in the longer term, will help shift the regional balance of power by making China less capable of making Burma a client state, particularly in terms of ports in the Indian Ocean and strategic shipping?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We are constantly looking at ways of bringing more effective global pressure to bear on this unpleasant regime and its practices. Any developments of this kind need to be measured and calibrated very carefully, but it is the direction in which we should go.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, do the Government believe that there is any truth in the suggestion that the Chinese are helping the authorities in Burma to develop a nuclear capability?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I have no evidence or proof of that, beyond media suggestions. There is no established evidence or clarity on that matter which I can share with the House today.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a little difficulty with the sanctions regime against Burma, which instinctively we would all be inclined to support? If the sanctions are working, they will leave a gap for the Chinese; yet if western companies go into Burma, they are accused of conniving with the regime. There seems to be no answer to that.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord puts his finger on an obvious dilemma. The answer to it is responsible action by the Chinese. If China’s activity effectively undermines the impact of sanctions, then the noble Lord is absolutely right in his analysis. However, it does not seem to be working that way. The sanctions appear to be causing considerable difficulties, reflected in the continual, bitter complaints made by the generals and the authorities about them. They feel that they are both hostile and damaging to their nation and target those who are richer and more comfortably ensconced rather than the ordinary people of Burma.
Census
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to change the national census due in March 2021.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the development of alternatives to the traditional census is being taken forward by the National Statistician. She has established the Beyond 2011 project to look at this issue and will make proposals in 2014.
Lord Naseby
My noble friend’s Answer is interesting, but is he aware of the importance of consistency of census data during the past 200 years? The census is used by millions of our citizens to trace their ancestry, let alone by local and national government and other organisations which look at trends. Will he assure us that, whatever is looked at, we will get a census in 11 years’ time and that the Government will not rely on databases, which are notoriously inaccurate, particularly when one is trying to establish who lives where?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The census results are used extensively by many public and private sector organisations and by many private citizens for a wide variety of purposes. Continuity from one census to another is very important for understanding changes in society. However, I cannot give my noble friend any reassurance because it would pre-empt the outcome of the independent work being taken forward by the National Statistician.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, does the Minister recognise the huge interest taken in the information contained in the census? Genealogy is a fast growing hobby which has the added benefit of encouraging the more mature of our citizens to engage with computers. The USA has released census information after 72 years without any apparent deleterious effect. In the light of this, will the Minister examine the current government policy of not releasing census information for 100 years?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The House is very enthusiastic on this subject.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his question. I understand that the restriction is traditional. The new project to look beyond 2011 will include all these aspects. It is particularly important for many people that they have an opportunity to trace their ancestors. We have to understand that we live now in an IT age; indeed, where is the written letter and where are our written documents? It is going to be much more difficult for historians of the future to find the evidence of our lives today.
Lord Moser
Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I used to be responsible for the census, I do not know how many years ago. There is no question but that the traditional census is of enormous importance for the country to understand our population, migration and much else. I am delighted that next year’s census is going ahead, as planned. That is good news. As to the future, however, there are now serious alternatives which have been followed and adopted successfully in a number of other countries. Most Scandinavian countries and Germany now use alternatives, which is what is on the cards.
Lord Moser
Will the Minister assure us that following those alternatives, which are very complicated, will have full support and collaboration from the Government?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moser, for his question and contribution. He speaks from a great deal of experience in this subject. The most important thing is to emphasise that proposals will come to Parliament before any developments are taken forward. One of the difficulties with the current census is that it is usually way out of date by the time it is actually published. We live in a very mobile society, as we all know, and to try to get a dynamic model would produce considerable advantages in the allocation of resources and the ability of government properly to address the issues of the day.
Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, can my noble friend say how much the last census cost, what his estimate is for the next census, and whether he would dare hazard a guess at the cost of the 2021 census?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not have the figure for the last census but I have the current estimate for the 2011 census. It is £482 million, which is a very large amount. It includes the extrapolation of the figures and the development of figures after the actual census has been taken. It is believed that it could cost as much as £1 billion in 2021.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
Given that the British public are very well able to answer questions on the census form for themselves, does the Minister agree that any campaign, such as that which I gather is being undertaken by the British Humanist Association and is specifically aimed at telling people how to answer the question about religious affiliation, is at best inappropriate, and at worst likely to distort census-on-census comparisons?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure the whole House will agree that the integrity of the process is important. I note the right reverend Prelate’s observations.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, why cannot the census questions be amended in such a way whereby we can secure far higher levels of electoral registration, particularly when in the future we are going over to the new system of individual registration?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There is no interrelationship between the electoral register and the census at the moment. I do not know whether the National Statistician has considered that possibility, but both act under totally different powers vested in them by Parliament. The confidentiality of one list, as opposed to the other, must be respected.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, since the budget for the forthcoming census is approximately twice that for the census conducted in 2001, and since 50 per cent of the present costs are to be met by outsourcing, will the Government not assume that handing over to other agencies is necessarily going to be the way to make substantial public savings? Will the Minister also recognise that it is important for Parliament and the public to know what the considerations are that will be borne in mind when the recommendations are made in 2014? Can he ask that that be a fully transparent process?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I assure the House that it will be a fully transparent process. It is accuracy that lies at the heart of any census programme, and connected to that is the response rate. For the last census, the response rate was 94 per cent, but in some parts of the country it was lower than that. For example, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, it was as low as 68 per cent, and adjustments had to be made to ensure that the figures accurately reflected the situation. Much of the effort this time is going into ensuring that we have a much more substantial response rate and that in no part of the country is it less than 80 per cent. The hope is that with a more dynamic model that might be improved.
EU: Financial Assistance
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willoughby de Broke
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the United Kingdom’s participation in the European Union stability mechanism, and the proposed loan to the Republic of Ireland, are in breach of the “no bailout” clauses enshrined in the Maastricht treaty.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, Article 125 of the treaty, on the so-called “no bailout” clause, states that a member state,
“shall not be liable for or assume the commitments”,
of another member state. Article 125 does not preclude member states from providing loans to one another. The European financial stability mechanism was established under Article 122.2, which allows the Union to lend to a member state that is in difficulties or,
“seriously threatened with severe difficulties … or exceptional occurrences beyond its control”.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that slightly evasive Answer. The phrase about matters “beyond its control” simply cannot be the answer to the difficulties encountered by Greece, Ireland or other potential bailout candidates. Beyond that, could the Minister say whether it is right, when British taxpayers are facing cuts in services and higher taxes, that £7,000 million should be poured into the eurozone black hole in their name?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I did not intend to be evasive but to give a factually correct Answer in respect of Articles 125 and 122. I was not asked whether we thought it was proper to use Article 122 in this way. As to whether it is proper to extend loans, to answer a question that the noble Lord did ask, we have decided, in the exceptional case of Ireland, which is our fifth largest trading partner, that it is in the interests of the UK economy to extend a bilateral loan to it. That does not mean that we will participate in any other permanent arrangements that may be put in place for the eurozone.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Can my noble friend confirm that, as our right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Economic Affairs Committee of this House very recently, it is Her Majesty's Government’s firm commitment to withdraw from the European Union’s financial stability mechanism at the earliest opportunity—obviously while wishing the European Union every possible economic success?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend, because his question enables me to say that Article 122.2, under which the financial stability mechanism was set up, was originally intended to provide support for member states following natural disasters. It was European Finance Ministers, before my right honourable friend the Chancellor took office, who decided in May to apply that article to deal with the eurozone crisis at that time. It is absolutely the position that my right honourable friend who is now the Chancellor opposed the use of the article at that time and in that way. It is the Government’s position that this is a temporary solution and should absolutely not be the permanent way of doing things.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Government will themselves have to borrow the money to provide the loan to Ireland? Will he also acknowledge that the National Audit Office has now determined that any interest paid on such borrowing should be included in current expenditure? Will he therefore tell us how much this interest payment will increase the deficit, and whether any other expenditure cuts are to be made to pay for it?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, first, there will be no hypothecated borrowing by the Government to back up—as far as I am aware—the loan to Ireland. Of course, the loan to Ireland—as and when it is drawn down—is subject to approval in legislation if and when it comes to your Lordships’ House. We might return to it over the next few days. The loan has to be approved by Parliament. It is then drawn down. Of course funds have to come from somewhere, but there is no intention to back that up with a specific loan.
It will not be for the Government to determine the accounting, but the intention is that the bilateral loan will carry an interest rate that is 2.29 per cent higher than the sterling seven and a half year swap rate that applies at the time. On this week’s figures, that would be an interest rate of 5.9 per cent, which would be considerably in excess of the UK Government’s borrowing rate. My understanding—as I say, it is not the Treasury’s decision—is that the net interest margin, which would of course be a gain because the receipts from Ireland would exceed the costs to the Exchequer, would indeed be a positive contribution on the fiscal balance.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, is it not inevitable that to make the rescue operations effective, and at the same time to avoid a treaty amendment, the stability mechanism will increasingly become an intergovernmental eurozone mechanism? What plans do the Government have to avoid the United Kingdom being increasingly bypassed in key decisions in the European Union?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I do not think there is any question of us being bypassed on key decisions in the European Union, as our participation in recent debates about Ireland and the wider crisis have demonstrated. It will be up to Europe to decide how the permanent arrangements are put in place. The October European Council resolved that there should be a crisis resolution mechanism, and there has been a verbal commitment that the UK will not be asked to be part of it.
Devolution (Time) Bill [HL]
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the draft order laid before the House on 15 November be approved.
Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:41 - Division on Amendment 39AC - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 39AC disagreed.
19:56 - Division on Amendment 40B. - Ayes: 90 / Noes: 161 - Amendment 40B disagreed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, perhaps I will wait for those people to leave who are, disappointingly, not staying for the vigorous scrutiny of this Bill.
Clause 5 ensures that media outlets—specifically, newspapers, periodicals, the BBC, S4C in Wales and other licensed broadcasters—are not caught by the spending restrictions in place for the referendum, as outlined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As yet another case of the consequences that befall legislation that is brought forth in haste and without time for pre-legislative consultation, Clause 5 was added to the Bill as a government amendment in Committee in another place.
The problems with the Bill, as introduced, were highlighted in the report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place, which brought to the attention of Parliament the ambiguous position of the media under the funding rules, as drafted. Unlike the spending limits that apply to elections, the definition of referendum expenses includes any material which provides general information about the referendum or puts any argument for or against the referendum question. As a result, for example, a newspaper editorial would constitute referendum expenditure.
I think that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee would be in favour of seeing as well informed a referendum campaign as possible, and newspapers are likely to play a vital role in that process. We obviously cannot have a situation where they are restricted from writing about the referendum, so the inclusion of Clause 5—or something like it—was necessary, but we believe that it can be improved. We are concerned that as a consequence of the planned combination of the polls on 5 May, there is significant potential for confusion in the audit of expenditure on elections. These two amendments seek to enforce the distinction between any broadcast or press advertisement relating to the referendum campaign and those relating to the local or the devolved elections.
Clause 5 refers to exceptions to the 2000 Act’s spending rules for the proposed referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons so Amendment 39AA, the first in this group, seeks to emphasise that the broadcasts which are exempted are “referendum campaign” broadcasts. Referendum-related materials and party election materials must be differentiated. Our second amendment, Amendment 39AB, picks up the same point. If political parties are allowed to use their election broadcasts to argue the merits of the referendum, that could lead to claims that the argument is being weighted more on one side than the other. Party election broadcasts should be about the elections for individual officeholders, not the referendum. If they are about the referendum, that leads to the possibility of the expenditure being distorted. The changes recommended by our amendments are important. It should be in the interests of all parties and none that clarity over the administration of press coverage and expenses during the election period is maximised.
Lord Grocott
My noble and learned friend has more experience of reading these Electoral Commission reports than I have, but is it not unusual that the whole thrust of what the Electoral Commission is saying about his amendment seems to be almost entirely supportive of it but does not contain a recommendation? The Electoral Commission makes a clear recommendation for one or two of the other clauses that it is commenting on. Does he have any information that I do not have on the basis on which it makes an argument and then does not reach a conclusion, as opposed to the occasions when it makes an argument and does reach a conclusion?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
First, I agree with the premise on which the question is based; when the Electoral Commission opposes an amendment—of anybody’s; this is not just to do with party—it says so. It does not, however, appear to support amendments; even when it gets right to the point where logically it should support them, it does not say that it is supporting them. All I can do is say that I note the same approach as my noble friend Lord Grocott. I have no idea why it does that.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I support the amendment because it is vital that we have a level playing field wherever possible during the referendum campaign. Section 127 in the 2000 Act contains some ambiguity which really needs to be clarified. The way the legislation has been framed worries me because, if the 2000 Act might be misunderstood in this area, there is the possibility of expenditure bleeding over from political campaigns for the Scottish Parliament, or whatever, into the referendum campaign. The Conservative element of the coalition—I will keep drawing a distinction between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat elements in the coalition—may well want to place a different emphasis in that campaign. The Conservatives might wish to block electoral reform wherever possible and use their party election broadcasts to do so unless there are adequate safeguards built into the legislation. Equally, the Liberal Democrats might take a converse view and argue that they support electoral reform. They may wish, despite their reference to it being a miserable little compromise, to advocate the use of Queensland AV and use their money available for election broadcasts to promote that issue.
Can we have a clear statement in the Minister’s response today that he would not expect parties in the coalition to adopt that particular ruse, and that the legislation that will govern these matters is absolutely clear when the referendum campaigns take place?
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, will the Minister cast his mind back to the 1979 referendum on the Scotland and Wales Bill, which was the first referendum on whether to establish a Scottish Parliament? He may recall that this issue was extremely significant during that campaign. It was then the position of the Labour Party in Scotland to support the yes campaign, although it was accepted that not every member of the party would take that position. Indeed, there was a Labour “vote no” campaign as well.
A party-political broadcast was made by the Labour Party at that time in support of party policy for a yes in the referendum, and was the subject of an interim interdict by the no campaign which resulted in it not being broadcast. I say this with some feeling because I produced and directed the said broadcast, and I thought it was rather good. The late Robin Cook and Mr Brian Wilson successfully secured an interim interdict. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in his place; perhaps he would be able to elucidate for us whether or not that interim interdict still applies. I still think that that broadcast should be shown.
Lest your Lordships think that this is a fairly abstruse part of the legislation, I say that it is actually a quagmire. There will be differences, perhaps even in the Liberal Democrats, because there are those who do not accept that AV is proportional representation. Perhaps even the Deputy Prime Minister, who sees it as a miserable little compromise, might decide to seek to block any party-political broadcast.
I have two points. First, I say to the Minister that this is not about party-political differences, but about a point of real, practical differences that require attention. Secondly, I am not sure about the differences between English and Scottish law on these matters; I defer to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. I can remember some of my colleagues in the Labour Party in England being completely flummoxed by the fact that it was possible to get an interim interdict on a political party for this purpose.
It may be painful for the Minister to cast his mind back that far—as it is occasionally for me; I am just grateful that I can still do it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend has sent my mind even further back. Was it not the case that she, I and the late John P Mackintosh appeared on a party election broadcast in 1974, when we went rather further in that broadcast than Labour Party policy at the time and committed the party to Scottish devolution? Does that not indicate the power of party election broadcasts?
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My noble friend brings back even more painful memories, because also taking part in that election broadcast was Mr Jim Sillars. In fact the late Professor John P Mackintosh, who by coincidence had been my professor at university, actually committed the Labour Party to full tax-raising powers for a Scottish Parliament as well and it took some years to finesse the policy afterwards.
While people probably go and switch on the kettle whenever there is an opportunity to watch a party-political broadcast, I urge your Lordships to take this matter particularly seriously. Seeking and opposing an interim interdict is an extensive and diversionary activity and I urge the coalition to take my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton’s amendment very seriously.
Lord Soley
I think that my noble friend should arrange a special showing of that election broadcast in the House; I would like to see what I missed. On a more serious note, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. He has hit on an important point. It is worth remembering that there are different electoral systems within the UK for different elections, so it needs to be made clear that we are separating out the referendum from the party-political agenda. The second amendment is particularly important in this respect. I would have thought that there was a strong case for the Government simply to accept that amendment, although they may want to reword it. I hope that in due course they will say that the principle that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench is putting forward is right and ought to be protected.
Lord Lipsey
I support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s amendment. The need for it reflects in part the baleful effects of the Government’s plan to have the referendum on the same day as other elections, because inevitably there will be a cluster of party-political broadcasts as part of the campaigns. That means that a ban of this kind is all the more essential because there will be a temptation at times for various parties to include the referendum in those broadcasts. Of course, it is possible that the referendum will not take place on 5 May—we shall see—but the circumstances in which it took place later could mean that the ability to use a party-political broadcast to campaign for or against AV could considerably prejudice the result of that referendum.
Let us take a case whereby the referendum is held at a time when the coalition has broken up, which seems a more likely prospect today than it would have done about a fortnight ago. In that circumstance, the Conservatives would no longer have any inhibition about campaigning flat out for what they believe in, which is that AV is a bad thing, and they could well wish to devote a party-political broadcast—or party-political broadcasts, come to that—to smashing into AV, if only in the hope of defeating their erstwhile friends in the Liberal Democrats on something that they greatly want.
The idea of party-political broadcasts, although they are propagandist things, is that they are balanced; everyone gets a go at one, so they cancel each other out. Within a referendum campaign, however, to allow for party-political broadcasts arguing one side of the case where it is a matter of chance whether or not there is a party-political broadcast arguing the other seems to be an extremely unfair way to conduct the campaign. I therefore support my noble and learned friend’s amendment.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment of my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. I shall start with my usual obsession and say that, on reading the amendment and indeed the Bill, I was motivated by my usual and, I would say, well founded lack of trust in the behaviour of Liberals in these matters. My noble friend Lady Liddell has mentioned various referendums—or referenda—but, being parochial and from the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen, I shall bring it down to the Royal Burgh level.
As I have mentioned previously, we had a local council campaign regarding local government reform in 1994-95. It was an all-party campaign. Everybody behaved themselves, except guess who? We had the local Liberals trying to slip in leaflets and bits about themselves as if the campaign was somehow theirs. It caused great annoyance among the rest of the voluntary committee and they were reprimanded.
No doubt somewhere in the Chamber somebody will jump up to say, “How parochial and petty”. I plead guilty to that. However, I am further reinforced in my position on this amendment by comments from my noble friend Lady Liddell. I have an awful guilty feeling that, as part of the Labour no campaign, I contributed to the finances to seek the interdict that she referred to. I am quite sure that she will have a word to say to me later about that.
As my noble friends Lady Liddell and Lord Foulkes pointed out, the election broadcast compounded or, even worse, took advantage of pushing the boundaries of what were the rules and what was policy. Though it is absolutely wrong, the temptation will always be there. This should be very well controlled in order to make sure that election broadcasts are not hijacked for narrow political purposes.
Lord Grocott
The two amendments relate to an extremely important part of this Bill. The Government were obviously quite right to have a clause in the Bill that, as far as broadcasting is concerned, deals with fairness in a referendum. However, I am glad that we do not have a written constitution. I would be very concerned if someone tried to hand over the way in which we run our country from a constitutional point of view to the lawyers.
I can see that the issue of referendums and how we conduct them is important. I will certainly not go down memory lane, apart from remembering the debates about setting up the first referendum, on the Common Market, in 1975. There were long debates in Parliament about lots of these kinds of issues—about how to make sure that it was fair. I am absolutely certain that we did not get it right on that occasion; we certainly did not get it right from my point of view because I voted no. There is no doubt that each time these things are discussed, we refine and improve the rules relating to referendums.
I do not know what speaking notes the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has, but I hope that he recognises the significance of this, not least—and perhaps in particular—because, if there is any logic whatsoever in the constitutional changes that are proposed by this Government and if there is a referendum on the voting system in the House of Commons, there must surely be a referendum on any proposal to scrap the House of Lords, whichever way one considers the arguments, although the Committee will be relieved to know that I do not have the slightest intention of going into those arguments now. Presumably, if we get this clause right, when another Bill comes down the track that provides for a referendum on an even bigger part of our constitution, we will have rules about fairness that all of us can agree to. We are heading in a direction, whether we like it or not, where constitutional changes will be referred to referendums. I hope that the Government will look at these amendments sympathetically.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for bringing forward this amendment. I agree entirely with the last point that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made that the pattern of using referendums since the 1970s has been to learn, modify and improve. That will probably go on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, gave a very good example of an injunction being brought against an election broadcast. I am always fascinated by the difference between English and Scottish law. When I ask, “What is the difference?”, the answer that I get in the Ministry of Justice is often, “They do it much better in Scotland”. That is just a passing observation. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, still does not trust the Liberals. I really thought that we were beginning to bond. I will have to do more work on my charm offensive.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was quite right: this clause was brought in as a specific amendment suggested by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to address the guidelines for broadcasters. There is a principle to consider. Would it be right for party election broadcasts for the local and devolved Assembly elections, which will take place on 5 May, to refer to the referendum and/or make any comment on different voting systems? There is an argument that, as a final strap line, a broadcast could say, “Use both your votes on Thursday”, or whatever. We recognise that there is an issue to be discussed. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the Electoral Commission has made some comments on this as well.
I am advised that there are defects in Amendment 39AA that would bring in ambiguity. We could perhaps test that. On the second amendment, I suggest again that the noble and learned Lord does not press it and that we have further discussions to see whether it can be improved and clarified. Before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, breaks open the champagne, I should add that my speaking notes contain lines that I have not heard since “Beyond the Fringe”. They say: “What I am saying does not mean that I agree with his amendment, but nor should it be assumed that I disagree with the amendment”.
Lord McNally
We all know that the final line of the “Beyond the Fringe” sketch was, “But neither should this be taken as an abstention”. I suggest to the House, quite genuinely, that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, reminded us—getting this wrong could cause all kinds of trouble with the best of intentions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Could the noble Lord, Lord McNally, be doubly helpful? It occurred to me as the debate was taking place that we have not touched on the internet. That is now a far more powerful medium in elections and campaigns. I wonder whether the discussions that he is proposing could encompass the internet as well.
Lord McNally
I am sure that that intervention has been noted. Indeed, I am looking forward to an e-mail on Monday that says: “Sorry, can’t get down today. Snowed in. G Foulkes”. Perhaps I am hoping for too much. As I say, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will take what I have said in the spirit in which it is intended. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, we refine these issues each time. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, rightly reminded us of how things can go badly wrong. We would like to talk further about this.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
If the noble Lord is saying to me, “In principle I agree about the problem that you have identified, so let’s talk about how we solve it”—the problem being that no political party should be allowed to use its political broadcast to promote or demote any of the electoral systems at issue—I am more than happy to wait until Report stage. The noble Lord read out parts of his brief in a jokey manner, but that gave him complete room to say, “No, we are not going to make any changes”. Therefore, I need something a little more than what he said. I need an indication that in principle he accepts the broad problem that we have identified.
Lord McNally
I am afraid that I cannot do that. I am offering to talk very seriously about this. I say in a strictly non-jokey way that there are issues that we have to look at if we are not to fall into innocent traps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, reminded us. There would have to be discussions without preconditions on either side. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to press the amendment, I shall resist—and that would be a mistake for both of us.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is worth noting that the clause referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is from the general statute dealing with referendums. This is not a question for just this referendum; it may be a question of whether what has already been put into the general procedure is sufficiently accurate. I think that I am right in saying that at the moment a party-political broadcast in connection with a referendum is allowed, so long as that is not the principal or main purpose, or some such phrase, of the broadcast. It may be that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and others have identified is a question of whether or not that general provision is wise or whether it should be modified. The question may go somewhat further than just this referendum and that issue needs to be looked at.
Lord Davies of Coity
Perhaps I may ask a question. The Minister said that he would have to resist the amendment if it was pressed. Does he agree that that would not remove the problem and that the Government would still have to deal with it even if they won on a Division?
Lord McNally
That is quite right and we would deal with it. However, I am suggesting that we have discussions about it without preconditions. I am grateful for the intervention of my noble and learned friend. He raises another issue that we can take on board when we look at the matter. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is not the only one who supplies lifeboats, although he is not here today.
Lord Wills
I am afraid that I am baffled by the Minister’s position. Perhaps that is what he intends. Will he clarify exactly why he is resisting the proposition put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer?
Lord McNally
It is because I want to be able to discuss this, look at its implications and try and get it right. I do not want to make these kinds of commitments over the Dispatch Box. After all the complaints of the Opposition on this, my good will wears thin. When a Minister makes a straightforward offer to look at a real problem and get it right, I can only say that one begins to despair—although perhaps not for a few hours yet. No, I will not really despair. The offer is there. I hope and I think that we can get this right.
Lord Swinfen
Can my noble friend confirm for me that, if this matter is decided on a Division, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, would be unable to bring it back at a later stage? It may help the noble and learned Lord when he is making up his mind what to do.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I am grateful for all the interventions. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I completely agree with what he says. Section 127 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 currently prevents broadcasters from transmitting,
“any broadcast whose purpose (or main purpose) is or may … be assumed to be … to further”,
a referendum campaign. I agree with him that there are wider ramifications than simply in relation to this. I completely trust the noble Lord, Lord McNally, so I am more than happy to accept his assurances and I am more than happy to discuss the matter in the spirit in which he has made the offer. I am absolutely sure that the two of us will be able to reach a solution that is acceptable to both of us. Furthermore, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite. I should tell him—although I am sure that he will not believe it—that I was aware that, if I pressed the amendment to a vote, I would not be able to bring the matter back, but I think that the Committee is grateful to him for reminding us of that. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, the Question is that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally, a question. I am not seeking to delay. The noble Lord has agreed to consider the amendment, which is a generous concession. What is the process within the department? That has implications for the Bill more widely.
Lord Tordoff
Will the noble Lord forgive me? It seems to me that at the moment we do not have a Motion before the House to debate. Until we get to that stage, people should not be making speeches.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry that I could not hear what the noble Lord said, but I am sure that I will be kept in order by the Lord Chairman.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I did put the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry about that. What is the process within the department? The noble Lord will take back the proposal made by my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. Are there additional consultations within each party and within each element of the coalition about an amendment that might be further considered; or is it simply dealt with in the private office? I am trying to understand to what extent each element within the coalition will be drawn into discussion on the acceptability of any amendment which the Minister might be prepared to consider.
Lord Snape
Perhaps I may detain the Minister and the House for just a couple of minutes on the clause stand part debate. I hope that we can continue in the spirit that the Minister extended in his response to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. Does he agree that this debate illustrates the problems of holding the referendum on the same day as the other elections? It is inevitable that one matter will spill over into another. As my noble friend Lord Grocott reminded your Lordships a few moments ago, those of us old enough to have participated in the 1975 referendum campaign well understand the bewilderment expressed by people, who were not necessarily politically involved or that concerned about the result of the referendum, at the way these arguments crossed party boundaries. Indeed, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will accept that it would be impossible completely to restrict expenditure in the way that the previous amendment, so ably moved by my noble and learned friend, tried to do.
I hope that he will look carefully at that amendment. Again, in the spirit in which this debate has been conducted today, I hope that he will see the sheer difficulty, if not impossibility, of doing all these things on the same day. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will reflect on this. I am seeking to help out his party. I do not know how to support AV. I am firmly in the first past the post camp. However, from his own party’s point of view, it is inevitable, given the economic situation and the actions of Her Majesty’s Government—I will not go into them here—that there will be some degree of unpopularity for the Liberal Democrats. That will spread over into the whole debate about the electoral system that we are to adopt, and I am quite relaxed about that.
I have a great deal of affection for the noble Lord. After all, he used to represent my home town—with a different political interest, of course, but let us put that to one side. If we are to have a sensible referendum and a sensible debate about the matters that we should be discussing, rather than the ins and outs of economic or coalition policy, then the noble Lord should look carefully at the amendment. I know that he has promised to do so but perhaps he could go a little further and adopt the very sensible suggestion made by my noble and learned friend.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I rise briefly to ask a further question to which I hope the Minister will address himself. The clause provides protection against something in a newspaper, other than an advertisement of course, or in a periodical or in the broadcasting media specified, being regarded as election expenses, but it does not say anything about expenses incurred via the internet. Does the protection extend to that medium?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
The question about the internet is very important. Following on from the noble Lord’s point, can the Minister comment on information about the referendum that may be made available by the Electoral Commission on the internet? The Electoral Commission is entitled to issue neutral educational material concerning the referendum question but, in practice, I think that it is extremely difficult to be absolutely sure of the neutrality of any such material in such a presentation. The materials put out by the authorities in the New Zealand referendum led to considerable controversy, as there was an argument that, in listing the pros and cons, they were not impartial. I do not want to go on about this but I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments because the point about the internet and the Electoral Commission is very important.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in these debates. On the day on which we celebrate the fifth anniversary of the launch of YouTube, I think it is right that we raise the whole question of the internet and particularly that “channel”, although that is not the right word. Anyone could place a video on YouTube expressing their views in the hope that many people would watch it, and that could change the nature of the way in which we voted if there were not some way of controlling it. To be honest, it is extremely difficult to control what goes on YouTube but there certainly has to be something in the legislation that at least tries to do so.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I indicated in my remarks on the first group of amendments that I proposed to Clause 5 that the clause was introduced to deal with the problems identified by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place. In principle, we think that it is a good thing, although other issues need to be dealt with, including the point about the internet made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
I have one question for the noble Lord in relation to that. On the face of it, any expenses incurred in making a broadcast for a referendum—for example, if you got Steven Spielberg to produce it and my noble friend Lord Puttnam to direct it, or the other way round—would not count as expenses. Is that really the Government’s intention?
On a general point, can the Minister say what principles underlie Clause 5 and, in the light of those principles, what is the answer not just to the questions that I have raised but to those raised by other noble Lords?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their questions. The principle is that the clause was inserted in response to the committee in the other place asking for clarification. We have put Clause 5 into the Bill to ensure that media outlets are not caught by spending restrictions that are in place in terms of publishing information about the referendum. The media play a vital role in building public awareness and presenting facts and opinions on the matters raised by the poll. This amendment ensures that the media's ability to carry out that role and to exercise the usual freedom of the press and broadcast media is not restricted in any way. That was our intention.
On the point that the noble and learned Lord has just raised, I will have to check again with the Electoral Commission, but I believe that if in making a referendum broadcast, one or other of the campaigns was to indulge in the kind of expenditure to which he referred, that would be counted as expenses.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Does not this whole debate point up very clearly the absurdity of holding the referendum on the same day as other elections? It will be completely impossible to police the distinction which the Government seek to make between coverage that is referendum-related and coverage that is election-related. What if a programme or an article discusses both those topics together? It cannot conceivably work. My noble friend Lord Snape reminded us of how perplexing and confusing voters found it in 1975 when they found politicians of different parties on different sides of the argument. If I remember rightly, that referendum was not held on the same day as other elections; but it still caused people to scratch their heads. It will be completely impossible to sort this out if the two processes are carried forward on the same day. Will not the Government now accept that?
Lord McNally
I do not mind the constant argument about how people are going to be confused by this, but one lesson that we have learnt since 1975 is that a referendum and elections can be held on the same day, because we have done it. There is no reason why the two cannot be run together. To be absolutely clear, the extra expenses would come under Schedule 14.
Baroness Corston
Is the Minister right to say that the 1975 referendum on what was then the Common Market was held on the same day as the local elections?
Lord McNally
I did not say that, but that gives the opportunity for another intervention.
Lord Maxton
In that case, as the noble Lord agrees that it was not the 1975 referendum, which specific referendum was it? When was it held and what election was it? It was certainly not in Scotland, where there is a very important election on 5 May next year, even if he may consider the local elections down here not to be very important.
Lord McNally
I did not say that it was in Scotland. As my noble friend just reminded me, the London elections were held on the same day as a referendum. Come on, let us carry on.
If there were advertising on the internet, that would be caught. Again, I am quite willing to look at the issue of the internet. I do not accept the intervention by my noble friend Lord Lamont. I think that the Electoral Commission has acted impeccably, and I have every confidence in it. I was one of those who supported from the very beginning the idea of experienced politicians serving on the Electoral Commission. Happily, all three major parties plus Mr Reid from the SNP now serve on the Electoral Commission, and I think that it is all the better that there are people who have had direct experience.
As I said, I do not think that there is any problem about this. As was said during debate on the amendments, we will look at the specific points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his second amendment. What happens in the coalition is a matter for my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who is handling this from the Cabinet Office with my honourable friend Mr Mark Harper. I will, as always, report to them on the debates in this House. We will then discuss, on a governmental basis, our response to them. It must be to the great depression of the Opposition to know that we do this in a seamless fashion which produces none of the frictions alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am not trying to delay matters; I really would like to know how this works. The noble Lord said that it is dealt with by the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Harper, but is there consultation within the political parties about concessions that they might be considering making? This is very important. It is about political parties in many ways.
Lord McNally
I have every confidence that those in government know how to consult the political parties they come from. I see no problem here and I have certainly not encountered one. As will have been noticed throughout the debate, on my Benches my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard are both plugged into and expert on these matters for the Liberal Democrats. The noble Lord’s concern is touching, but I can assure him that it is not a problem.
Lord Howarth of Newport
When Ministers consult with political parties about the processes that it might be appropriate to incorporate into this legislation, can the noble Lord assure us that they seek to act in a spirit of disinterestedness? After all, it would not be appropriate for the Government to stack the system so that it would benefit what the parties perceive to be their particular interests. Can he assure us that the Government’s hands are clean in this process?
Lord McNally
Absolutely clean. The problem about this, and the reason we are having such difficulty in convincing the Benches opposite, is that our whole aim is to get fair votes on the basis of fair constituencies, which obviously discomforts them.
Lord Snape
Can the Minister be more specific? He has called upon, so he says, the best brains in the Liberal Democrat Party to assist him in these matters—and I am sure that they will be joined by the best brains in the Conservative Party, the Civil Service and everyone else—but can he give an inkling as to how those best brains will be able to differentiate between the expenditure on local and regional elections and referendums? It is a simple question. Just give us a clue.
Lord McNally
I suggest that the noble Lord looks at the 2000 Act. The schedules are mostly based on existing law. Elections were conducted like this before so perhaps he should find some experts in the Labour Party to help him with his problem. I do not see the problem that he is raising—or the problem that I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is about to raise.
Lord Snape
Regrettably the Labour Party is not in government; he and his colleagues are. It is a simple question and it is no good referring back to the 2000 Act. As far as I am aware, elections have not been held on the same day as a referendum—ever—in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord referred to the London elections, the assembly and the mayoral elections, but this is a completely different situation, with regional and local elections and a national referendum about the voting system being held on the same day. Can he quote a precedent for this—or at least give us some idea of how the Government are going to tackle the problem of limiting expenditure in these circumstances? So far he has failed to do so.
Lord McNally
I may have failed to convince the noble Lord, but we are going to do so on the basis of existing legislation and the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am slightly confused about the reply that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. Which is the lead department for this Bill? Is it his department, the MoJ, or is it the Cabinet Office?
Lord McNally
I am surprised. The Bill has been through the House of Commons and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has intervened so many times. It is the Cabinet Office. I am here today in my capacity as Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, taking responsibility for Cabinet Office business.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I asked the question because I knew the answer. My noble friend Lord Maxton said, “Don’t ask a question if you don’t know the answer to it”. What I am not clear about is this: whenever we raise issues, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has to go back to the Deputy Prime Minister to get agreement. What happens if he is taken ill or is abroad at some major conference or something like that?
Lord McNally
I do not know. That would really stump us. I would probably have to go and ask the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, what happened when he was in Government.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I am in no way seeking to be obstructive but what is the current view of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly on holding both elections on the same day? I am aware that certain representations were made months ago but wonder whether they still represent the views of those two bodies.
Lord McNally
This is a piece of legislation for this Parliament. We are in contact with both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly but we are bringing this Bill before this Parliament and I suggest we get on and do that.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I am not seeking to make this an even more protracted discussion but the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, took me on another saunter down memory lane. One of the issues that confronted the referendum in 1979 was that some non-political players became involved in it—business leaders and trade union leaders—some of whom put a considerable sum of money into their own personal campaigns, taking on media advisers, et cetera. I am going to ask a question to which I do not know the answer. How would this legislation unscramble that kind of expenditure? You may well have someone intervening in the referendum campaign and, as a side swipe, having a go at a political party that was standing in that election in Scotland. This is about the disentangling of non-political players from the referendum campaign in terms of their expenses and the impact that this might have on the outcome. Sorry, it sounds very convoluted, but I can see it being a nightmare, particularly when election agents have to submit their election expenses.
Lord McNally
The Electoral Commission has very clear rules. We have laws about electoral expenses. If there were those kinds of problems that the noble Baroness suggests, I am sure they would be challenged at the time. It might speed things up if people did not preface their interventions by assuring me that they were not trying to delay matters and just got straight into the question.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I am sorry to press the noble Lord further but I know of a scenario in 1979 where some business leaders became involved in the referendum campaign and put considerable sums of money towards it. I can see an actual situation emerging. I will not name the people here but I can think in my head who they would be and who would use it as an opportunity not to take a swipe at my party but to take a swipe at the noble Lord’s party. It is not clear in electoral law how those expenses will be allocated.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Before the noble Lord seeks to answer that question, this debate has got to a stage where people seem to have forgotten that a statute dealing with referenda was passed by the previous Administration. It deals with all of these questions in considerable detail. There are some additional questions because as time has gone on more difficulties have emerged—for example, in relation to the internet—but there are already considerable provisions in the law about that. It is important to remember that this debate should be about this particular Bill and its particular circumstances.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Do we not need to learn the lesson from, for example, the referendum on a regional assembly in the north-east, where the no campaign was led by business interests? That campaign was relatively well-funded and was clearly against Labour Party policy. In effect, therefore, it was significantly in the interests of the Conservative Party. Does the Minister feel that the lessons of that experience have been adequately absorbed and that the existing legislation to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, referred satisfactorily covers such circumstances? Or does he feel that the legislation governing referendum expenses needs to be brought up to date in the light of that example of how money can be spent in a political cause but not overtly by a political party?
Lord Maxton
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned the internet. Perhaps I may give an example to follow on from what my noble friend Lord Howarth said about business people. Sir Sean Connery is a major benefactor of the Scottish National Party, but he is not a taxpayer in this country. He is not therefore bound by rules on expenditure if he is spending that money on advertising via the internet rather than by other means. I presume that there will be other business people, some from the Conservative Benches, who may be in the same position; that is, they are non-taxpayers but can use their money to influence the referendum through the internet in a way that is uncontrollable by the Act.
Lord Lipsey
A little while ago, Members intervening from this side said quite reasonably that they were not trying to delay proceedings by more than they needed to and were being as succinct as they could. The Minister said that it would speed things up if noble Lords would stop saying that. Will he consider an offer whereby we stop saying that if he stops implying that this side is trying to filibuster on this Bill, when it is trying to subject it to correct and proper parliamentary scrutiny?
Lord McNally
I will leave it to the general public to read these debates and make their own judgment about that. Just as on the broad principle of the Bill, of fair votes in fair constituencies, we are eager and willing to take our case to the public. Let those who read Hansard be the judge.
I have explained why Clause 5 is in the Bill; I have listened to an amendment suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and, without commitments on either side, have offered to discuss it further; and I have listened to a number of other points, including the internet issue, which I think will be a subject of continuing discussion in the regulation of our parties. However, a point which has been accepted and which I made in responding the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and others is that we have continued since the 1970s to learn from our experiences and to refine and improve regulation. I pay tribute to the party opposite for taking, with our support, a great number of measures to implement controls on spending and regulate elections via the Electoral Commission. Many of these matters are of great interest, but I think that Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I wish this was as simple as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said. The difficulties in this area spring from the inappropriateness of parts of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and its rules on expenditure as applied to this particular circumstance. I referred in the first set of amendments to the effect of those rules, which would make editorial material in newspapers part of the expenditure and show how inappropriate they are.
This next set of amendments shows another inappropriateness. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is in his place, because the amendments that I propose in this group were prefaced in remarks made by the noble Lord in the debates on the PPERA—if I may call it that—in 2000, where he emphasised the inappropriateness of imposing limits on political party expenditures in referendums when the campaigns on referendums cut across political parties. I fear that these amendments are needed because of the inappropriateness of the rules to which the noble Lord referred.
Limits on spending by permitted participants in the planned referendum on this voting system will be guided by those rules. Clause 6 of the Bill under discussion today makes it clear that the rules will apply with some modifications. Clause 6, and the inclusion of Schedule 9 to this Bill as a supplementary Schedule 15A to the PPERA, explain these modifications and centre largely on providing detailed rules to control the funding of, and spending by, permitted participants who are not registered parties: in other words, individuals, organisations, companies, trade unions and so on.
Amendment 39AC paves the way for Amendment 126 and is presented to the House as a further modification of the PPERA 2000 rules. As debates on the PPERA back in 2000 exposed, the referendum campaign expenditure limits, which were put into law, are potentially misguided. The PPERA states that in the case of registered parties, spending will be limited according to the share of the vote received by an individual political party at the last general election. Schedule 14 of the PPERA, which our Amendment 126 seeks to replace, dictates that if a party received between 20 and 30 per cent of the vote, it can spend up to £5 million. Between 10 to 20 per cent of the vote, the limit is £4 million. The scale goes down to £500,000 for any party that polls below 5 per cent of the vote; £500,000 is a large amount for a single permitted participant to be able to spend, even if that participant is a party of many members.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said in the debate on the PPERA on 3 April 2000:
“The key mistake the Government have made is to define the caps by reference to political parties”.
He explained that by saying:
“One reason that we have referendums … is to settle issues which cut across party lines. While parties are essential to general elections in order to simplify choice on many different issues, referendums are single issue campaigns”.—[Official Report, 3/4/2000; col. 1133.]
The noble Lord is, as ever, wise. It is right that the designated yes and no campaigns are permitted to spend equal amounts of money in the referendum campaign. By being designated as the lead campaigners, they are the mouthpiece on each side of the yes/no campaign. However, political parties should not be able to spend this much. They should not dominate the campaign. If a political party has a particular view, as one political party has here, in practice it will spend all its money—which will be £5 million, if it is 20 to 30 per cent—in favour of the particular voting system that it supports. That allows much more money to be spent on one side of the campaign, because a political party supports it.
We therefore propose Amendment 126, which Amendment 39AC paves the way for. In Amendment 126, which is almost the last in the group and is on page 28 in the up-to-date Marshalled List, we reduce the amount that a registered political party can spend on the referendum from £5 million to a maximum of £500,000. Some people may think that that amount is too large, but it deals with the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raised, which is a good point: namely, that we should look at these campaigns on the basis not of political parties but of whether there is going to be a level playing field. If we allow a political party to spend as much as £5 million, we give a huge advantage if any one of the political parties supports one or other of the particular voting systems.
Finally, there is a separate point in our schedule. The PPERA permits all other permitted participants designated by the Electoral Commission—those that are not designated as the lead yes or no campaign or political parties—to spend £500,000. Frugal times or not, that is a large amount of money. We are concerned that the rules as contained in the PPERA, which are due to apply by way of Clause 6 of the Bill to the planned referendum on the electoral system, would therefore allow a huge range of permitted participants to seek to get the limit of £500,000 and thereby allow one side or the other in effect to get around the limits.
Our amendment makes essentially two points: not to refer to limits by reference to political parties, because that fails to understand the point of the referendum; and not to have a system that has such a high limit—namely, £500,000—for permitted participants, as that allows for abuse. That is why we propose Amendment 39AC, which would pave the way for our proposed new Schedule14A, which would be inserted into the PPERA. That would ensure a level playing field. I am afraid that this problem is another indication of the unsuitability of the PPERA rules as they apply to referendums. I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Will the Minister comment, at least for my benefit, on one aspect of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said? How will the Electoral Commission distinguish between the designated lead organisation and other organisations and decide whether they are truly independent of it? My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay was quite right to remind us that the rules in the PPERA were set down for referenda. None the less, all sorts of problems come with these rules. That is the point that some people on the other side were genuinely making, and that I was making when I intervened earlier. In many ways, these rules are inappropriate.
I am particularly worried about how you identify the designated lead organisation. The very fact that there is a body in this country that actually decides that there is a permitted lead organisation in a campaign makes me quite nervous. It gets rather close to the situation recently when the United States Supreme Court overthrew many of the rules relating to campaign contributions because they were interfering with the freedom of individual citizens to spend their money and support causes they wanted. I can hardly remember what I said a decade ago, despite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, reminding me, but one of the points that I raised then was the interference, as I saw it, in certain basic freedoms: that a government organisation will decide who the lead organisation is, and that other organisations will be subject to this or that control.
These rules, frankly, made me very uneasy at the time, and I remain uneasy. Will my noble friend tell me how he envisages that the Electoral Commission will distinguish between expenditure of the lead organisation and whether another organisation is genuinely independent or not? Some of these organisations are very interconnected.
Lord Rennard
On a point of clarification, does the noble Lord accept that the Electoral Commission is absolutely not a government organisation, that it is independent from government and can therefore do something that perhaps a Government cannot do?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Of course it is independent. That is how it was set up. I intervened earlier with a comment about the Electoral Commission that I was rather nervous about making, and I hesitated to make the comments directly; in some of the evidence presented to the Constitution Committee by at least one academic, the independence of the Electoral Commission on this issue of electoral reform was brought up. I am not saying I agree with that, but it was brought up—it was mentioned in a submission to the Constitution Committee by a well respected academic. When bodies exist on a permanent basis, such as the Electoral Reform Society, what constitutes routine non-campaign expenditure for them and what has to count as an item of spending in the campaign? At what point does academic and educational activity become a form of campaigning covered by the PPERA? I am afraid that these rules are full of holes and really quite impractical.
Lord McNally
My Lords, on the question of how these rules are applied, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and I have a philosophical difference. As I said earlier, I supported the 2000 legislation and the setting up of the Electoral Commission. I am not in favour of the untrammelled process of elections. You need rules and checks and balances if you are going to offer a level playing field in these matters. Much of what was done during the period of the previous Government was worthy of support in making our electoral systems fairer and more transparent in funding and process. What is clear about the process is that much of what is in the Bill, although it is a fairly thick Bill to look at, and certainly what is in this clause, rests on tried legislation that is already in place.
Lord Howarth of Newport
As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, have rather compellingly pointed out to the Committee, there are real and practical problems with the existing rules. Does the noble Lord consider it to be the responsibility of the Government to iron out these difficulties and to put into place a more satisfactory set of arrangements, or is he saying that it is for the Electoral Commission to modify the rules as it thinks best? If the latter, is he satisfied that the Electoral Commission has the freedom and scope actually to do that?
Lord McNally
The answer has to be yes, as if we did not have that confidence in the Electoral Commission we would be in a very odd place. As I said, we support the trusting of the commission, which will publish guidelines on how these rules will operate. It is for the designated organisations and the other parties campaigning to work within those rules.
Lord Howarth of Newport
No one is suggesting that the Electoral Commission is not to be trusted. The question is whether the commission has the scope under existing legislation to make the changes that may be necessary.
Lord McNally
Part of the debate is how much the changes need to be made. We believe that they do not and that the existing rules and regulations will stand. We see no reason to change the current legislation on spending limits for this referendum. Quite apart from seeing no compelling reason of principle, we should consider the practical effects. We are not far away from the start of the referendum period and changing the rules at this late stage could penalise permitted participants unfairly. In particular, we do not agree that there should be different spending regulations for this referendum compared with others, as the amendment suggests. We do not agree that there should be this distinction and we believe that the current spending regulation framework should apply to this referendum.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this because I spoke rather a lot the other day, which resulted in the noble Lord, Lord McNally, wishing for snow in Scotland. I do not want him to create undue problems for the new Transport Minister up there but we have just heard, for the umpteenth time, that this has to be got through because if we do not pass it that will create problems for a referendum on 5 May. However, the reason that the problems are created is that the Government have decided on a timetable which is far too short so, again and again, proper scrutiny of this Bill is being denied us as it was denied the House of Commons. The Minister is now trying to deny us because an artificial date has been set for the referendum.
All sorts of anomalies can arise. We have had a number suggested—if I had had more time, I would have written down some that have come up during our past few days’ debates—and each time we raise them, there is a general frisson around the Committee that there is a problem there. Then the Minister puts his head down, reads out a brief and gets on to the next business without really considering the problem.
Perhaps I might give an example, which is not relevant to this issue but is a parallel issue that can be used. In the Scottish Parliament elections, the SNP suddenly realised that if it put itself down on the list as “Scottish National Party”, it would come low down the list. Everyone who has been involved in elections knows that if you are top of the list, you get an advantage from that; if your name is Arbuthnot, you get that built-in advantage. The SNP changed the designated name of its party to “Alex Salmond for First Minister”. It put down the name of the candidate, then “Alex Salmond for First Minister” in brackets, and that came above Labour, Liberal and Conservative. It came right at the top and it got a lot of votes as a result.
Things have been changed now, because we realised that it was a mistake. That is how these anomalies arise. That is why it is very important that this kind of legislation is scrutinised carefully by us here. I have been involved in, I think, seven municipal elections as a candidate, and seven parliamentary elections as a candidate, most of them successful, and many people here have been involved in many more; my noble friend Lady Liddell has been organising them—she has been in charge of them—and many of my noble friends have been involved in them. That is why we should be scrutinising this and thinking of the practical difficulties that arise.
The Deputy Prime Minister is determined to push this through—because of his ego, says one of my noble friends, although I would hesitate to say that kind of thing. He is anxious to get it through and we are being forced into an artificial timetable. My noble friend Lord Rooker has managed to join us now. He provided the lifeboat for the Government. At some point, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will undertake the kind of consultation in relation to the date of the referendum as he is going to undertake in relation to the previous amendment, as requested by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, came to this House within a week or two and said that the Government had accepted the import of my noble friend Lord Rooker’s amendment, and that they were now going to have the referendum on, let us say, 31 October next year or whatever date, then I predict that the life of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would be a great deal easier—and, even more important than a quiet life for him, our consideration of the detail of this Bill would be far better, and we would end up with a much better Bill at the end of it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I will ask a very simple question, to which I am sure there is a very simple answer. It is about limits on individuals. My noble friend referred to an industrialist in Scotland during the course of the campaign to which she was referring. What happens if a rich man or woman in the United Kingdom decides that they have got several million pounds to spend, and they do not want to spend it through a political party in influencing the outcome of this referendum, and they decide to split up their allocations whereby they fall within statutory limits? It may well be enshrined in legislation somewhere but I just think it should be on the record, during this debate, whether that is a permissible activity under either this law or the 2000 Act. That is my very simple question: what controls exist to ensure that private individuals do not seek to manipulate the result?
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, briefly, the very point that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has mentioned is the one that has particularly worried me: the rich men and women who have made plenty of money—worked hard and earned the money—and decide to influence the political process with an influx of money into either individual constituencies, as sometimes seems to happen, or on a national campaign. I do not think that is right. I am seriously interested in the response of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to that, because I am certainly interested in taking up his offer of widening and deepening the bonding that has taken place between the two of us.
I am also inspired to speak very briefly following the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who mentioned that he really cannot remember what he said a few years ago. None of us can remember everything we said a few years ago, but sometimes there is relevance in what we say. The referendum is being driven by politics. The date is being driven by politics. We are told that we should not revise and scrutinise because 5 May is set in stone and that we should not do anything to put that in jeopardy. It is our job to revise and to scrutinise legislation and we should not be accused of spreading things out. This issue is political. I shall briefly give a quote:
“I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster”.
That is the bit that interests me.
“What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say ‘Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum’”.
This refers specifically to the euro campaign. The quote continues:
“So during the last election campaign the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, Governments only concede them when Governments are weak”.
That was Chris Patten, now the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, this is proving to be a most illuminating debate. When the Minister replies, can he illuminate us further? I got rather confused between two arguments that he is putting, both of which are perfectly sustainable but which are simply impossible to run together.
One argument is that there is nothing wrong with the present law; it deals with absolutely everything. I do not think that that argument stands up because it has been destroyed by the arguments of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, but it is a perfectly sustainable argument by its own logic. Another argument which the Minister came to later, however, says, “Well, the law may or may not be right, but it would be totally confusing to participants if we changed it now”. That is a sustainable argument that leads to a clear conclusion: if it is going to confuse participants, we need to put the referendum date back, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, sort that bit of law out and then go ahead with the referendum.
The Minister can take either line as far as I am concerned, and the House will take its view on whether it supports it, but he really cannot run both lines simultaneously. I know that the late Jimmy Thomas said that if you cannot ride two horses at once you should not be in the circus, but it gets a trifle tricky if they are galloping in opposite directions.
Lord McNally
I know a little Labour Party history. It was Jimmy Maxton, not Jimmy Thomas, who said that. The noble Lord can have a large bet on that; I know that he is a betting man.
Lord McNally
However, I am not trying to ride two horses at once. We are saying that we are confident that the present regulations are robust enough for conducting this referendum. I have paid tribute before: the PPERA 2000 regulates these campaigns and parties; individuals and other organisations are controlled by that regulation. Donations above £7,500 have to be declared to the Electoral Commission and made public as another guarantee of transparency.
The Electoral Commission itself has welcomed this clause, and says that the provisions will provide transparency about the use of loans and similar arrangements on commercial or other terms to fund campaigning. Registered campaigners will be required to report certain information about such transactions in their referendum expenses return, along with the information on donations that the PPERA already requires them to report.
We have already referred, several times in this debate, to how referendums have influenced the development of law. There is no doubt that this referendum will provide an important test of the PPERA framework. The Government have said, in their response to the Lords Constitution Committee report on referendums, that we will review the effectiveness of the PPERA generally after the referendum. In addition, the Government note that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has said that it will examine whether any changes are necessary in the rules relating to the funding of referendums, as part of the wider review into party-political finance.
Basically, we are tightening up the rules on finance in Clause 6. The amendments are not necessary. The Bill contains the necessary schedules to run this referendum fairly. We have confidence in the Electoral Commission and its powers to run it fairly. We hope that the House will not—
Lord Campbell-Savours
Will the Minister reply to a specific question so that we have on the record exactly what will stop the abuse that I have referred to? It might come about that an individual with a large amount of money, surpassing any limits enshrined in legislation, wishes to influence the campaign. What is to stop an individual doing precisely that?
Lord McNally
For a start, each of those donations would have to be declared. There you have the conflict between my noble friend Lord Lamont’s philosophy and what I suspect is that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and myself. I do not want to see big money distorting elections or referendums. We have a set of rules and regulations and a degree of transparency that we believe gives sufficient protection.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Transparency does not deal with the problem that I am referring to. If I can exaggerate to make my point—and I will—suppose that someone said, “I’ve got £20 million. I want to spend it on this referendum, and I’m going to slot it through, by way of various systems, into the campaign”. Transparency might well reveal that, but that does not deal with the problem. What is going to stop it?
Lord McNally
I strongly suspect at the moment—I shall come back and correct this if I am wrong—that nothing would stop it, any more than it would be stopped at a general election.
Lord Campbell-Savours
In other words, the Minister is conceding that money can influence this referendum campaign. He is saying not that it will but that it could in certain circumstances.
Lord McNally
Reductio ad absurdum, of course, wins many arguments, but many of the problems that have been raised from those Benches are not realistic. We can test the House on this. We have confidence in the rules and regulations, many of them laid down by the previous Administration. We are as interested as anyone else in ensuring that the referendum is conducted in a fair and transparent way, and we have confidence in both the legislation and the Electoral Commission.
Lord Campbell-Savours
But is it not astonishing that the Liberal Democrats are sitting in their places and not intervening? One would have thought that they had a particular interest during this campaign to ensure that big money could not influence the result in the way that I suggest? Why do they not get up and say something?
Lord McNally
Because I think that they suspect bogus arguments when they see them.
Lord McNally
All right, we can spend a lot of time on this. I am not going anywhere. If the noble Lord wants to get up again then he can, but the argument about £20 million being spent on the campaign could have been used in any election in the past 100 years. It is not going to happen in this referendum.
Lord Howarth of Newport
We are not talking about an extreme and highly unlikely possibility; we are talking about the possibility that someone with perhaps £2 million to spend could parcel it out between different beneficiaries who would all then campaign on one side of the referendum argument.
The Minister just said two things that are in conflict. He said that he had confidence in the rules and regulations as they are now but, when he was asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours what there was to stop this kind of abuse, he said that he frankly suspected that there was nothing. Those two remarks are in conflict with each other. This is a very important issue. We need to know the answer to the question, and if that answer is not satisfactory then the legislation needs to be amended to ensure that such abuse cannot take place.
Lord Glentoran
I just wonder if the biggest lump of money that has interfered with elections over many years has been that of the large trade unions. They come together as a bulk with a huge amount of money, bigger than that of any individual.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
Could the noble Lord address something very specific that I suspect will happen? If a wealthy person domiciled in Monaco buys up all the billboards in Scotland for example as part of his or her campaign for or against the question in the referendum, what means are there of accounting for it one way or another? Is there a transparent way that it can be accounted for as the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Campbell-Savours, have asked? It is not a mischievous question—it is an issue that could arise.
Lord McNally
Such expenditure would have to be reported to the Electoral Commission, and it would then be published. Actually, I will not bother with this advice. I have every confidence in my advisers but this would provoke another 10 interventions.
Lord Maxton
In relation to that very correct question, the Minister says that it is down to accountability and that they would have to make it public. The problem, however, is that the accountability and the public announcement come after the referendum, not before and not during. So what if the individual has spent the money? It will not matter.
Lord McNally
Those expenditures are reported on a regular basis. If there was an attempt at such an intervention, it would probably play quite a negative part.
Lord Rennard
Does the Minister agree that the referendums for setting up the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were conducted within five months of the general election in 1997 and that no such problems occurred during the course of those campaigns? Furthermore, since the Political Parties, Election and Referendums Act 2000 has been in place, we conducted the referendum for the north-east regional assembly, again without any of these problems occurring. Noble Lords in the party opposite introduced these rules in 2000. They have survived to 2010 without there being any attempt to change them. The evidence of the north-east regional assembly referendum campaign is that no such problems arose.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
Will the noble Lord also take into account the fact that a general election was not held on the same day?
Lord McNally
I have taken all those points in. Fortunately—and to my great pride—I do not remember some of the minutiae of the various campaigns in the same detail as my noble friend Lord Rennard. The Opposition can raise all kinds of hobgoblins and things that keep them awake at night but the truth is, as my noble friend has just reminded us, that the PPERA has worked well. The provisions in this Bill are tried and tested. I do not object to this legislation having thorough examination. As I have said, we are willing to spend as long as the Opposition want on this matter. In fact, we might have a few late nights to see if we can focus our minds on it. For the moment we are confident that we have the legislation in place. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and for Clause 6 to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Snape
Whether the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is tempted to do so or not, I come to the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on this matter. All three major parties have had difficulties over the years with donations. I am not talking about the trade unions, on which there was a rather irrelevant intervention. I do not know where the noble Lord who mentioned them has been for the past 30 years. Various pieces of legislation—still in force—were passed by Conservative Governments to stop trade unions passing any money on to any political party without the permission of the party membership, which is not something that applies anywhere else.
To return to the amendment, all the parties have had these problems, including the Liberal party. After all, their biggest donor at the last election subsequently went to prison. I do not make that point in any political sense; I know the Liberal party had no idea that the donation came from someone who turned out to be fraudster. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said that legislation already exists to take care of political donations and it will do so as far as the referendum is concerned. However, I have just illustrated the weakness of that legislation. The reason for legislation being toughened up over the years is that it is apparent that people evade it. If I might speak for the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, his point—and one made in interventions by my noble friends—is that the present legislation is palpably inadequate and we should all concede that. If we are to have this referendum, particularly on the same day as other elections, that legislation ought at least to be looked at. I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I am not sure what is on that piece of paper, which he looked at carefully, other than perhaps, “Maybe we don’t agree with you either and you’re on your own”.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I apologise for intervening before my noble friend speaks; I do not want to encourage anything that would prolong this debate. However, he says that the laws governing referendums have worked very well and have been in existence for 10 years. Yes, they have been in existence for 10 years but, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, pointed out, there has been only one referendum—a very local referendum about whether there should be a north-east assembly. I do not know what the expenditure on that referendum was but I dare say that an upper cap of £5 million was not a great problem. When the Minister says that it is tried and tested, it absolutely is not. It was tried in the north-east and that is all.
There is the problem, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, reminded me that I raised a decade ago and which I have alighted on again, of groups splitting up. How do you ensure that a so-called independent group is not related to the designated group? This is a real problem. As the Minister pointed out, my worry is not about rich people intervening. I always remember that it was the millionaire Engels who subsidised Karl Marx. I am surprised that the other side of the House is not more in favour of rich people. My fear is just that these limits will be completely meaningless because so many organisations will claim that they are independent. I do not wish to name the different organisations that favour changing the voting system but there are a lot of them.
I asked the Minister how you distinguish between the money that those organisations spend day by day now, before the campaign begins, and the money that they will spend during the campaign. What will be defined as a campaign contribution? The Minister can say that we have legislation to cover this but it has not been tried on any significant scale. If he cannot give some guidance today, perhaps he could answer these questions on another day of the Committee or at a different stage of the Bill. They are genuinely of concern, or they certainly are to me.
Lord McNally
I am sure they are of concern. How we govern referendums and finance political parties will rightly be of continuing interest to this Parliament, the political parties and the political process. We are confident that this legislation and the powers of the Electoral Commission are strong enough to ensure that this referendum is carried out fairly and transparently. Many of the concerns that have been raised will be tested. I have already said that, as with other referendums, we will learn from experience.
Lord Grocott
I am sorry, but the Minister is proposing a referendum which will change the constitution. That is what the referendum is about and, as his leader reminded us, it is the most important constitutional change since 1832. I hope that the noble Lord does not think that the questions being asked—it is the first that I have asked—are trivial or “hobgoblins”, or some other phrase. He has constantly repeated the mantra: “Fair votes in fair constituencies”. I do not like tripping down that road by using that language, but I might as well. How about ensuring that it is a fair referendum? That is what these questions are all about, and it would be simply too late to consider them “after we have changed the constitution”. That may be the result of the referendum, although I fervently hope not, and it would be too late to say, “Sorry we got the expenditure rules wrong; we will put them right next time”. If the noble Lord cannot see that the issue needs to be addressed now, before the referendum, I suspect that not just those of us on both sides who have been asking questions, but a lot of noble Lords who have not felt it necessary to contribute to this debate may feel that a straightforward answer is required.
Lord McNally
The straightforward answer is that the question will be never ending. We will always be looking at how these things are regulated. We will always be looking at whether the rules can be tightened, improved or made more transparent. The question is whether you can conduct a referendum on a fair and transparent basis under the terms of the legislation proposed in the Bill. It is the opinion of this House and it was certainly the opinion of the other place that we could do that. The questions raised on the opposite side may be reasonable, including the question on the funding of political parties, which again will be an ongoing matter. That is why the Committee on Standards in Public Life is looking at that very issue, and this party and this coalition Government will legislate on the funding of political parties.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Of course the Minister is right to say that there will be continuing debate on this range of issues. However, on the specific issue of potential abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, alerted us, and which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and others agree should be taken seriously, the Minister said just now that in his view nothing in existing legislation would safeguard against that abuse. That is very worrying, and it will not do for the noble Lord to seek blandly to assure us that the legislation is probably good enough and that we should proceed with it. The Government have had plenty of time to think about these issues. This Bill was introduced months ago, and it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the rules governing the conduct of referendums are sufficiently rigorous to provide against such abuse occurring.
Lord McNally
But if the Opposition, or even my noble friend, are putting forward hypothetical threats to the fair conduct of the referendum, I am not sure that any piece of legislation on God’s earth can meet every imagined threat.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Not every threat; but this is a specific abuse that was forensically identified by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
Lord McNally
It was not forensically identified. It was suggested that there are ill-defined millionaires wandering around with ill-defined amounts of money. We believe that this legislation is robust and transparent enough to deal with those matters. If it helps, I will at some later stage—and I have already demonstrated that I have absolute faith in my advisers—take the—
Lord Snape
Then I can only congratulate the noble Lord on the quality of his advice.
Lord McNally
And this one says, “Have a go at Rooker, while you are at it”. I will take away this issue of the roving multi-millionaire splitting up his money. If I was related to him, I would want him sectioned before he spent the family fortune. In the mean time, I again ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment, and I ask the House to adopt Clause 6 in due course.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, it is important to identify what we are trying to achieve here. I think everybody in this House would agree that the right expenditure limits are those which create a level playing field. Both sides should be subject to the same limits. The difficulty about the rules that apply from PPERA is that that does not appear to be the case on the facts of this particular referendum. Perhaps I may identify two specific circumstances as to why that is. The way that PPERA deals with the limits is by setting three separate limits, which are cumulative. The first limit allows the designated lead organisation on each side—the leading campaign organisation for “yes” and the leading campaign organisation for “no”—to have a limit of £5 million. That plainly demonstrates equality there. The second limit allows each political party that got between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of the vote in the previous election to have a cumulative limit of £5 million. That is added to the £5 million for the designated lead organisation. In the current arrangements, we have two political parties that express no view on whether they support the change to AV and one political party that supports the change to AV. The effect on the facts of this case is that there is the designated lead organisation limit of £5 million, and in addition there is £5 million that the Liberal Democrats get to spend on the campaign. Therefore, there appears to be an uneven playing field right from the start.
Separately and in addition to that point is the point made by practically everybody around the Chamber that, if you are an authorised participant—either an individual or a corporation—you can donate up to £500,000. Therefore, there is very little difficulty for somebody who supports one of the campaigns—whether they are companies, individuals with families, or a group of people who have a particularly concerted view—to give, in effect, an unlimited amount of money to one or other of the campaigns.
Our proposition is that, first, you should reduce the amount of the limit for political parties, because otherwise you reach an unfair result. That is precisely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made in 2000. It is obviously correct in relation to this because it obviously leads to a limit of £10 million for the “yes” campaign and a limit of only £5 million for the “no” campaign.
Regarding the rich individual, no answer of any sort was given by the noble Lord. I would have been prepared to accept some answer in relation to, first, the party-political point and, secondly, the point about rich individuals. However, not one answer came. The noble Lord merely said, “We are confident that the rules are okay”. This is the same Minister who, in the debate on the previous group of amendments, agreed to go away and think about changing the rules, which he said were not adequate to deal with the position. He is shaking his head. He is right: he did not agree to that but he agreed that he would discuss it, which rather implied that he accepted that there might be something wrong.
Perhaps I may quote what the Electoral Commission says about the two amendments that we are putting forward:
“These are significant changes to the provisions for spending limits at UK-wide referendums set out in the Parliamentary Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. Parliament may wish to consider whether the change might affect the ability of campaigners to put their arguments effectively to voters and the potential implications of changing one aspect of the PPERA rules on campaign spending without further consideration of the overall regulatory structure”.
Therefore, the commission is saying, “Don’t change anything because that might lead to the whole thing falling apart in some way”.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, says, “If we have made a mistake in relation to these rules, we’ll learn from this”. I think that when we are scrutinising this Bill, our obligation as a House is to consider the merits of the changes that have been proposed. We should not treat the referendum—on a matter which Mr Nicholas Clegg has described as the most important electoral change since 1832—as an experiment but we should have the courage of our convictions and change the system if we think it is wrong. Surely the one thing that we have learnt from America is that money does buy elections, and all the rules that we introduced were intended to stop that happening. However, these rules do not contain fair limits that apply to both sides.
The noble Lord was so good on the first group of amendments and so bad on this one—in that he gave absolutely no explanation and did not really deal at all with the arguments—that I have no option but to test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord McNally
“( ) Schedule 19C to the 2000 Act (civil sanctions), and any order under Part 5 of that Schedule, have effect as if offences under paragraph 8(1) to (12) of the Schedule set out in Schedule 9 to this Act were offences prescribed in an order under that Part.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, it is reassuring that the power of argument and eloquence still triumphs in this House.
Clause 6 and Schedule 9 to the Bill ensure that all permitted participants in the referendum that are not political parties are covered by the same regulations regarding loans as already apply to political parties that campaign in the referendum. The Bill does this by creating a new regime for the regulation of loans to permitted participants which closely reflects the rules that already govern loans made to political parties in Part 4A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Part of this regime is the creation of 13 new offences applicable to those permitted participants in the referendum. Again, these offences replicate the offences that already apply to major political parties through Part 4A of the 2000 Act.
This amendment seeks to apply the Electoral Commission’s new civil sanctions powers—they came into force by order on 1 December—so that they are available in relation to 12 of the 13 new offences created by the Bill. The civil sanctions regime was inserted into PPERA 2000 by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. It is intended to allow the Electoral Commission to apply sanctions that are appropriate to the nature of each contravention and to use new approaches to secure compliance with the law where appropriate rather than referring a case for criminal investigation. The civil sanctions include fixed monetary penalties, discretionary requirements, stop notices and enforcement undertakings.
It was not possible to prescribe the new loans offences that the Bill creates in the order so as to apply the civil sanctions regime to them on 1 December. That is because the new loans offences have not yet been approved by Parliament and will not be approved until this Bill obtains Royal Assent. However, the order that came into force on 1 December prescribes the existing offences regarding loans to political parties. This means that there would be a disparity between how political parties and other permitted participants who receive loans to fund their referendum campaigns could be sanctioned if we were not to apply the civil sanctions provisions to the new offences by making this amendment. Our amendment will ensure that civil sanctions powers are also available for the new loans offences and will close off this disparity. The result is that any permitted participant who commits a loans offence after Royal Assent could be subject to civil sanctions imposed by the Electoral Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I detect some inconsistency in the Minister. He is using this legislation to introduce new rules concerning loans but he has spent a considerable amount of time this afternoon telling the House that it is not appropriate to use this legislation to change rules in respect of other matters that may arise in the conduct of referenda—for example, expenditure on publicity or the rules governing the donations that authorised individuals may give. Why is it okay for the Government to change the rules here where it happens to suit them and not in those other respects?
Lord Soley
May I ask for clarity? I found the Minister’s comments confusing. He seemed to be saying that, because the rules were not ready, we could not change this, but he was setting aside time or something—I did not understand that bit—so that we could change it at a later date. I think that he needs to explain that a bit better.
Lord McNally
These rules will come into force once the Bill becomes an Act. This amendment merely brings the legislation into line with the new civil sanctions that the Electoral Commission is bringing in for political party operations—civil sanctions that I greatly welcome, because they give the Electoral Commission a degree of flexibility in getting discipline into elections rather than the constant threat of criminal sanctions.
Lord Soley
I understood the Minister to say—maybe I got this wrong—that the civil sanctions were not ready because they had not gone through the other House in time. Is that what he is saying?
Lord McNally
The civil sanctions in relation to the referendum will not apply until this Act is passed. The civil sanctions that are being brought in apply to elections and the conduct of parties in elections. The amendment merely brings the Bill into line with what was done on 1 December, but the civil sanctions in relation to the referendum will not be in force until this Act is on the statute book.
Lord Gilbert
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is probably too young to remember the referendum of 1975, which was shamelessly rigged by the Government of the day—a Government of whom I was a member. The no voters were allowed to have a leaflet published and distributed at public expense, as were the yes voters. But the Government then brought out a third leaflet, which said yes; it was rather bigger, as I recall, than either of the other two leaflets. The referendum was therefore totally rigged. The rigging was done not by rich millionaires, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, seems to fear, but by the Government of the day. Can we have an assurance that there will be no repetition of that behaviour?
Lord McNally
I am sad to say that not only am I old enough to remember that referendum but I was adviser to the Foreign Secretary of the day. My memory of that referendum, which gives me real confidence about this one, is that the Labour Government had an agreement to differ, which allowed the various parts of the Labour Party to campaign vigorously on either side of the debate yet come together again after the decision of the people. That is why I have every confidence that the same will happen again next May. I have no doubt that individuals in the coalition will take different views. I think that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has said that he hopes to campaign up in Scotland with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which is a frightening thought for anybody.
Lord Maxton
Like my noble friend Lord McAvoy, I was part of the no campaign in the 1975 referendum. I remember that the government leaflet was not as balanced as everybody thought; in fact, it was very much in favour of the yes vote. Will the Minister answer the question that my noble friend Lord Gilbert put? Do the Government intend to produce a leaflet in favour?
Lord McNally
No, the Government do not intend to produce a leaflet. No, the Government do not intend to rig the referendum.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Does the Electoral Commission intend to produce a leaflet or anything on the internet?
Lord McNally
I think that the Electoral Commission will publish some guidance on the conduct of the referendum, but it certainly will not make any judgment on the question to be put before the people. The one thing that I do remember about the 1975 referendum is that it gave a resounding 2:1 yes vote.
Lord Rooker
According to the Bill, the Electoral Commission is going to produce a leaflet explaining the AV system; it will go through every front door in the country. We would like to see a draft of that leaflet, because that is where the value judgments come in. How will it explain this rigged, dishonest AV system, which is so open to abuse? As I have said, I will be forced to vote for first past the post if that is the alternative.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I referred earlier to New Zealand, where an official leaflet explaining the system was provided. Afterwards, there was a great argument about whether it had been impartial.
Lord Deben
If there is to be a leaflet from the Electoral Commission—I find that idea difficult, because the Electoral Commission will have an attitude that comes through—will it give a full and detailed explanation of why AV has not always worked and will there be an explanation of why the first past the post system is on occasion thought to be better? That is the only way in which there can be an unbiased leaflet. If it merely explains AV, it will lead people to believe that the system is sensible, when it manifestly is not, because the leaflet will have the Electoral Commission’s name on it and will therefore be taken more seriously than it would be if it did not. It seems wholly unacceptable that the Electoral Commission should interfere in something that is none of its own business.
Lord McNally
I think that the opponents of the yes vote are already getting their excuses in. The leaflet will help people to make a decision and factually explain both systems. I am not sure that the outcome of the 1975 referendum owed itself to a government leaflet in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, suggested.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
But does the Minister remember that the leaflet that was published had a map of the United Kingdom on the front that left Orkney and Shetland off, which were the only areas to vote against continuing our membership of the EEC?
Lord Rennard
My Lords, could I invite the Minister and other noble Lords to confine their arguments more to Amendment 39B, which deals with civil sanctions, and perhaps make other arguments when we are dealing with other relevant parts of the Bill?
Lord McNally
I am only glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace was not here to hear of that dreadful omission from the 1975 leaflet.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I may help the Minister. I attended a meeting of the Electoral Commission in the House about two months ago. The commission was so scrupulous about not wishing to indicate any view that it found it difficult to answer questions, which Members listening to its explanation of what was going to happen found hardly credible—indeed, they started laughing. It is trying to be independent, but it would be very helpful if we could see some of the leaflets that it is planning to put out.
Lord McNally
I will not promise that this Committee on the Bill will become a drafting committee for a leaflet, but I share the noble Lord’s view of the Electoral Commission. It is nobody’s poodle; it will take its responsibilities very seriously. If it says that it is going to produce a factual leaflet, I believe it.
Lord Soley
I declare an interest as one of the parliamentarians who offer advice to the Electoral Commission when it asks for it. It recognises the problems involved in making a bald statement. It seems to me that it faces the alternative of making a very bald statement that the alternative vote is this and the first past the post system is the other, so that both sides are covered in a very limited way, or of getting into descriptions. That is where you hit the rocks, because as soon as you start describing systems you inevitably talk about advantages and disadvantages, even if it is by implication.
There is a real problem both for the Electoral Commission and ultimately for this House. How far does the commission offer advice on what should be done by a Government or by this House as opposed to simply stating what the current position is or what it would be if a certain amendment or change was made? There is a case for saying either that Parliament rather than the Electoral Commission should decide all the details or that the leaflet must be agreed by the various parties in advance. It is quite a minefield. There are other people in this Chamber who have been at meetings with the Electoral Commission. I do not doubt that it is trying to do its best, but there is a genuine difficulty as to what powers it leaves to Parliament to define and describe and how much authority it takes in trying to describe without falling into the trap of being biased, however unintentionally.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I support what the noble Lord has said. A leaflet describing the pros and cons of different electoral systems cannot be factual, as there are values and opinions. The assertion that one voting system means that people will have more than 50 per cent of the electorate’s support is open to argument. Of course you can go into a certain amount of detail about whether a fourth preference is as valuable as a first preference, but the argument is even more complicated than that. Surely the Government ought to consider the possibility that there should be no leaflet of any kind from the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission has chosen two designated organisations, both of which will receive public funds. Why not leave it at that? Why do you have to have somebody listing the pros and cons in a way that will inevitably be attacked from both sides?
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I am tempted to ask, as the Irishman did, “Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?”. I cannot at the moment see where Schedule 19C to the 2000 Act, on civil sanctions, gets anywhere near the issue of the leaflet. If we can all discuss anything anywhere in the Bill, I have several suggestions about what we might discuss. We can come back to this later. I think that it is an important issue but it is not covered by this group of amendments. Please can we have some time later to discuss the issue? I sympathise with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, is making, but it ain’t here.
Lord Soley
I agree with that, too. The problem is that the Minister raised it.
Lord Soley
If it was not the Minister, it was someone else and he responded to it. It was the Minister who started talking about the leaflet.
Lord Soley
I would be happy with that. Let me be clear. I was responding to the exchange that took place in which the Minister talked about a leaflet.
Lord McNally
As we drift down this stream, we do, I confess, go into inlets and rivulets.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
This provision introduces civil sanctions in relation to criminal offences set out in Schedule 9. As I understand it, the criminal offences, of which there are 12 in paragraph 8, are designed to ensure that either permitted participants or authorised—
Sorry, there is not much point me asking a question if you are chattering away.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
She has got two ears. I agree with that. I will go on. I am sure that the fact that she has two ears has some significance to the story.
There are 12 offences identified in paragraph 8. The purpose of the offences, as I understand it—though I stand to be corrected by the Minister—is that the only people who should be spending money in relation to the referendum are either permitted participants or authorised participants. Therefore the purpose of the criminal offences is to prevent expenditure by anyone other than those people. The way that this is dealt with, as a matter of the criminal law, is to say that if there is a transaction where in effect somebody else’s money is spent, either directly or through a permitted participant or an authorised participant, it is made a criminal offence by paragraph 8 of Schedule 9.
The essence of each of the criminal offences, as I read them—again, I stand to be corrected—is that you have to know if you are committing a criminal offence that either as an authorised or a permitted participant you are using somebody else’s money or as an individual providing the money you know that you should not be spending it on the referendum. Know or ought to know, I should say. What I am interested to know, and that seems a perfectly sensible structure, is what the circumstances are in which it will be decided to bring criminal proceedings and what the circumstances are in which it will be decided to employ a civil sanction. Obviously it will depend on the facts in every case but if know or ought to know is part of it, what distinctions will people rely on in order to determine whether it is civil or criminal? This will be important, because paragraph 8 is obviously intended to be a deterrent to people from breaking the law in relation to the limits that apply—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the fact that we are debating sanctions in a sense validates the questions that were asked about how the rules were applied, because the sanctions and the fines follow those who break the rules? All the questions about what constitutes one organisation and what constitutes a separate organisation are deeply relevant to the points that he is discussing.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I completely agree. I find the idea that we should not be talking at some length about authorised participants and permitted participants entirely wrong. That is why the Minister’s response to the last series was so disappointing. The last series went right to the heart of the issues that relate to the funding of the referendum, because everybody around the House wants a situation in which the same rules are imposed on everybody. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, got a slapping from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for raising the question of the government leaflets, although it was obviously a slapping that he was quite able to cope with. That seems to be the one area where it is authorised to spend money that does not come from an authorised participant or a permitted participant.
I do not dismiss as a joke what my noble friend Lord Gilbert said. Presumably one of the most significant sources of what will be regarded as reliable information in relation to this referendum will be what the Government themselves or the Electoral Commission—I cannot remember which—produce in relation to these leaflets. That will probably be where one of the most significant amounts of expenditure will be. However, I return to my question to the noble Lord—
Lord Lipsey
Before the noble and learned Lord returns to his question, as he must, did he note that when the outbreak of violence took place on the other side—I think that he called it “slapping”—the Minister calmed it by saying that we could talk about all this when we get to Schedule 1? Has he noted that Schedule 1 makes no reference whatsoever to this leaflet and is of no relevance to it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I was not sure when the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the Minister envisaged that we should have this debate. If they could identify on which particular issues we should have it, that would be fine. My question—
Lord Grocott
I have been glancing through the Bill, because the reference to the crucial issue of the leaflet hit me by surprise. The Minister looks irritated every time I make a suggestion; that seems to be the effect that I have on him. This is what Committee stages are for. Sometimes almost out of a clear blue sky a very important issue arises. It seems that we are not going to debate this now. The only part that I can see immediately thumbing through the Bill that refers to the role of the Electoral Commission is on page 19. It says:
“The Electoral Commission must take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness about the referendum and how to vote in it”.
I cannot see anything that refers to leaflets. That is quite probably ignorance on my part, but that was the nature of the debate.
Lord Rooker
My noble friend should turn over the page and see sub-paragraph (2) at the top of page 20. That is permissive, whereas the paragraph that my noble friend read out is compulsory. There is a real problem in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 about the leaflet and the information. There will be a long debate on sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 9 when we get to it, because what is in the Bill seems quite contradictory to me.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The offences under paragraph 8 are knowledge and ought-to-know offences. Can the noble Lord give some indication, because it will obviously be important to the people involved, of what circumstances will determine whether the sanction is civil or criminal? The offences have maximum terms. What is the maximum civil sanction that can be applied? Who will determine whether it is a civil sanction or a criminal sanction?
Lord McNally
First, I do not believe that the role of the Electoral Commission is as passive as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, suggests, as was demonstrated by the fact that it suggested a better question for the referendum, which was taken on board by the Government and implemented in the Bill. I supported the establishment of the Electoral Commission and welcomed the introduction of political input into its deliberations. I remember when we first discussed it, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and others and I pointed out that there was a necessity to have some sensitivity about how political campaigning was carried on by mainly voluntary organisations. The Electoral Commission has performed its duties well, and I have every confidence in its being able to carry out its responsibilities under the Bill.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am glad to hear the Minister affirm his confidence in the Electoral Commission. Does he repudiate the very unkind remarks about the chair of the Electoral Commission made by his right honourable friend Eric Pickles a few months ago? The chair came under heavy personal criticism from his right honourable friend.
Lord McNally
I shall not comment one way or the other on extraneous interventions like that, for goodness’ sake.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, gave me a slap about getting irritated, but the point is that these election rules and regulations—most of the schedules to the Bill—are straight lifts from existing legislation put in place by the last Labour Government, so it comes as a surprise that people who were Ministers in that Government suddenly find all kinds of loopholes and dangers in that legislation. We have transposed into the schedules existing legislation, bringing it as up to date as we can with this amendment and this clause.
I am not a lawyer but, as far as I understand it, the civil sanctions have been brought in because, as I said earlier—and this is not in my brief but from my understanding of it, so perhaps if I am wrong one of the experts behind me can correct me—the criminal sanctions in the existing legislation were felt to be far too heavy-handed, particularly as they applied to volunteer officers in political parties. A range of civil sanctions were brought in that allowed the Electoral Commission a degree of flexibility, from giving a little advice to an errant officer to applying heavy sanctions. That flexibility was intended in bringing in civil sanctions. The decision on how to apply them is one for the Electoral Commission.
As noble Lords know from briefings sent to them, the Electoral Commission is following very closely these deliberations and listening very closely to the points made by noble Lords on all sides. I have every confidence that, if a point is made that the Electoral Commission thinks is of substance and needs to be dealt with, it will not hesitate to bring this to the attention of Ministers and Members of the Opposition, just as it has done in the past. The clause is a fairly narrow one to make provisions regarding the regulation of loans and bring the regulations under the referendum up to date with the legislation already introduced on 1 December.
Lord Soley
I do not want to continue the discussions that we have had other than to close them down. This is all the fault of my old and noble friend Lord Gilbert, with whom I had the great pleasure to be an international observer at the first free elections in Mongolia, which was quite an experience for both of us—and an even bigger experience for the Mongolians. I should say, in case I misled the House or the Minister, that I did not intend to imply—and I do not think that I implied—that the Electoral Commission was passive, which was the word that he used. I simply tried to describe the dilemma facing organisations such as the Electoral Commission as to whether Parliament should make more detailed rules, or whether they should make them and keep things on a very simple basis. That is a very important debate, but it is one that we get to under Clause 9.
Lord Lipsey
In the same spirit, I think that I misrepresented Schedule 1, and therefore the Minister, because there is a proposal in there on which it would be possible to hang a discussion about a possible leaflet—namely, the public information measures. I apologise for that and ask the Minister to confirm that it would be fully in order for the House to have a proper debate about the very important issues raised about the leaflet when we get to Schedule 1.
Lord McNally
I give that assurance and sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has it on his list to deal with that schedule.
Lord Bach
I can make this point fairly briefly, but it is a point of some significance and I should be grateful for the Minister’s response. The amendment looks, rather unusually, at the interpretation clause of the Bill. Clause 7(1) says that,
‘“the Minister’ means the Lord President of the Council or the Secretary of State”.
I have been lucky or unlucky enough to take a number of pieces of legislation through your Lordships' House, and to hear many others taken through it. Bills with interpretation clauses have, as a standard, defined “the Minister” as “the Secretary of State”. That seems pretty sensible and uncontroversial and has the advantage of having been used traditionally. In this case, it would be whoever is Secretary of State for Justice at the relevant time, although, as I understand it, strictly speaking it could be any Secretary of State who would be entitled to take the orders through, which is why “Minister” appears in the Bill. But to say,
“the Lord President of the Council”,
in this Bill is, it seems to us at least, to personalise the position. I shall explain why.
The role of the Lord President of the Council, whoever that may be at a particular time, is set out on the website of the Privy Council and defined as follows. It says that that person:
“Presides at Privy Council meetings, including any Emergency Privy Councils … Considers for approval a number of Statutory Orders concerning Health Care, Veterinary, and Scottish Higher Education matters … As a member of the Privy Council Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, reviews Laws and Orders relating to the Islands, and makes recommendations to Her Majesty concerning their approval … Deals with Ministerial correspondence and Parliamentary Questions relating to Privy Council Business, such as the appointment of High Sheriffs … Determines cases, where the Lord President acts as University Visitor, in a private capacity”.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, this is not the greatest matter before us, but it is an important one and I support the amendment. If there is one rule that one learns in life, it is that making two people responsible for something is a recipe for it not getting done properly. There is not one person to blame or to take the lead and it leads to confusion and non-action. That is my first point. My second point relates to precisely the other side of the coin of the argument put by my noble friend Lord Bach; namely, the present occupants of this position. On the one hand you have the Justice Secretary, who is a passionate supporter of first past the post. On the other hand, you have the Deputy Prime Minister, the Lord President, who is a passionate supporter of AV. They have come together in this coalition and that is simply a fact.
But honestly, there is scope here for mischief-making—and I used to be a journalist. There could be real mischief: for example, the Justice Secretary waits until the Lord President of the Council has gone off for the weekend to make some amendment or order under the Bill to suit his book. More likely, there will be journalistic mischief-making, where the fact that these two gentlemen agree on the Bill when they do not agree on the subject of it is elevated and makes a good diary paragraph. I am sure this Government’s backs are extraordinarily broad. They probably do not read the newspapers at all and are not the least interested in the gossipy things that I suspect might arise from this, but it does seem a completely pointless goal to leave the matter without a goal-keeper so that anybody can have a pot-shot at it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Does my noble friend agree that this is significant in terms of proper accountability to Parliament? Parliament needs to know which Minister within the Government holds responsibility, and the statute ought to make that clear.
Lord Lipsey
My noble friend makes clear in more formal terms what I meant by confusion. Parliament is indeed one of the bodies that could end up confused.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, one of my problems at the moment is that I can hardly stray into these debates without finding that somebody stirs me up. That has happened on this occasion. I was Lord President of the Council for five years, probably longer than anybody else since the war—with the possible exception of Herbert Morrison—or indeed, since the role was created.
I am strongly inclined to stick with my noble friend; he will be glad to hear that, I hope. The clue to this is what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which completely refutes what has just been said—I am somewhat surprised to say—by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. The phrase used in legislation—I do not know how it was done when there used to be Ministers as well as Secretaries of State—is “Secretary of State”. It is not “Secretary of State for Justice”; it is not “Secretary of State for this, that or the other”. It means that any Secretary of State, constitutionally, can exercise those powers. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, falls in my view, because any confusion that there is is basic and written in and just goes on.
My point therefore, and declaring my former interest, is that I do not see why the Lord President of the Council, who is certainly a Cabinet Minister and with the status of a Secretary of State, should not have the same ability to do what all other Cabinet Ministers designated as Secretaries of State can do. I stick with my noble friend.
Lord McNally
I think I am now 2-1 up in the interventions of my noble friend Lord Newton; I am very pleased about that. It is an interesting thought. I am surprised that the other side should leap on this to assume that it was the Secretary of State for Justice. As I explained, I am here in my capacity as Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, and covering Cabinet Office business. When I studied my constitutional stuff at university, I learned that “Secretary of State” was a portmanteau term in government, not specific to any one person.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, talks of scope for mischief-making. For half this Committee, we have constantly been told that this project has been driven through by Nick Clegg and Nick Clegg alone. If we go through the various Hansards, we will find that Nick Clegg has been named more often by the Opposition than any other single person. The Government have put into the Bill who has the responsibility for this legislation. It applies to something that will be carried out next May, when we will be celebrating the first of the five years of Nick Clegg being Lord President of the Council, but nevertheless it is relevant to this Bill. It is simply a matter of common sense to have him named. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Newton. In the past, there have been people who have carried the dual title of Lord President and Secretary of State because of that curious anomaly of what Secretaries of State can do. As I remember it, it used to be only the Minister of Agriculture who was not a Secretary of State. All the rest were. I am sure it is not mischief-making.
The arrangements in the Bill make sense. They allow the Deputy Prime Minister to take key decisions with nationwide effect, but also enable decisions with a specific territorial flavour to be made by the territorial Ministers. For this reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I shall of course withdraw the amendment but this is an interesting point because, as far as I know, it has never been done before. If the Minister has some precedent for it, I will be proved wrong. What most upsets me about the whole debate is having stirred up the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I do not enjoy doing that at all, although he does not seem much stirred up to me.
Lord Bach
Then I feel much better for that. I still do not see why both positions are there. If the Minister is right in his argument, why are the words “Secretary of State” included at all? Why is it not just the Lord President of the Council or, if the Government want to put other Ministers in, why not say the Prime Minister, too, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I do not see why both names are there when the precedent is that it is the Secretary of State, but perhaps—
Lord Campbell-Savours
Could the answer be that there is some concern among those involved in the “pro” campaign that the Lord President of the Council might be identified with Mr Clegg, who himself will be identified with the most derogatory remarks about the electoral system that is being promoted?
Lord Bach
My Lords, I was trying to be as polite as I possibly could be. One of the dangers of personalising it in this way, as I think my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is hinting, is that Mr Clegg may be either so popular that his name, as it were, in making the orders means that what he wants will occur or, heaven forbid, so unpopular that whatever he does or suggests means that what he wants will not happen. To that extent, I agree with my noble friend.
Lord McNally
On the point about Secretaries of State, I think the intention is that those in mind are the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales.
Lord McNally
If there was to be anything specifically territorial, the Secretary of State could take responsibility there. That is my interpretation of it, but there is no great mystery about it. It is simply that, as I said at the very beginning, the Lord President is steering this Bill. He steered it very successfully through the House of Commons and we are doing the same.
Lord Bach
The Minister is being unfair to himself. The Lord President of the Council was hardly seen in the House of Commons while the Bill went through it. I think that he moved the Second Reading and did not appear again until Report. But we are seeing a great deal of the noble Lord, which is of course always a huge pleasure.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I am a bit confused about something that the Minister said about the territorial responsibilities of the Lord President. Having been a Secretary of State for Scotland, I am not absolutely clear that that is the position. It might be helpful if the Minister could seek greater clarity from his inestimable advisers.
Lord McNally
This is about the Lord President’s territorial responsibilities. With the ability of my friends opposite to become confused, I should never have intervened again. I am sorry, for it was a very bad mistake as the noble Lord was just about to withdraw.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Can I press the Minister a little bit on his statement just now that the Lord President—the Deputy Prime Minister—steered this legislation very successfully through the House of Commons? Is his concept of successful passage through that House that the Bill was programmed and that very important sections of it were not examined either in Committee or on Report? Yes, the coalition got its way in the House of Commons but the upshot of that is that there is a particular duty on this House to examine the Bill in the most minute detail, precisely to make up the deficit caused by the failure of the House of Commons to examine this legislation properly. What does the Minister mean by successfully steering the Bill through the House of Commons: that the Bill should be properly scrutinised, or simply that the Whips should ensure that it passes without being scrutinised?
Lord McNally
I have been around Whitehall and Westminster only for about 40 years, but during the whole of that time people from the Opposition Benches have stood up and made that speech about various bits of legislation. In fact, as noble Lords opposite will know, the time offered in the other place for scrutiny of the Bill was positively extravagant, matched only by the verbosity and time-wasting of the spokesmen for the Opposition, who used every opportunity to waste time exactly so that somebody at this end could make the complaint that the noble Lord has just made—and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, knows that more than most.
Lord Rooker
When I took this Bill on holiday to read in the summer, it was 153 pages. When it arrived in this House, it was 300. Yet the Minister has the brass neck to say that the other place was time-wasting, when the Bill doubled because of 286 government amendments that were put into the Bill in the House of Commons. Come off it!
Lord Lipsey
Perhaps I might make a helpful suggestion to the Minister to move things on, because we are getting into other waters. He said something incredibly helpful just now: that this is intended to give part of the powers to be exercised by a Secretary of State for Scotland and a Secretary of State for Wales—by a territorial Minister; that is what the noble Lord said, as he will find when he checks in Hansard—and part of them to be exercised by the Lord President. That is perfectly sensible and a very good description. All he therefore needs to do is to agree to introduce at the next stage of the Bill an amendment that makes that clear and we can move on.
Lord Soley
I would not have intervened again, except for the way that the Minister addressed his last comment. That was not helpful. It is where he actually makes matters worse. My noble friend Lord Rooker is exactly right. The noble Lord talked about his vast experience but I know of many experiences of both kinds of Government increasing a Bill by piling in extra clauses that then come before this House. It does not help to try and score a party-political point. The other side of the argument is that on the last occasion we debated this—I forget which day that was—I quoted from a Conservative MP’s letter, which stated very clearly that he had only five minutes to discuss an issue of great importance and did not have time to speak at all on the main debate for it. There were members of the Minister’s Government complaining about lack of time.
My advice to the Minister is not to get into this party-political knockabout. A Bill like this, which is very important to the Government but very complex, will inevitably expand over time if it is hurried through in the way that the Government are doing. That is what has happened and that is why all those extra clauses, to which my noble friend Lord Rooker referred, have been added. It also explains why some people on the Minister’s own side who were opposed to certain aspects of it complained about the lack of time in the House of Commons. I simply say: for heaven’s sake, drop this idea that it is all one party’s fault. That is nonsense.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Does my noble friend agree also that the fact that the Bill has been added to on such a massive scale by the Government during its passage through the House of Commons—indeed, we have just been examining a new government amendment—indicates that it was prepared in great haste? Yet at the same time, the Government are insisting that the Bill must move very fast indeed towards the statute book. Can it be right to prepare a Bill so hastily that large-scale improvisations have to be made by the Government in extending it, even as they insist that it is rushed through and therefore skimpily scrutinised?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I have to rise in relation to the rather casual accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it was just time-wasting down the Corridor. As the noble Lord will know, because he has been a Member of Parliament himself down there, the effect of the guillotine Motion—although he was perhaps not there when there were guillotine Motions—is that certain amendments are not reached because there is not enough time. The idea that they talked on and on to make it last seems to be misplaced. The worry about what the noble Lord said is that that casually dismissive remark is the sort of remark that is then used to dismiss parliamentary scrutiny of Bills—“we can dismiss what is being said because it is all time- wasting”. I thought one of the principles on which his party and the other party with which he is now in coalition put to the electorate was that we would respect Parliament more rather than treating it with the contempt he has just shown.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Before my noble friend sits down, I refer him to column 843 of House of Commons Hansard of 2 November where Bill Cash objected in the strongest terms to the fact that the Government, with the use of a programme Motion, were denying the House the right to debate large parts of the Bill. Is my noble friend aware that Conservative MPs at the other end are egging us on? We are telling them that we want to deal with the Bill in a reasonable way, but they are egging us on to block the legislation. Conservative MPs in the House of Commons want to use Labour Lords to block this legislation. I think it is quite appalling. What we are trying to do is simply deal with the legislation in the most professional way possible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I did not know what Mr Bill Cash said in the other place but it would help in relation to respect for Parliament if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would think about withdrawing what he said.
Lord McNally
I have been around this Parliament for 40 years and I do not need lectures from the noble and learned Lord about respect for its traditions and for its importance. I did not suggest anything other than something he knows darn well. For as long as I have been here, and long before, Governments have brought in guillotines and Oppositions have complained about lack of time and scrutiny. That is all that I said. That is all that is in Hansard. I am not going to take lectures from the noble and learned Lord about respect for this Parliament and its institutions. I have given my life to this. I believe in it passionately. I respect it as much as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, respects it. No more, no less. But I am not being lectured to or allowing my words to be twisted. I am simply saying something that every noble Lord knows is a simple truth—nothing more, nothing less—and certainly with no disrespect to Parliament.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I have understood the Minister to say that the interventions by Members of Parliament down in the House of Commons were done for time-wasting purposes. I regard that as expressing contempt for their contributions. That is what I was suggesting he might think about withdrawing.
Lord McNally
More than one person has commented that the Opposition spent overlong on certain parts of the Bill and then used that as an excuse for not dealing with other parts of the Bill. Just as I have argued with colleagues who have got a little tetchy about the Opposition’s tactics, I know full well that, as one of my old text books used to say, the principal weapon of an Opposition is delay. I do not object to that, but neither do I fail to recognise it when I see it.
Lord Grocott
This is a Bill of 300 pages—and I do not apologise for repeating this—which plans to change the constitution of our country. I hope the noble Lord is not arguing that to spend five days—I am speaking from memory now, but I am pretty certain that I am right—on the Committee stage in the House of Commons and two days on Report is an inordinate or generous amount of time. I hope he is not suggesting in any way, shape or form, that the time that we have spent in this House on the scrutiny of crucial groups of amendments is any more than they properly deserve. If he does think that, I would appeal to him to let us know which group of amendments should not have been discussed or were addressing anything other than very serious matters about our constitution. He gives the impression that he is very irritated—perhaps I am wrong, perhaps we are over-sensitive on this side—at every criticism of the Bill, and at any suggestion for any amendment. If that is the way he responds, I suggest he talks to his noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who has the capacity most of the time, at the other end of the scale, for making us think that what we are saying is important—what he privately thinks I do not have the faintest idea but I will give him the credit for giving that appearance—and at the same time being amused, not being tetchy and not being irritable. We could have moved on a great deal more quickly with this amendment. The noble Lord has wasted time.
While I am on my feet, the next amendments after mine are six government amendments. I hope that the noble Lord will not do anything other than a proper courtesy to the House in explaining these amendments in proper detail. I absolutely assure him that neither I nor any of my colleagues, and I suspect any on his side of the House, will accuse him of time-wasting.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I am surprised that my little amendment has developed into the excitement that we have enjoyed in Committee for the past few minutes. I have one serious point to make. I ask the Minister to reconsider his attack—maybe he did not mean the words, I do not know—on a particular individual at the other end who is a colleague of mine in the opposition justice team. It is an unwarranted attack on an individual. If the noble Lord wants to attack tactics, that is fine, but do not attack an individual, a Member of Parliament, for doing what most of us would consider to be his duty—and indeed what the noble Lord did so well when he was sitting on the Opposition Benches just a few months ago. Before I withdraw the amendment, I ask the Minister to consider—
Lord Rooker
I do not want to prolong this, but this is the result of this place not having a Speaker. In the other place, if anybody down there had said about somebody up here what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the Speaker would have ruled it out of order. You are not allowed to criticise named Members of this place down in the other place. There is no benefit to it, because we do not get anywhere doing it. We have no Speaker here to stop that kind of immature comment and we ought to have.
Lord McNally
If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, wants to call me immature, that is part of the rough and tumble of politics. I am not going to say sorry. For goodness’ sake, again, I really hope that people outside read Hansard and then they can make a judgment about the handling of this Bill. I am willing to go into the details of this and argue it. We have had everything from the Mongolian elections to the sensitivities of—the Member for the Rhondda Valley, was it? I cannot remember which one it was.
Lord Bach
I am extremely disappointed that the Minister, who is normally a parliamentarian of the highest order, should on this occasion not think it right to withdraw what he said about an individual Member of Parliament. I very much regret that. It tempts me very much to call a Division on this amendment, but it is a temptation that I will resist, because I think it would be a mistake—
Lord Bach
Yes, spoilsport I may be, but on the basis of the debate that we had about the issue itself, the proper thing is to withdraw my amendment which I intend to do. However, I give the noble Lord just one last chance. Why not just say he is sorry for what he said about an individual Member of Parliament? His criticism has been heard. Why not withdraw it now? I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord McNally
““registration officer” has the meaning given in section 8 of the 1983 Act;”
Lord McNally
My Lords, if, when he reads Hansard, the Member for Rhondda is hurt by my remarks, I will try to comfort and reassure him that there was nothing personal in them.
These are minor and technical amendments which ensure that there is single definition of “registration officer” which applies throughout Part 1 of the Bill. This single definition replaces the existing definitions given in the various provisions in Part 1, but does not change the meaning. The amendments provide that “registration officer” has the meaning given in Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. For England, Wales and Scotland, the individual is the officer who has been appointed to this role for the relevant area. In Northern Ireland, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland is the sole registration officer. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
A drafting point: there appear to be random definitions contained in Clause 7(1). For example, we do not have definitions of “regulated transaction”, “responsible person” or “relevant donations”, which are terms referred to. Yet, suddenly, we have a definition of “registration officer”. What is the basis upon which some terms are defined in Clause 7(1) and not others? Will this not lead to confusion?
Lord McNally
As I understand it, this is an attempt to clarify the specific case of “registration officer”. We do not anticipate the kind of confusion that the noble and learned Lord anticipates in other definitions, but it is important to have a common definition for registration officers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not want to be a total brute here, but will the noble Lord write to me? It is pretty clear what “registration officer” means throughout the Bill, but if you do not also define the other terms, there is the possibility that there will be some difference among courts as to what it is meant. Can the Minister set out the basis for selecting some terms to be defined but not others? If he would like to write to me about that, I would be perfectly happy. However, if we are trying to make this Bill a little better, setting out that basis is worth while.
Lord McNally
The noble and learned Lord has brought an entirely new atmosphere to the debate for which I am most grateful. I offer to write to him on the specific point.
Lord Grocott
“( ) A Westminister parliamentary constituency, as it exists on the day of the referendum, is a “voting area” for the purposes of this Part.”
Lord Grocott
My Lords, the amendment could not be simpler in its objective. It would shorten the Bill, and is about how the election will be conducted and declared. It refers to Clause 7(2) of the Bill, which says, in defining the various voting areas, that they shall be,
“a district in England … a county in England … a London borough … the City of London … the Isles of Scilly … a constituency for the National Assembly for Wales … a constituency for the Scottish Parliament … Northern Ireland”.
My amendment simply deletes all that and replaces it with the most commonsense way to consider and declare an election relating to the House of Commons: to say that the results will be declared on a constituency basis. It basically replaces 10 lines with two.
I am emboldened in moving the amendment, not least by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his responses in various other clauses, where he has repeated time and time again that his intention is to follow as closely as possible what happens in parliamentary elections in all the details of how this referendum is conducted. I could quote any number of examples, and that is precisely what my amendment does. For example, in the debate the other day on whether voting in the referendum at the age of 16 should be allowed, the noble Lord said in rejecting the amendment:
“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”.—[Official Report, 13/12/10; col. 464.]
That is precisely what I am doing with the amendment.
Noble Lords may ask why. What is the point of having elections conducted and returned on the basis of parliamentary constituencies? The clue is in the Title to the Bill: the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill. My reason for moving the amendment is that the Bill goes to the heart of the relationships between constituents and the Member of Parliament. That is what it is about, and why I and others are so concerned about it in many ways.
I will concede, perhaps the only concession I could make to supporters of the alternative vote system, that the proposal has the merit of not disconnecting Members of Parliament with their constituencies. I have long believed—and this is why I support first past the post more than any other system—that, to use the cliché, the jewel in the crown of the system of parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom is that there is this close link between Members of Parliament and their constituencies.
I am not criticising AV in suggesting that the results should be declared on a constituency basis. I am saying that the constituency results are important. Of course, I freely concede that the most important result of a referendum is to know what has happened nationally. You total the votes up and see who has won and who has lost; that is basically what happens. As I have said, however, this is about constituencies and the verdict of people in their constituencies. During the referendum, if noble Lords ignore the national picture for a moment, we are in effect saying to people, “For generations, your parents, grandparents and perhaps in some cases great-grandparents have returned Members of Parliament from this area”—which we hope is a coherent area, but we will come to that later in the Bill. “Are you happy with how you have been choosing your Members of Parliament? Because some people are saying that they are dissatisfied with how that is done”.
By returning the results in individual constituencies, you are at least relating the conduct and outcome of the election to the very heart of what this change in our constitution, should it be carried, is about. It is, frankly, pointless and irrelevant to do as the Bill does: to declare results on the basis of boroughs in the United Kingdom, for example. What on earth is the basis for that? Does it tell us whether the borough of this, that or the other voted for or against the referendum? Nor do I understand the significance of declaring one constituency for the whole of Northern Ireland.
Lord Tyler
As the noble Lord knows, I share his view about the connection between a representative and his or her constituency. He and I take that seriously. I am sure that he has looked at the evidence given by the Electoral Commission, to which many tributes were earlier paid for its independence and the care with which it is preparing for this. Therefore, does the noble Lord note that it summarises its view on his amendment by saying that it would create an unnecessary risk to the successful delivery of the scheduled elections and referendum? That is pretty specific. Will the noble Lord address that point? We are sympathetic to his general point. Our concern is the practical issue.
Lord Grocott
I will address that point precisely in a moment. I am currently simply pointing out that, in relation to a normal parliamentary election, to have the various categories of electoral district as laid out in the Bill offers meaningless figures. It is particularly confusing in Scotland and Wales, where the results of the referendum debate—which is, I repeat, about parliamentary elections—will be based on the constituencies of the National Assembly for Wales and the constituencies of the Scottish Parliament. I do not know too much about Scottish politics, but I do know that the constituency boundaries for Scottish parliamentary elections are different from the constituency boundaries for the House of Commons. It is suggested that that is not the appropriate area in which to consider and declare the results, but it simply makes the whole operation more confusing if they are declared on a different basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, rightly drew my attention to the wording of the report by the Electoral Commission. I do not think that I have ever been referred to by the commission before, so this is a moment in my life—I do not know about anyone else’s. I have to say that I have a fair bit of concern about what the commission has said, and I hope that when he sums up the Minister does not simply repeat it but gives some credence to the points that I am making. The commission says that:
“Amendment 40B seeks to change the voting areas for the referendum so that they are the same as UK parliamentary constituencies”—
the simplest possible proposition, of course.
“The voting areas currently in the Bill reflect the voting areas for the scheduled elections on 5 May 2011, the polls for which are to be combined with the poll for the referendum if they take place on the same day”.
That is a statement of fact, but now comes—for me, at any rate—the contentious bit:
“We understand”—
this is the Electoral Commission, the independent body to which the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord McNally, have paid tribute—
“that it is the Government’s intention that the referendum should take place on 5 May 2011. We do not support this amendment as making such a significant change to the rules for the referendum this close to 5 May would create an unnecessary risk to the successful delivery of the scheduled elections and the referendum”.
Bearing in mind the unprompted mini-debate that we had earlier about how neutral the Electoral Commission could be, were it to provide a descriptive leaflet of AV on the one hand and first past the post on the other, the commission’s comment on this amendment rang alarm bells in my brain. It is not commenting in any shape or form on the merits of the argument that results should be by constituency; it is commenting on the basis of whether this would be convenient to the Government, who want the referendum on 5 May 2011. That is a pretty inappropriate thing for the Electoral Commission to say. By all means it could say, “The Government want to do this but of course that’s none of our business; they might change their mind”.
What is even more significant and concerns me, although I cannot believe it to be true, is that the Electoral Commission appears not to have seen the result of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker and carried, which gave the Government all the flexibility that they might need to deliver the Bill in a timely way with proper scrutiny. As it now stands, the Bill says that the referendum does not have to be held until October next year, which would give plenty of time for the oddity in the way that these election results are declared to be rectified.
This is not rocket science. Having a general election on the same day as local elections—maybe this is helping the Government, I do not know—is a tried and tested operation. To repeat myself, I am suggesting that the referendum should be counted just like general election constituencies. I have not done an exhaustive list, but we know that this year’s general election was held on the same day as local elections, as were those in 2001 and 1997. I am certainly not likely to forget the election in 1979 that was held on the same day, when the electorate decided that I should spend more time with my family; that is an election that I will not forget in a hurry. The idea that somehow the electoral administrative machinery cannot cope with dealing with results by constituency on the same day as local elections seems to be negatived by experience.
I am concerned that the Electoral Commission, no less, should be advising us to turn this amendment down—and I hope that I have demonstrated that it is at least worthy of consideration—on the grounds that it does not meet the Government’s timetable. When the Minister comes to respond to this, I hope that he does not use that argument. As I said when I intervened on my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer earlier, I feel a bit hurt by all this, or maybe he should, because when he proposed the amendment earlier today he was able to quote the Electoral Commission as broadly agreeing with what he was saying but it did not recommend that we should vote for his amendment. Now it broadly disagrees with what I am saying but it is telling the House to throw it out—and, by implication, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, obviously takes it very seriously. Perhaps I should not take this personally.
Lord Rennard
I wonder whether the noble Lord is trying to make it difficult for the referendum to be held on 5 May, in contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who said specifically that he was arguing in his amendment that the referendum could be held on 5 May or at a later date if that was more convenient. Is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, not wholly different from that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who is trying to make it difficult to have the referendum on the day that the other place has voted for it to be held on?
Lord McAvoy
I do not want to raise the temperature again, but nevertheless this point has to be made: does that intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, not indicate clearly that there is no filibustering going on, there is no organisation and what is happening here is genuine scrutiny?
Lord Grocott
Since the degree to which we are genuine is being tested at the moment, the House will simply have to accept my absolute, total, 100 per cent, categorical—I cannot think of any other adjectives—assurance that when I tabled this amendment, I did so, believe it or not, because I thought that it would be a better referendum if the results were declared by constituency, which is never normally a problem in general elections. It came as a surprise to me that the Electoral Commission thought that there would be all sorts of administrative problems in doing so, particularly—I am repeating myself now, I know—because time and again local elections and parliamentary constituency elections have been held on the same day.
I hope that the Minister’s notes do not say that this is just another silly amendment from the Opposition and that it should be knocked down. I hope that he recognises that there are people who have lived and worked in areas of this country, many of them for generations, who are used to the system under which they are operating and who wish to cast their vote—though not enough of them, I believe, as I fear that the turnout will not be very high. Still, there is a good possibility, although perhaps this is wishful thinking, that the majority will decide that they think the system under which they have been operating is quite good, and they should be allowed to express their own views within their own individual constituencies. That is all that my amendment is trying to do. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I did not really see the significance of my noble friend’s amendment when I was reading through the Bill, and I missed this.
I am thinking back. I know that we are going to be told that the 1975 referendum was not declared by constituency. If I remember rightly, one of the arguments used at the time was, “It would be very uncertain if MPs who had campaigned on one issue about the EU found that their constituents had gone against them”. I recall it being a bit mixed up. I was part of the no campaign, in that sense—I certainly voted no, anyway. In this case, though, the issue is very personal to the MPs concerned because it is about their voting system.
Take the districts. I used to represent part of Birmingham. The whole of the city gets lumped together, no one gets embarrassed about which way a particular constituency has gone and everything is in the melting pot. It is easier to count when all the constituencies have been lumped together, but where does that leave the Members of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament elected on that day? They will be out campaigning. The results will be declared in their constituencies for AV or not. So, you will be covering it up for some so as not to cause embarrassment, but not for others.
I am unaware of a constituency called “the Isles of Scilly”. If I remember right, the Isles of Scilly are part of a constituency on the mainland. That is my understanding. Why on earth are they singled out in this way? On Northern Ireland, I hope that we will not have the argument about there being an east and a west and a green and an orange. We do not want any arguments about which constituency went which way. We do not want any arguments about lumping it all together. You cannot use all these arguments to defend this set of voting declarations. Whichever you use for one is contradicted by the other.
It cannot be being done for the administrative convenience for the Electoral Commission. It is not doing the counting. The counting officers are doing the counting—a well-oiled machine, highly sophisticated in counting votes in this country based on wards and constituencies. I freely admit that a little bit went wrong but not on the counts. Why deviate from that? Why deviate from the tried and tested system that we know works for counting? People know where to go. They know where their counts are. The type of people who do the counting go to the same place virtually every year and are almost on a permanent contract. Why interfere with a system that works? I have offered up some of the issues.
I would like an explanation about the City of London. Normally when there is a count for the constituency, are we referring to the City of London as the city or as the constituency of the City of London, because it is not quite the same, is it? I am not certain. I am a bit out of touch. Is it a constituency or not? I am not certain why the Inner and the Middle Temples should be treated differently. It is reasonable to have an explanation for each one of these because the answer to one has to contradict the answer to another. So I await with interest the response of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I support my noble friend Lord Grocott. This referendum is to be about the choice of a parliamentary voting system, so it is bizarre not to declare the results on the basis of parliamentary constituencies. If it were a referendum about how local government is organised, one might see some sense in the stipulations—districts, counties, London boroughs and so forth—that are set out in Clause 7(2). However, those units are irrelevant to the question at issue in this referendum, so my noble friend’s case is self-evidently sensible.
I also join my noble friend in his mild but firm stricture on the intervention of the Electoral Commission. The proper responsibility of Parliament is to ensure that the system put forward in this Bill is well designed. The expedience for the Government of ensuring that the referendum takes place on 5 May must be a secondary consideration. I would have hoped that the Electoral Commission would also want to make it its priority that the system that it is there to oversee and to administer is appropriately designed. I am disappointed that it has not done so in this case.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I rise briefly to indicate my support for my noble friend Lord Grocott’s amendment. As a former Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency, I can bring a perspective as to how this will be viewed. As my noble friends have said, this proposed referendum is on a voting system for Westminster. It seems incongruous and, quite frankly, plain daft that the results will not be declared on a constituency basis. These days, when people are looking for more transparency and accountability from MPs, it is absolutely right that, if it is an embarrassment to the MP if the constituency goes a different way from the way he or she campaigned, that should be known. So be it—that is the way it is.
As a unionist, I take exception to the fact that Scottish Parliament seats seem to be given primacy over Westminster seats when it comes to a voting system for the Westminster sovereign UK Parliament. It is wrong in principle and sends out the wrong messages. It will give further incentives and justification for those in nationalist politics in Scotland to continue that drive to say that somehow we in Scotland are different from our friends, neighbours, relatives and colleagues in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. No, we are not. We are all part of a British state. As well as being proud of our individual countries, we are British citizens. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
These proposals are an indication that the Bill has been rushed. Time and again we have come up against things which it would seem common sense to do but which are not done. The fact that these things have not been done is not part of any great malicious master plan, in my view. It is the result of a rush to judgment and to get this Bill through. There is a whole host of things in this Bill that should have been more carefully thought out. There are plenty of experienced people on the other side who I am sure, if they had had their time, would have framed the Bill more accurately and thoroughly.
I totally accept that people have different opinions in Scotland but for my part and, I am quite convinced, for the majority in the constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West the Westminster Parliament is—I say this without any disrespect to the Scottish Parliament—the prime Parliament. I can imagine hearing the howls of anguish—“Trust the perfidious English!”—if the Westminster Parliament organised a referendum for the voting system for the Scottish Parliament that did not give due respect to the Scottish Parliament, the forum for which it was proposing a change in the voting system. What is good for the goose et cetera.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has paid tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for lowering the temperature a wee bit. It is certainly not in my nature to up the temperature. It might be stretching credibility to say that I feel intimidated but I certainly feel on occasion a bit reluctant to come forward to speak. Time and again I hear not only the accusations from the Front Bench on the other side but also the sneers and ridicule from other parts of the Chamber when somebody rises to make a point. This is the third time that I have spoken this evening. The other two times I spoke for two or three minutes. That is hardly filibustering, dragging things out or not co-operating. It is making sure that the Bill is scrutinised and that we can come forward and point to things that we believe are wrong. There are differences of opinion—a whole host of them. There is no concerted effort from this side of the House as far as I can see. I am certainly not part of it.
I will not repeat my noble friend Lord Grocott’s quotation from the Electoral Commission. However, it quite took my breath away that the Electoral Commission—a so-called independent organisation—in effect tells Members of this House not to put forward or vote for any change because that would prevent the Government from having the referendum on 5 May. It is breathtaking and quite disgraceful. I hope that we do not get any more of that sort of comment or, quite frankly, blackmail from the Electoral Commission. I support my noble friend.
Lord Bilston
My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lord Grocott’s amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will accept it because, as has been pointed out, this is very much an issue for constituencies. I was privileged to represent my constituency for many years—for 14 elections. I lived and worked as the local representative for over 40 years.
As an aside, let me say that not one person has ever said to me, “You are illegitimate because you haven’t got 50 per cent of the vote”. In all the time that I represented the constituency that I was proud to represent, I served all the people. That constituency of Wolverhampton South East will figure in the voting on 5 May next year. I shall be there, campaigning, to make sure that the people of my constituency—where I live—are given the opportunity to vote. I shall tell them that they should make sure that they cast their vote for no because this is the system that they fully understand. I shall do that with the help of many of my Conservative colleagues in Wolverhampton and we shall be challenged by the Liberal Democrats.
My point is that the campaign will be based on constituency boundaries. That is how this referendum should be fought, because the people in every constituency should have the right to say aye or no in it. As I say, I genuinely hope that a multitude of people—not a low vote but a substantial, solid vote—will say no in this referendum, which should be based on our constituency boundaries.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I briefly intervene to raise something that has not yet been raised. It is to do with the relationship between Members of Parliament in particular parts of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to a practical issue and it is a practical issue that is of interest to me. I have been sitting here pondering how this would work. We are told that the yes campaign will essentially be a people-based campaign. There is a feeling in the yes campaign that the intervention of politicians might be unhelpful. However, the reality is that politicians, particularly MPs, will want to be involved. It will not be possible to keep them out, particularly where they may have a strong view. Yet the fact that the legislation is framed in this way might lead to campaigns being organised on a district-wide basis. I know that, in the Labour Party, district parties are never as well organised as the constituency parties. I presume that this might well be the case for other political parties.
I suggest that a campaign that is essentially district based might diffuse the role that the MP might wish to play in its organisation. MPs may well find, if the campaign is district organised, that they have to go into neighbouring constituencies. When MPs go into neighbouring constituencies, it often leads to problems—indeed, to problems inside parties, where people from the same political party represent neighbouring seats. In a curious way, by organising the campaign on a district-wide basis, we might interfere to some extent with the role that Members of Parliament wish to play in the campaign because they simply want to avoid argument. The point that I am making is rather subtle in that it deals with relationships between MPs, but the Government should not altogether ignore what I am saying. Ministers in the Government will know from experience that what I am referring to is a reality.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, this is a serious and sensible amendment. It would take some persuading on the part of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to convince people that my noble friend Lord Grocott’s proposal is not the more sensible approach.
I will explain what the Bill currently proposes for the referendum in Clause 7(2). It proposes to divide the whole country into a series of voting areas: a district in England where there is a district council; a county in England where there are no county councils; a London borough; the City of London, including the Inner and Middle Temples; the Isles of Scilly; a constituency for the National Assembly for Wales; a constituency for the Scottish Parliament; and the whole of Northern Ireland. In relation to those eight separate sorts of voting area, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 proposes that a counting officer be appointed. In each of those voting areas, the counting officer is in charge of the vote in that area. After the votes have been cast, the counting officer hands to the regional counting officer the certificate of the votes cast. At the same time, with the regional counting officer’s permission, the counting officer makes public how everybody has voted in the voting area. That is except in Northern Ireland, where there is no regional counting officer. The counting officer in Northern Ireland hands over his votes to the chief counting officer, who also then gets all the votes from the regional counting officers. Then the chief counting officer makes an announcement about how the votes have been cast nationally.
That means that the public will become aware of how people have voted in the eight different sorts of voting area specified in the Bill. For example, people will know how a London borough has voted and how Northern Ireland as a whole has voted, but not how individual constituencies have voted in Northern Ireland, whether they are individual constituencies for the Northern Irish Assembly, local authority constituencies or parliamentary constituencies. Nor will it be possible to work it out, because the voting area is the whole of Northern Ireland. In London, you will not be able to tell how individual constituencies have voted.
What is the purpose of this extraordinarily complicated system? Is it, I ask myself, trying to parallel where elections are taking place on the same day as the proposed referendum, namely 5 May? No, because in Northern Ireland the whole of the country is chosen to be the voting area. No, because in London there will be no local authority elections. In Scotland there will be voting in Scottish Parliament constituencies but local authority elections will also be going on. On the face of it, this seems to be an overcomplicated system for identifying voting areas, in which the disclosure of how the votes are cast bears no relation to either parliamentary constituencies or anything else.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has pointed out that a theme has run through the responses of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to all this. It is that the Government have tried, in putting forward practical proposals, to stick to the normal electoral arrangements. I have never seen these electoral arrangements in any other sort of election. They are overcomplicated and arbitrary in terms of the areas in which declarations will be made, whereas a network of arrangements already exists for parliamentary constituencies. Whenever an election is called, it seems possible to set up a system for declarations and results. On the face of it, the parliamentary constituencies network looks to be far and away the most straightforward and practical. It does not involve these extraordinarily complicated arrangements. Why is the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, not a simple way of giving effect to the sort of proposition that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has been making?
Lord Rennard
In terms of simplicity for the counting areas, does the noble and learned Lord not accept that in Scotland the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would make things rather more complicated? His amendment suggests that the voting areas should be based on Westminster parliamentary constituencies. If the referendum is held on 5 May next year, as is envisaged as a possibility even under the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and if you are counting the votes on the basis of Scottish parliamentary constituencies rather than on the quite different boundaries of the Westminster parliamentary constituencies, it is impractical to have one set of counting areas for the referendum and a different set for the elections to Scottish parliamentary constituencies. Therefore, the reason for the amendment is to try to make it impossible, or at least very difficult, for the referendum to take place on 5 May, and is not in the interests of simplicity, as the noble and learned Lord suggests.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I take the point in relation to Scotland. That is probably the only place where one can see some logic in the proposals. However, one cannot see any logic in relation to the rest of the UK. Therefore, maybe the answer—and if the noble Lord were to make proposals on this I might support him—is for us to stick with the Scottish constituencies, but leave everything else to be done on the basis of Westminster constituencies. There needs to be some explanation for why this extraordinary procedure has been adopted.
In addition to the points about practicality, there are two others. First, we have to do this without the benefit of the Electoral Commission’s views, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, the commission has said that that would simply delay the referendum. Sadly, the commission has not given this House the benefit of its views on whether this proposal is more practical than the one in the Bill. Secondly, there is a real force in the argument which states that if we are talking about parliamentary constituencies and how they vote in the future, there is a logic and a force in saying, “Let’s see how individual parliamentary constituencies voted”, because, for the life of me, I cannot see the logic in saying, “We’ll disclose how a London borough or the whole of Northern Ireland voted, but we won’t tell you how individual constituencies voted”.
Lord McNally
My Lords, if anything that has happened over the past four hours suggests that I am not enjoying this process, it is entirely untrue. I will write to Chris Bryant in the morning. I would not want him to think that I was attacking him personally. I am certainly not someone who has objected to the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. A number of Labour MPs have stopped me with a look of sheer amazement and said, “You heard Tommy McAvoy speak?”.
On the point about the Electoral Commission, I hope that noble Lords do not put sinister interpretations on this matter. If our intention is to hold the referendum on 5 May, as is absolutely clear and we continue to make clear, it is no more than the Electoral Commission’s duty for it to say that, if amendments A, B or C were to be passed, the House should be aware that this would make the situation more difficult, impossible, or whatever. The commission should not leave the House to pull the trigger and not tell it whether the gun is loaded. I do not think that the commission has done any more than that. If the Committee wants to pass the amendment, knowing its repercussions, it is open to do that, but it is not improper to say that there would be consequences to an amendment such as this.
Being a skilled advocate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, can draw out these various bodies and make a case for a real mishmash of voting areas. In fact, the provisions that we have included in the Bill in relation to voting areas for the referendum ensure, as much as possible, that the same boundaries will be used for the referendum on the voting system as are used for other polls with which the referendum is combined. There is nothing more or less to it than that. The intent of the clause—as is the case in so much of the Bill—is to make the core decision that the electorate are being invited to make as simple as possible.
On the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I can tell him that the City of London is designated separately because, as he will know, it is a separate local government area within London. The other areas are the London boroughs.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
If the principle is that the counting areas for the referendum are to be as close as possible to those for the other elections taking place on the same day, why will there be one counting area for the whole of Northern Ireland, given that it will be holding Assembly elections on the same day?
Lord McNally
I will write to the noble Lord on that. It seems that one element of confusion is that we are not asking United Kingdom constituencies to make a decision—we are asking for a national vote. It will be a yes or no poll, designed on a national basis.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I understand the argument about administrative convenience and, of course, that argument is not negligible. However, does the Minister not think it is important that people should know how the votes have been cast, parliamentary constituency by parliamentary constituency, on what the future electoral system for those constituencies should be? Surely that is a matter of some importance to not only Members of Parliament but members of political parties, the generality of citizens and those who seek to evaluate and learn the lessons from this campaign. This is an important consideration which should not be set aside simply on grounds of administrative convenience on the day.
Lord McNally
I stand by the case for administrative convenience, but the fact that there will be a national vote, not individual constituency decisions, is the important issue. In fact, I had forgotten, until the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, helpfully reminded me, that the referendum in 1975 was not declared on a constituency basis, partly because the whole point of a referendum on an issue such as this is to get a national decision. These provisions are designed to make the voting process easier and more straightforward.
Lord Rooker
I accept that. However, the referendum in 1975 was to make a decision on whether the country—I repeat, the country—should stay in the EU or not. On 5 May next year, the issue is whether 650 individual constituencies should use a different voting system.
Lord Rooker
Of course it is. Therefore, people are entitled to know at a local level. While the noble Lord is on this point, I should say that only the count is affected here. If there is a delay in the count, so what? The Electoral Commission cannot delay when the voting take place, but what happens after the close of polls and the way that the votes are counted is what my noble and learned friend is on about. If it takes another half a day to count the votes and divide them, so what? That cannot delay the poll. It cannot affect the target date of 5 May, can it?
Lord McNally
I am not sure that I accept the argument that there is an overwhelming interest in knowing the results of a national decision constituency by constituency.
Lord Rooker
Perhaps MPs should have a free vote when the Bill returns to the other place. Let them decide; after all, they are the ones with the supreme vested interest. There is no interest more vested for an MP than their constituency boundaries and knowing what their constituents actually feel.
Lord McNally
As the noble Lord said, they have a vested interest. I want to make a national decision in the national interest.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I accept the argument that the noble Lord is putting forward, though there remains the mystery of Northern Ireland. However, there is also the mystery of London. Why is London on a borough basis when there are no elections in the boroughs?
Lord McNally
I suspect that, again, the decision is based on administrative convenience, which is not a dishonourable reason. What we are trying to do, as I have said so many times before, is to make the procedure as straightforward as possible. I believe there was an amendment in the other place. Perhaps, when this Bill goes back to the other place, Mr Chris Bryant will put down an amendment for a constituency base.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Is the noble Lord really saying that it does not matter whether Members of Parliament hear the voices of their constituents, and whether Members of Parliament know what judgment their constituents have come to on this matter of what the parliamentary voting system should be?
Lord McNally
The noble Lord is a master at pious interventions. Members will campaign, make their voices heard and assess their constituencies. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord McAvoy
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The year 1975 was a long time ago. The year 1997 was a long time ago. Surely a general election is also a national poll affecting the whole country, and that is declared by constituency. What is wrong with moving away from the old superior top-down style of saying, “Well, the country will vote and you won’t know locally”? Surely that is progress.
Lord McNally
The country will know locally. However, we are making a national decision. We are adopting systems and procedures which make things as simple and straightforward for electors as possible.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I may ask a question which is very relevant. For a moment, the Minister obviously felt that Chris Bryant of the other place would have the chance to table an amendment to deal with this matter, but he cannot do that under the procedural arrangements because we are going to ping-pong. If that is the case, could the Minister accept the amendment and enable Members in the other place to do precisely what he suggested that they might wish to do?
Lord McNally
That is a merry thought, but no. We will resist this amendment and we urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, any neutral observer would say that this is a simple and straightforward proposition that the results of a referendum about parliamentary constituencies should be counted and declared on the basis of parliamentary constituencies. It is not rocket science and it is not complicated. It is common sense, and I think the Minister knows as much. What has been established in this debate—I had not realised how clearly it would be established—is what a complete dog’s breakfast the list of counting districts is in the Bill. I will not go through the list again, but it is pretty random. It is a case of: wherever you can find a returning officer, let us have an election counted and declared. It is of no significance, no interest and no consistency that I can see.
I remind the Minister that we do not hold referenda or make decisions in this House on the basis of convenience for the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission’s report is essentially saying “It is not a convenient way of doing it”, which was the nub of the argument that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, presented to us—that it was much more convenient to hold elections on the basis of these various randomly selected electoral areas as determined in the Bill. I believe that my noble friend Lord Howarth made the point that it is treating a national referendum on changing the constitution as being a secondary event on the day—“Oh, we’re counting borough elections, so we might as well count the referendum within the same electoral areas”. If I may say so, all the arguments on any kind of coherent principle have been on one side, and the arguments for convenience have been on the other. Indeed, he admitted it was for convenience and I do not think I am misrepresenting him.
Lord Grocott
I would have thought that the convenience of the electorate and certainly respect for the electorate would be in constituencies, which is what the Bill is about. We should let them know the result of their own votes, and we are not telling them that. I find this particularly astonishing from a Liberal Democrat, and from other Liberal Democrats here, who have been telling us for as long as I have been in politics that people have been queueing up to change the electoral system in this country—that they are desperate to get rid of it. I would have thought that they would have looked forward with pride to a returning officer in their constituency or their former constituency declaring the massive support within their area for the alternative vote system of elections. They may not, of course, and it seems to me that doubts are growing as I look at the faces opposite. However, if the Minister is really saying that we should not do it on this basis, I am afraid that it has been characteristic, and it inevitably builds up frustration, that we make perfectly sensible, straightforward, logical proposals here which are in the interests of the electorate, and they are dismissed in a few sentences. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Loans to Ireland Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hospices and Palliative Care Services
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Bridgeman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of hospices and palliative care services.
Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, I hope that we shall have an hour of singing from the same hymn sheet. I am very grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on this most important of subjects. It comes at an important time for the hospice movement in the United Kingdom, for the interim report of the independent funding review has just been released. On 11 November, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, led with great distinction a debate on palliative care for cancer sufferers, and this debate, I suggest, is entirely complementary to that one.
I declare an interest as the former chairman of St John’s Hospice in central London. This is one of a number of hospices which cater for the three main killer diseases: cancer, HIV/AIDS and motor neurone.
No debate on palliative care or end-of-life treatment is complete without the mention of Dame Cicely Saunders, who is widely accepted as having founded the hospice movement in the United Kingdom. It is a worthy tribute to her memory that a recent report by the Economist Intelligence Unit puts the United Kingdom first, ahead of 39 other countries, in the provision of end-of-life care, and this was attributed in part to the “well-established hospice movement”.
In the short time available to me, I wish to speak briefly on funding. In the past, there has been a certain complacency on the part of every Government towards the funding of hospices. The unadorned truth is that any Government are well aware that any shortfall will in the end be made up by way of appeals and fund-raising and that, to put it bluntly, it will be all right on the night. On the whole, Governments of all hues have got away with it, although I pay tribute to the previous Administration, who made available £40 million to improve the environment of palliative care. In the case of the hospice with which I was associated, its share was gratefully put to good use in improving out-patient facilities, and the confirmation of this grant by the present Government is to be welcomed.
Up to now, there has been no national tariff for hospices contracted to the NHS. The disadvantages of this are obvious, as it makes it difficult to produce long-term strategic budgets, and inevitably it means that the funding as between different hospices is going to differ significantly. Additional funds invested through the end-of-life care strategy have not been invested in a consistent way. In many cases, hospices are forced to carry an overhead for negotiating staff with the many PCTs to which they are contracted, and they are ill-equipped to afford this. Some of the less well-resourced establishments inevitably lose out. I would mention that a joint report by Healthcare at Home and Dr Foster estimates that delivering end-of-life services in the home could save the NHS £160 million a year.
I am very pleased that the NHS tariff group is reporting on behalf of palliative care. Now we have a real opportunity in the review of commissioning to move towards 100 per cent funding across the board. However, does that mean that fund-raising from the third and voluntary sectors will no longer be required? Most certainly it does not. It will simply mean that that part of a hospice’s expenditure which is clearly clinical will be looked after within the commissioning structure, leaving those involved in fund-raising to concentrate on amenities such as day centres, bereavement counselling and the training of volunteers and carers, which are not part of the NHS’s responsibility.
Before leaving the subject of funding, I wish to mention the particular case of children’s hospices, where currently the contribution to operating costs tends to be at the lower end of the scale, although I am aware that these hospices are likely to receive a greater element of mainstream primary care than their adult counterparts and they also receive Section 64 additional funding. The number of children with life-terminating illnesses is, mercifully, relatively small. Nevertheless, there is a danger that for that very reason the special needs of children's hospices may be overlooked. I hope that that will be recognised in the current review.
As the population ages, so will the burden of care increase. There will be more long-term conditions and, with those conditions, there will inevitably be symptom-control elements, and it is those that palliative care must address. It is fair to say that all the national strategies for older people and those with dementia recognise the role for palliations, and I hope that the department will ensure that that is reflected in the commissioning structures which, I hope, will be the product of the fundamental review.
I turn to community support. Speaking in the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on 11 November, I referred to the totem of the hospice movement being hospital avoidance—and for hospital, you might read, hospital and hospice avoidance. The apparent paradox of all debates on hospices is that we are talking about ways to avoid using the institution itself and moving the emphasis of patient treatment away from acute into community and primary care settings, which, apart from freeing up beds for unavoidable acute cases, has the incalculable benefit of letting patients choose their place of care, and possibly where they will die. In that debate, several noble Lords referred to that. It is important that the primary care trusts—or, as they will now be, GP funding consortia—should record as early as practicable patients’ preferred place of death. My noble friend was very helpful on that point at col. 322 of the Official Report of that debate. However, I should welcome his confirmation that that will become a statutory obligation.
I mention as an example of admirable community support the single point of access project in Westminster. The project delivers a single telephone number for patients to use to access all palliative care services in the borough. It has been made possible only by numerous teams giving up their systems and working together with the out-of-hours GP co-operative to run the system. With the impending amalgamation of services between Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham, it is to be hoped that that service will be available in all those three boroughs with the minimum of bureaucracy and optimal cost savings, and that that will form a useful pattern for other authorities.
An important component of that scheme is out-of-hours work. That is of concern to all branches of primary care, but it is particularly vital with palliative care, for one simple reason: pain does not keep office hours. I know that the matter of 24-hour cover is already being addressed across the country. Currently, it is piecemeal, with services varying from telephone advice only to personal visits. The palliative care funding review, in its interim report, recommends that the Government use the forthcoming NHS operating and outcome frameworks to ensure that a structured 24-hour service is put in place.
Finally, I say a word about education. This is of course a subject in itself and time does not permit more than a passing reference to it. Palliative care is now included in GP training, but that specialised training needs to extend right across the palliative care community, from qualified doctors to undergraduates and carers—both hospice-trained and from outside. Training is too big a subject to be left to the charitable sector. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is to be given high formal priority in the commissioning structure.
We in the United Kingdom can take pride in the leadership that we have given to the hospice movement worldwide, achieved through the dedication and commitment of staff, consultants and volunteers. They deserve our gratitude. I end by thanking those noble Lords who have chosen to take part in the debate. I look forward to their contributions and to the reply from my noble friend.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on securing this debate, and I welcome this chance to express my admiration for the wonderful work that is performed by our hospices across the country.
I speak with first-hand experience of two hospices which I have got to know in the City of Worcester in the past year. They are Acorns Children's and St Richard’s Hospices. I found my visits to them both heart-warming and humbling. The most impressive feature of both—apart, of course, from the quality of the care that is provided at them—and this is true of other hospices all over the country, is the commitment of volunteers. Acorns in Worcester, for example, is able to draw on the support of 250 volunteers who cook, clean and do the gardening for them. St Richard’s tells me that it has 900 volunteers who, last year, saved the hospice £765,000 in wages, had they needed to pay people for the jobs they did. Charity shops are of course also a hugely important revenue stream. St Richard’s has more than 350 volunteers in its shops, which can be found across the county selling furniture, electrical items, books, women's and men's clothing and bric-a-brac.
Both hospices benefit greatly from the extraordinary generosity of local philanthropists and other members of the local community. One of the most remarkable people in Worcester is Mr Cecil Duckworth, who is a freeman of the city and a massive donor to Acorns, the building of which was largely down to him and his generosity, and to an 84 year-old lady who lives next door to the hospice and donated the land free of charge.
Mr Duckworth's other great contribution to the City of Worcester is to bring top-class rugby to the city. His Warriors team runs an ambassadors scheme in which three players a week visit the hospice. They were there on the day when I visited. He allows for a constant stream of fundraising events at the Sixways ground, where the Warriors play, such as a fireworks display. The home match on Boxing Day will be given over to raising money for Acorns, and the players will be wearing a shirt designed by their children. St Richard’s will also have 20 volunteers at the game selling raffle tickets for their car draw.
Another great supporter in the city is the mayor, Councillor Mike Layland. Last Tuesday he was pulling pints at a local bar which was donating all the takings over a two and a half hour period to Acorns because that is one of the mayor’s chosen charities.
At present, around a third of the running costs of each hospice is covered by statutory funding, but there is great uncertainty about whether this will continue with the reorganisation of the National Health Service. The replacement of PCT commissioning with GP commissioning is not suitable for many hospices—in Acorns the children are looked after by consultants and not by GPs—and a centralised tariff-based system that produces a minimum of 30 per cent of the hospices’ care costs is needed.
It is very hard to think of a better representative of the big society than the hospice movement. I hope that when he replies the Minister will be able to give some reassurance about future levels of funding.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bridgeman for not only securing the debate but for introducing it with his usual elegance and eloquence. I identify myself both with his comments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, in praising the importance of the hospice movement and its work, the significance and value of voluntarism, and the need for public, financial and other resource support.
In the short time available to me I wish to address one specific issue—the need for thoughtful and real support for the staff who work on the front line in the hospices. Some years ago I became aware of this issue when I was doing a consultancy for the Belfast Hospice. It became apparent to me that there is a specific kind of emotional strain and stress on those who work in the hospice movement on the front line with the patients. With all other forms of care, there is a variegation of patients and the acuteness of their problems. However, in a hospice, when a patient comes in everyone knows that this is moving towards the end and there is an intensity about the emotional involvement that is quite unique.
In addition, the situation moves inevitably to a form of bereavement. Even if the patient moves out of the hospice and comes back in, it is inevitably moving in that direction. As human beings we are created in such a way that we can deal with bereavement and emotional intensity, but what I saw with some of the hospice workers who were working on the front line with patients was a psychological equivalent of march fractures. All the time there was the development of a close emotional bond and then the experience of bereavement—and then straight into the same situation again and again and again. Many of those who experienced this time after time themselves became subject to emotional trauma—sometimes they fell physically ill—after a number of years.
If these workers were able to move out into another aspect of hospice care—education, administration or teaching—or to move into the NHS and bring with them their experience of palliative care, pain relief and dealing with cancer and other terminal illnesses, they would be freed of that emotional involvement and make a tremendous contribution. The burden of my request to my noble friend is that the NHS will engage with the hospice movement to provide opportunities for support and constructive engagement that values the experience of those involved in the hospice movement but ensures that they do not find themselves suffering because of the enormous emotional commitment they made to this peculiarly special and costly form of caring.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who is chairman of the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth in London, takes a great interest in everything. I visited the hospice attached to that hospital with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV/AIDS some time ago. The hospice does not discriminate—it takes people who have HIV, cancer or some other condition. People can die in a safe place and receive spiritual support from people who understand their conditions.
Some of the children’s hospices now have units for teenagers. This is a very good development because teenagers do not fit in with small children or adults; they need their own space. The hospice at Boston Spa in Yorkshire has such a facility.
I also visited the hospice at Sunderland which is, I am told, the only hospice in the UK that is solely funded by the NHS. I ask the Minister whether, once the GP consortium comes into being, this hospice will still be funded by the NHS. There are dedicated people working in the NHS but, with so many cuts emerging, questions need to be answered to give reassurance to those who feel vulnerable.
Many children with muscular dystrophy need to be able to swim to help their condition. I am told that some of the hospices have swimming pools. Would it not be possible for children with muscular dystrophy to have swimming sessions in these pools when they are not being used? This would benefit both parties in these difficult economic times. It would be good if people could help each other. Would this not be a little bit of the big society?
My husband died in an A&E department after years of complicated medical conditions, including cancer. He developed pneumonia and needed antibiotics through a drip. This was not possible; it was on a Sunday. There is a desperate need for palliative care in the community for those who wish to die at home.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman on securing the debate. I declare an interest as chairman of Help the Hospices.
Your Lordships have spoken eloquently and in moving terms of the quite extraordinary work that is done in our hospices. It is true, as my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said, that this is an area of care where we are recognised as providing the best in the world. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that the hospice movement is an outstanding example of the big society. I am pleased to place on record that the Prime Minister has acknowledged that there is no better example of the big society than the hospice movement. I feel immensely privileged to hold the position that I do—although I have held it for only a few weeks—and to be able to contribute in whatever small way I can to this outstanding movement. I described it in the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as the jewel in the crown of our healthcare system, and I believe that to be true.
In the short time available I wish to make three points, although that may prove to be a little ambitious. First, as a number of your Lordships have pointed out, although the debate is concerned with the portion of funding that goes to hospices from the Government—we are asking the Minister for some indication of that today—it is true and will remain true that the greater part of the funding for hospices will come from local and charitable sources. It is therefore at least as important for the future of the hospice movement that everything is done to encourage charitable giving and volunteering. As we have heard—I acknowledge the fact—an enormous amount of the work that is done in hospices is carried out by volunteers.
Secondly, I draw attention to the fact that a number of new providers are entering the field of palliative care. This is a healthy development which may well increase the availability of palliative care and support at the end of life. I hope that the new providers will recognise that local hospices can provide a source of experience, expertise and knowledge for the public, private and voluntary sectors in improving care for people affected by terminal illness.
Lastly, as local councils take on a wider responsibility for health and social care within their communities, it is very important that they should recognise that good-quality palliative care can reduce pressure on expensive acute services and deliver personalised care for people in their own homes. It is essential that the palliative care funding review and the coalition Government’s review of social care funding being led by Andrew Dilnot should work together to develop a comprehensive funding settlement that reflects the nature of the care and support for people affected by terminal illness. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these points and that the Government will take them on board when they come to implementing the review.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for calling this debate and I echo his words about children’s hospices. It is on that that I will concentrate my brief remarks.
It is crucial in this debate that we consider palliative care for children as well as adults. There are 20,000 children and young people in the United Kingdom who will die before they reach adulthood. Some of them will die when very young; others will deteriorate slowly over many years. Families caring for these children and young people, often 24 hours a day, seven days a week, can feel under enormous emotional, physical and financial strain. Relationships can suffer, careers may have to be abandoned, siblings who are well can feel left out and normal family activities become almost impossible. Children’s hospices offer a lifeline to these children, young people and their families, helping ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances to cope with the challenges of everyday life. They provide a range of flexible, practical and free support at home or in the hospice to the entire family, often over many years and at any stage of a child’s illness from diagnosis for as long as it is needed.
There are currently 45 children’s hospices in the United Kingdom, 40 of which are in England. They provide flexible comprehensive care at home and in the hospice, help with pain control in children, support for families, end-of-life care and bereavement support. They are all registered charities, receiving very little statutory funding and relying on the generosity of the public. They struggle to get funding from primary care trusts. Only around 9 per cent of their funding comes from PCTs and local authorities. The palliative care funding review is a unique opportunity to put in place long-term funding. Localised GP commissioning will present serious challenges in commissioning children’s palliative care. I hope the Minister will agree that the national commissioning board should be the body responsible for commissioning palliative care for children. The key issue here is adequate funding for children’s hospices, which provide extremely valuable care to children and families and should have statutory funding.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Bridgeman for introducing this debate and giving us the opportunity to talk about the future of hospices and palliative care. Like my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I make a plea for the cause of palliative care in the community. I declare an interest as a patron of a charity called Hospices At Home TLC, which operates in Hampshire, where I live, West Sussex and Surrey. Developed from the palliative nursing service and funded by the Big Lottery, it provides help for adults with a limited life prognosis and their family and carers.
As my noble friend Lord Bridgeman reminded us, surveys consistently show how many people would prefer to have support at home and to die at home if that is feasible. Of course this requires the relevant level of care in the community to be provided. My noble friend mentioned that the significant figure of £160 million could be saved, but specialist therapies, specialist medical equipment, volunteers working alongside nurses and bereavement counselling are the sort of services which are being provided by charities and the hospice movement.
There are difficulties, some of which arise from the interface with the primary care trusts. Sometimes they are not always aware of their own criteria for qualifying for continuing care in the community. While the gold standards framework aims to improve the organisation and quality of care for everyone in the last years of life, it is often when a patient is placed on the palliative care register that patients and families and carers are not able to understand just what support, and further support as the condition changes, is available within the primary care trust area. I simply make a plea that everyone involved with the primary care trusts not only understands for themselves the criteria for support but makes them accessible in a way that everyone else can understand. We need to move towards a national cover for palliative care services in the community. We are enormously lucky in our area to have just such a cover.
Lord Judd
My Lords, the hospice movement is indeed fortunate to have a champion like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, with his compassion and detailed knowledge. I declare an interest as president of the West Cumbria Hospice at Home, a pioneer hospice in this kind of care for those who wish to die at home. It is impossible for me to speak too highly of the quality of commitment of its staff, volunteers and trustees. Volunteers provide a compassionate service of a highly professional standard and the sensitive staff are in many ways volunteers, serving well beyond the requirements of their contracts.
Hospices are usually charities with their own supporters from whom they receive the bulk of their funds. This is often an intensely local relationship, with communities feeling real ownership of the organisation. This is well illustrated in west Cumbria, where the local community has taken the hospice to its heart and where there is just such a widespread sense of responsibility for its work. This is well evidenced by the upwards of 1,500 women who each year participate in a midnight six-mile sponsored walk, cheered on even at that late hour by the local community.
Any legislation will have to be tuned to this spirit and recognise that, for example, any pressure to merge could all too easily destroy an ethos which is so essential for success. That is not to say, however, that there should not be encouragement towards collaborative working between neighbouring hospices. There is a risk that some hospice charities might in effect be perceived largely as fundraisers for the NHS. This must be robustly rebutted. Instead hospices should be encouraged to lead in their sphere and should receive absolutely essential financial support by commissioning.
In the NHS White Paper, there is a clear move from focusing on targets to focusing on outcomes and quality. Hospices have always focused in this way. This, of course, requires so-called soft measures where evidence is not always easy to provide. Again, any legislation needs to be considered against a very different background from what is more usual in the NHS. The central role of the GP commissioning consortia envisaged in the White Paper gives hospices a real opportunity to become the preferred provider for these services at the local level. Hospices which are already the main high-quality provider could in many cases, given the necessary support of commissioning, expand the services they provide to become far more comprehensive. This could be by providing more general palliative care services in the local community and by embracing activities not normally currently covered—education, dementia care, care for chronic and end-of-life conditions, as well as the essential and demanding care for the dying.
Finally, I make a plea: we must be wary lest unimaginative bureaucratic reporting requirements, such as detailed statistics and the standards expected in preparing them, at times place a disproportionate burden on the volunteer-dependent charities. This could inadvertently dampen the very spirit which is so essential to a hospice’s success.
Lord Patten
My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who put his finger with great accuracy on the importance of localism in support for hospice movements, whether in hospitals or hospices in the community—a point also reflected by my noble friend Lord Selborne. That localism underpins much of what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman described in his speech, which was absolutely spot on.
I wish only to address the spiritual aspects of palliative care, whether in home, hospital or hospice. I guess that when in centuries past hospice-like or palliative care was given it was largely the preserve of the religious. Pain relief must have been very difficult in comparison to the spiritual solace that was doubtless always available on tap and in plenty. Today, the reverse may be the case, thanks to the great leaps forward that have been made in pain control and pain management. If it is hard to provide a hard-nosed, cost-benefit analysis of such pain relief, which I think it is, how very much harder it is to do the same for the spiritual solace given to those facing death and their families. But this spiritual dimension is vital.
While I warmly welcome the extra sums that have been found in these hardest of times by the coalition—the £40 million for hospices and the extra money for palliative care for children—as well as the review that is being undertaken, I ask my noble friend Lord Howe whether he will ensure that the needs of the dying who wish to see a representative of the British Humanist Society, an imam, a rabbi or a priest are not forgotten. That very valuable body, the Association of Hospice & Palliative Care Chaplains, does a great deal to spread good practice in the area of palliative care—it must be terribly demanding and emotionally draining work—helping both patients and their families. As more emphasis is put on dying at home, ways to enhance the good work of this network of chaplains and their colleagues in more community-based care must be developed and the spiritual dimension must not be forgotten.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, in securing this debate, the noble Viscount has exemplified his tireless work for hospices and is to be congratulated. Hospices’ futures depend on stable funding. The service exists to help people to live as well as possible until their natural death and to support their family, including children.
The report of the Palliative Care Funding Review, which was chaired by Tom Hughes-Hallett from Marie Curie, has drawn heavily on the Welsh model. I declare with a certain pride an interest as the chief architect of that model. We realised that every patient with complex end-of-life-care needs, wherever they are and whatever their diagnosis, should have access to specialist palliative care advice and support to underpin general services in primary and secondary care, irrespective of the bed that they are in, be it at home, in hospital or in a nursing home. We realised also that there will always be some who need to be in specialist hospice beds because they have complex needs. However, the ad hoc way in which hospices have grown up means that some areas have good provision while others remain devoid of it.
We wanted fairness of access for patients, so we developed a funding formula. We calculated that there needs to be one hospice bed or a hospice-at-home virtual bed per 15,000 of population. My rough calculation for England suggests that the numbers are pretty good but poorly distributed. We stipulated the minimum number of specialist staff needed for community palliative teams to oversee hospice beds and for different hospital support teams. This indicated the core service that the NHS should fund, irrespective of provider. If charitable funding dried up, there would still be a core service in every area.
We instigated seven-day working by specialist nurses, costing around £10,000 per team—that was all—with 24/7 on-call consultants to advise any healthcare professional across Wales by telephone or even visit if necessary. In hospitals, these nurses, visiting the wards and sometimes going to A&E, have facilitated discharge to home, and patients have not needed to be admitted. They have also set up home care, so that when the patient gets home everybody is expecting them.
Every dying person with complex needs should know that specialist help is available if needed. Our national standard is that every referral must be responded to within 48 hours. Fortunately, almost all are seen on the same day or next day; a distressed dying patient cannot wait. Direct patient and family feedback provides dynamic quality assessment, while service data inform performance monitoring.
Three years on, we are convinced that per-patient payments will be an accounting nightmare. The complexity is too wide-ranging. Patients need a rapid response and true choice over place of care and hospices need funding stability. End-of-life care cannot be left just to voluntary donation; its commissioning must be a core duty of budget holders.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, with her formidable experience and knowledge, it is always humbling to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I join other noble Lords in thanking most warmly the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for introducing this debate so ably.
I have to declare an interest: some 20 years ago, I helped to found St Mary’s Hospice in Ulverston in Cumbria. It is at the other end of Cumbria from the noble Lord, Lord Judd; Cumbria is enormous. I retain a connection, although I retired as chairman last year.
I should like to make two points. As I understand it, the independent report on end-of-life care by Thomas Hughes-Hallett has made an interim recommendation to the Government to the effect that hospice-at-home services should be the chief beneficiaries of whatever money may be available in future. I do not quarrel with that, nor do I want to second-guess the final report. However, I register two caveats. First, a significant minority of terminally ill patients want to die in a hospice or at least do not want to die at home. The other caveat is that a hospice building has uses beyond that of being where people are cared for as they approach death. It is a point of contact for members of the local community and provides a venue for day care, which is very important, bereavement counselling and much else besides. Perhaps most important of all, it has become the hub of expertise, especially where a hospice such as ours develops a speciality. In my case, because of the high incidence of mesothelioma in Barrow-in-Furness, which is the tragic legacy of asbestos in the shipbuilding industry, St Mary’s has become something of an international leader in this field. Hospices innovate, as does palliative care in general. It would be dangerous to ignore the strength that an institution derives from having a physical core, albeit modest, which provides the springboard for training and innovation.
The second point is that I believe that the hospice movement has stumbled on a formula that could be far more widely applied. With very little modification, it could do very much more in the fields of heart disease and end-stage respiratory illness. It could relieve much fear and distress among patients suffering from these complaints. It would also remove significant financial burdens from the NHS. The non-cancer element of hospice care averages, I think, only 10 per cent; at St Mary’s we have a slightly larger percentage and my contention is that nationally it should be significantly higher still.
The ratio of funding between the state and our own fundraising efforts results in our having to find rather more than 70 per cent of what we spend. The reason why we were able throughout my time to raise such prodigious sums in a not very well-off area was that we successfully persuaded local people that the hospice belonged to them. In effect, the state meets the clinical costs—about 30 per cent—and we find the rest. This means that our care is essentially needs-led. I agree with my noble friend Lord Patten that, in this rabidly secular age, spiritual support has an important place and is much needed. This model, with its built-in synergy between public and private providers, can and should in my view form the basis on which new and enduring partnerships can build. It is indeed, as has been said, the big society at its best.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, the hospice movement and the burgeoning of palliative care and research are indeed developments in which we lead the world, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said.
I declare an interest as a member of the council of King’s College London. This year the Princess Royal opened the Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care at King’s College Hospital. This is the culmination of 15 years’ work at King’s and was funded through the Cicely Saunders International charity, the Wolfson Foundation and other charities. It is the first palliative care unit in the world, as far as I am aware, where patient care, teaching and research are all conducted under one roof.
As a Bishop I also speak—and other Bishops could say the same—of hospices in my diocese: Woking, Sam Beare, the Princess Alice in Esher, the Phyllis Tuckwell in Farnham and the CHASE Children’s Hospice in Guildford. Hospices, as noble Lords have already said tonight, are wonderful places. They are places of peace and joy, more profound than trivial bonhomie. I think of a little girl, Tamsin, singing “Away in a Manger” two Christmases ago, only a few days before she died.
I do not need to rehearse the Christian inspiration for the hospice movement and the concomitant development of palliative care through pioneers such as Dame Cicely. It may be worth noting, however, that one recent development in our excellent hospices is the significant increase in palliative care offered in the home. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, alluded to this. There are now more out-patients being cared for through our hospices than before. A good death and quality of life well before death, with loving care and the alleviation of pain, can be and are being provided extensively within the homes of patients. It should be, wherever possible, extended, although I accept the caveat of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, as to the appropriateness for some who prefer to be in the hospice itself.
The availability of palliative care is, as we all know, subject to the lottery of the postcode. I therefore warmly welcome the interim report and look forward to the final report next year on how dedicated palliative care can be funded so as to be available to all. The interim report, which we look forward to and which was trailed by the noble Viscount, is looking at a national funding system locally delivered.
The content of palliative care is defined in holistic terms, including psychological, social and, indeed, spiritual care—I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on that. The signs from the interim report are therefore good and far-reaching. The question for the future after the definitive report in the summer will be implementation. As TS Eliot put it:
“Life you may evade, but Death you shall not”.
There can be a good death and that should be available to all.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on securing this short but important debate, which has had many very pertinent contributions. The goal of palliative care is to prevent and relieve suffering and improve quality of life for people with serious and complex illnesses. End-of-life care affects all of us; it is everybody’s business and, as such, must be a central focus of any health, social care and housing reform agenda.
Much of the recent progress in end-of-life care was enabled by its inclusion as one of only eight high-level priorities in the NHS Next Stage Review, which the previous Government brought forward. Indeed, we made end-of-life care a priority; we made a commitment to it and, significantly, we increased funding to hospices. The key challenge facing the Government now is to ensure that end-of-life care continues to be one of the top few high-level organisational priorities at each stage of the forthcoming reforms. The proposals in the White Paper published this summer did not reflect the importance of end-of-life care sufficiently to guard against it being subsumed by other higher profile priorities. That is not just my opinion; it is also the opinion of the Palliative Care Association.
I have glanced at the results of the consultation published today and have yet to find the words “end-of-life strategy”. It may be in the operation strategy document, which is my weekend reading. I echo my noble friend Lord Faulkner in his concern about how the new GP commissioning will deliver palliative care. I suspect that many organisations that have campaigned for end-of-life care so successfully in recent years will be concerned about what comes next. Diluting recognition of end-of-life care as a discrete, high-level priority risks undermining the progress made, and I suggest devalues end-of-life care as a government priority. I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments on this and his reassurance. Surely, if the Government intend to drive cultural change in the NHS, as they say they do, it is essential that they reflect the whole journey of a person’s care throughout their life to their death and into bereavement care for their family and friends. The Minister needs to address some serious worries and concerns raised during this debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend for tabling this Question for debate and introducing the subject so ably. I very much recognise the considerable knowledge that he brings to this subject, not least as a result of his past chairmanship of St John’s Hospice in London.
Thanks to the dedicated work of hospices, many people do die well: where they choose, with the people they love, and with all the medical, psychological and spiritual care they need. The Government are committed to supporting the work of hospices. We have confirmed the £40 million hospice capital grant for 2010-11, allocated under the end-of-life care strategy, supporting 123 projects in 116 hospices. More generally, we are determined that care should be compassionate and appropriate and that it should support personal choice. We will do that by putting patients, their families and carers at the heart of everything we do.
The end-of-life care strategy aims to improve care for all adults approaching the end of their lives, whatever their diagnosis and wherever they are, including enabling more people to be cared for and to die at home if they so wish. However, while many people receive excellent care, others do not. There are still variations in people’s experience by region, by age and, as my noble friend Lord Cavendish, pointed out, by disease, with greater emphasis given to people with certain conditions, particularly cancer. We can and must do better. We are taking forward a number of initiatives to improve end-of-life care services for everyone.
The issue of funding was introduced by many noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I agree with much of what he said. End-of-life care needs a long-term system of sustainable funding. We committed, in the coalition agreement, to a per-patient funding model for palliative care. I listened with care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said in that connection and I am grateful to her for the points that she made. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has asked Tom Hughes-Hallett, chief executive of Marie Curie Cancer Care, to chair an independent review of palliative care funding. I am sure that he will wish to take account of the experience and expertise of the noble Baroness in this area.
The review, covering services for both adults and children, is looking at options to make sure that the funding of hospices and other palliative care providers is fair. It will make recommendations for a funding system that will cover care provided by the NHS, a hospice or any appropriate provider, which encourages more community-based care so people can remain in their own homes, if they wish. It will be fair and transparent to all organisations involved in end-of-life care. The review is making good progress and I know that many in the hospice movement including, as my noble friend Lord Howard will be pleased to know, Help the Hospices, have provided evidence to inform its work.
The review’s interim report, published on 3 December, sets out a definition of dedicated palliative care and initial thoughts on a national funding system, stressing the importance of 24/7 community services. I look forward to receiving the final report and its detailed recommendations for funding in the summer. Of course, the funding review comes with a caveat that it has to be affordable within the constraints of the current financial climate.
Beyond sustainable funding, we need to consider how we will deliver end-of-life services. The NHS operating framework, published today, emphasises the importance of implementing the end of life care strategy and of developing round-the-clock, community-based services. The best services already know that good end-of-life care is not only more effective, but can be less expensive than poor care. A recent National Audit Office report found that in a typical PCT, around 40 per cent of the people who died in hospital had no medical need to be there. They could have been cared for at home or in their care home if the community-based support had been in place to support them and their family or carers.
We want services that enable people to have more control over the care they receive when they are dying. As one way of achieving this, our intention is for people to be able to add their end-of-life care plans to their own summary care record. We need to develop the services that allow people to die in a place and in a manner of their choosing. I recognise that this is not easy. Nor can it be done overnight. There is a great deal of work to do. In 2013 therefore, we shall review our progress and see how close we are to giving people the control that they clearly wish for.
We need more imagination, more radicalism, more courage in commissioning. We need to shift the landscape of end-of-life care in favour of the service user. The best commissioners are already challenging old conventions, finding new ways of designing services, and new ways of bringing hospices and other community organisations together to meet patients’ needs. Soon, new GP consortia will commission services. GP-led commissioning has clear advantages over the current model for end-of-life care. GPs have a better understanding of patient needs and better connections within the local community. They know what is available locally to support patients at the end of their lives. I firmly believe GP consortia will be advocates of hospices, not their enemy. But hospices themselves should be proactive. They should talk with their local GPs. They should also talk with their local authorities, which will play an increasingly important role in co-ordinating care, as we move toward joint-commissioning and planning through health and well-being boards.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman dwelt with some emphasis on funding. The Department of Health is providing £286 million of additional funding to support implementation of the end-of-life care strategy over the two years 2009-11. A huge amount of money is being spent on end-of-life and palliative care. We know that it is often not used as it should be. That is why the palliative care funding review is looking at how we can better deploy the resources that we currently provide.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman and others were right to highlight the particular issues surrounding palliative care for children. The Coalition: Our Programme for Government, states that the Government will provide,
“£10 million a year beyond 2011 from within the budget of the Department of Health to support children’s hospices in their vital work”.
As I have already mentioned, the children’s palliative care services are being specifically considered by the palliative care funding review.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman also asked me about 24/7 community services. The end-of-life care strategy encourages commissioners and providers to develop 24/7 community-based services for medical, nursing and personal care which people need to enable this to happen. The funding review has already highlighted the importance of treating 24/7 community services as a priority.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, asked about future funding. I have already referred to our intention to introduce a per-patient funding system. More generally, the strategy makes clear the responsibilities of the NHS to ensure adequate support for hospices, including through stronger commissioning and adhering to the principles of the compact code of good practice. That should mean more funding stability, including longer-term contracts, for hospices. My noble friend Lord Howard referred, quite rightly, to the cost-effectiveness of palliative care. The new health and well-being boards will follow on from the current commissioning arrangements that are already directed at end-of-life care because improving quality and improving productivity are, effectively, the same things.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked me about commissioning in the future and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, questioned the Government’s commitment in this area. The NHS commissioning board will determine how best to deliver high-quality services, including end-of-life care, by working with GP commissioning consortia and making use of the various tools and levers it will have available. The board will commission NICE to develop quality standards to define the quality of care necessary to deliver the desired outcomes and use those standards to produce a commissioning outcomes framework. That framework will then be used to hold GP consortia to account. NICE has already begun the process to develop an end-of-life quality standard and we look forward to seeing the fruits of that work.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman asked about the extent to which choice will be embedded in the system. We recognise how important it is to give people choice over the care that they get when they are dying and the place in which they receive that care but, as I have mentioned, we also recognise that it is not an easy task and cannot be done overnight. We need to do a lot of work and, as I have mentioned, we will be reviewing progress in 2013 so as to be sure of what we are capable of committing ourselves to on the issue of choice.
My noble friends Lord Patten and Lord Cavendish and the right reverend Prelate stressed the importance of spiritual care. The end-of-life strategy recognised that each person has spiritual, religious or emotional needs and that spiritual care is an important, integral part of the care given to people at the end of their life and to their carers and families. The department has produced a set of quality markers for end-of-life care and in the strategy’s second annual report, published in August, we said that we would consult on the effectiveness of the quality markers and revise them. Those will include spiritual care and consultation will begin in the new year.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman referred to the importance of training and education. The department has taken forward a number of initiatives to develop the workforce, including: the development of core competences and principles; publishing an e-learning package on end-of-life care, which is free to access for health and social care staff, and supporting communication skills so there is a lot going on in this area.
To conclude, my noble friend Lord Cavendish referred to hospices as places where patients receive the best kind of care and I would not wish to disagree with him. Having said that, surveys consistently show that up to 75 per cent of people would prefer to die at home but at present only about 20 per cent do so, with a further 17 per cent dying in a care home. It is about choice; however, I take note of the powerful points that he made. Lest any noble Lord should think otherwise, the Government remain committed to delivering good- quality end-of-life and palliative care services and we believe that the action we are taking will improve the quality and range of options available to those in England at the end of their lives, including the many who receive such excellent care from hospices.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, this clause is an interpretation clause, although it provoked some interesting debates on the amendments on which the House voted. The purpose of the clause is to provide definitions of certain terms used in the Bill, providing clarity as to the meaning of these words in the context of the Bill. The clause does not have any substantive effect on its own; that is contained in the clauses and schedules which use the words and terms listed in this clause. On that basis, I hope that the House will support me.
“( ) over 25% of the electorate have voted in the referendum,”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I start by saying that I should like to de-group Amendment 44. I apologise to those Members of the Committee who did not know that; I sent a notification earlier, but not by the deadline. I understand that the Government have been pre-warned. Clearly, Amendment 44 is a different issue from the others in this clause and in that way it is better for the Committee.
Amendment 43 is a very simple one to add to the noble Lord’s simple Bill. It requires that, for the automatic outcome of the May referendum to be triggered, there would have to be a turnout in the UK of at least 25 per cent. The reasons for this are so obvious that they hardly need stating. The idea of introducing a major constitutional change on a vote of perhaps 10 per cent or 20 per cent of the electorate will seem to make no sense to anyone, be they for or against the AV proposal. Furthermore, on a low turnout, the numerical winning number could be alarmingly small. Should voters be fairly equally balanced between yeses and noes, the all important endorsement for the outcome by popular opinion would be missing.
The intention of this amendment is, in a way, twofold. It partially asks the question whether we want to change. In other words: can people be bothered? Are they interested enough in the matter to turn up and vote? Or, if they are already voting for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, or for their local councillors, are they bothered enough to complete the second ballot on this matter of AV? This is really important, given the understandable desire of the coalition, with which I have some sympathy, albeit a sympathy perhaps not shared by many of my noble friends, to capitalise on the voting date already in many people’s diaries and offer this second choice on the same date. But this makes the threshold even more important, which is the second intention of the amendment. Should there be, for example, a 35 per cent turnout for the local elections, but then only a 15 or 20 per cent turnout for the referendum, what on earth would that say about the saliency of this choice? If perhaps a third of those who actually enter the polling station voted for their Scottish Parliament Member, their councillor or their Assembly member, and then did not take the extra 20 seconds to vote for or against AV, what would that say about the interest in this issue that engrosses so many of us in your Lordships’ House and in this Committee today? I do not anticipate any such lack of participation in that referendum.
I certainly do not anticipate any such lack of participation on the part of those who already go to the polling station. I may have some concerns about London, but that is a different matter which is not before us now. My 25 per cent figure is modest.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to trouble my noble friend, but that is an incredibly low figure. Perhaps she will correct me, but if a majority of people on a 25 per cent poll voted, it would mean that only one in eight persons had actually voted for a change in the electoral system. Is that what my noble friend’s amendment means?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My noble friend is right: it is extremely modest. As he knows, I am a very modest person, asking for very modest amendments to the Minister’s very simple Bill. Other amendments have been tabled in the names of other noble Lords on both this side of the House and on the Cross Benches which are perhaps a little less modest than mine. The amendment is offered in the same spirit of generosity as when I did not divide the House on the issue of voting at the age of 16 and 17. I did not want to embarrass part of the coalition. It is tabled as a modest amendment to make it all the easier for the Government to accept it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does my noble friend recognise that, in the event that one in eight people vote to approve the question asked in the referendum, it would be extremely difficult for those of us in favour of electoral reform to justify a change in the electoral system ourselves? We would be placed in an utterly impossible position with such a low turnout and small number of votes cast in favour of the question.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I accept that the amendment is exceptionally modest. My fear is that, without even this as a backstop, we could risk having an even lower turnout and then be faced with what we do at that stage. Because this is an automatic trigger, it is not a referendum to advise the Government or Parliament about what they should do, but would automatically lead to that change. It is essential for there to be a threshold. Otherwise, we could be facing a low turnout and having to decide what to do about it. I am someone well used to dealing with risk management.
Lord Tyler
Does the noble Baroness recognise that the problem with thresholds for turnout is that not voting is turned into a no vote? Has she had the opportunity of examining carefully the persuasive argument of Mr Christopher Bryant, to whom reference was made earlier at some length, on 2 November, when he not only argued conclusively on behalf of the Labour Party against thresholds of this sort but was also most effective in securing a massive vote against them: 549 against 31. Has the noble Baroness had the opportunity of examining the arguments of Mr Christopher Bryant and, indeed, those of her colleagues who all went into the Lobby to vote against such thresholds?
Lord McAvoy
Before my noble friend answers the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, perhaps she could consider, in doing so, asking him about the advice offered by Mr Nick Clegg that AV was a “miserable little compromise”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I take a lot of responsibility for Chris Bryant. I have known him a long time. I gave him his first job in the Labour Party. That started a beautiful career on his part; he somewhat overtook me somewhere along the line.
I have indeed remonstrated with the said Member of the other place on this matter, but I think—in fact, I am fairly sure—that I have persuaded him that it is right for us to put this modest little measure to this House. There are two points here. First, if we can never put anything that was not put in the other House, what is the purpose of this House? Secondly, the longer we look at the issues of the acceptability of that referendum, whether one is in favour of AV or against it, the more important it seems to all of us that the result, whatever it is, should be endorsed wholeheartedly and that even those who have lost the argument feel that there was a good turnout and it was a good decision. That is important.
The answer is not that we should not have a threshold. It may indeed be a question of my being too modest in my proposal—it is modest—but I am confident that the acceptance of that principle is something that the Committee should agree to and should be written into the Bill. I find it worrying that otherwise we will have a Bill that makes no allowance for a very small turnout. We might then be faced with the question of how we would deal with that.
Being versed in risk management, which is how I spend most of the rest of my life—that is how we manage things in organisations—I know that one tries not to arrive at a situation without having thought about it before, assessed the risk and mitigated it to the extent that it is possible so that you do not have to scrabble around at the last minute, dealing with results that might have been foreseen.
Actually, I am confident that we will get a 25 per cent turnout, but I would much prefer that the amendment was part and parcel of the Bill. It would not necessarily negate the results of that referendum; it would bring them back to the two Houses of Parliament to say, “How do we now deal with this? Do we think that, despite the threshold being small, it was such an overriding result one way or another that we can live with it? Or maybe a slightly different question about a more proportional system than this, which some Members would like, would be better. Or do we do as the Irish did—put it to the people again until they vote the way we want?”. It gives Parliament and the Government the ability to think how to respond to a situation should it be too low a turnout.
I believe strongly that big constitutional changes should not be made without the will of the people, and the will of the people is as much about turning out to vote and expressing that as it is about the way that they cast their vote. I beg to move.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, noble Lords cannot imagine how pleased I am to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, moving this amendment. That is so for two reasons: first, because I am interested in the amendment and I support it; and, secondly, because I have sat through almost five days of discussion in the Committee and have heard a large number of extremely important interventions. Some of them did not interest me very much, I have to say, but I have been here and heard them all. I fully accept noble Lords’ right to raise points, but they have done so a large number of times.
Now we come to an amendment that I am interested in because I share the view that it is reasonable, in a situation where we continually tell ourselves that we are dealing with a constitutional issue, that we should have some threshold, as is the case in a good number of democracies in the world. It is true that there are some disadvantages. It is claimed that it could confuse the electorate, though I do not accept that argument myself. I think that the electorate will understand perfectly clearly that they were voting on a certain issue and that they had given their opinion only above a specific threshold. There is also the possibility that quite a lot of people who abstain would consider that they would have given a no vote. However, once again, I do not think that we should attribute to the electorate ideas that they might not have. They might feel quite confident that they will cast their vote and that it is perfectly reasonable that it should be laid down in the procedure that a reasonable percentage of the electorate should vote on an important issue.
Therefore, in principle, it is a good idea to have a threshold. We could have an argument about whether it should be 25 per cent—we have two more amendments here which have a different percentage—but I am very keen that the issue should be raised, as it has been by the noble Baroness. It would be a serious dereliction of duty if we went into a constitutional amendment and had not properly discussed whether or not there should be a threshold. It is an important point and we know that in a good number of other countries there is a threshold in constitutional issue referendums or votes, either in the procedure for initiating a referendum or in the threshold required to validate the vote, which is what we are talking about in this case. This is a subject that ought to be debated in this House. I support the procedure. I accept that 25 per cent is pretty low but we have to launch the debate and see what views are taken in relation to a threshold in the constitutional referendum.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I raised the question of thresholds at Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, replied by saying, “Bring it on! Put it down and we will vote it down”, so he can hardly be surprised that the amendment has arrived. I hope that he will be a bit more flexible than he indicated on that occasion. The amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has put forward is—as has already been said—an extremely modest one. There are other amendments, with successively higher thresholds, which the House might or might not wish to examine and divide on. The principle of some sort of threshold is extremely strong.
There are two sorts of thresholds. There are thresholds that relate to the outcome of the referendum that demand that that there should be a minimum percentage of those voting yes as a hurdle. That is an outcome referendum as in the 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution. Then there are quite different thresholds—like all the amendments tonight—that are purely based on turnouts. Looking at other countries is very interesting. There, the logic of the argument is that constitutional change should occur only when there is a clearly expressed and significant majority for it.
In the United States, for example, in order to change the constitution, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress is required. Those changes then have to be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. In Germany two-thirds of the members of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat have to vote for constitutional changes. In New Zealand and Austria it has to be a two-thirds majority of votes cast, in Norway two-thirds of members of the Storting, and in Belgium two-thirds of the votes in both houses of parliament. In Denmark there is a 40 per cent threshold for constitutional changes, and in Italy a 50 per cent threshold. I believe there are also thresholds in Spain and Switzerland. The principle is very clearly accepted in many countries and the logic of it is very powerful: that constitutional change can be extremely important and has to be endorsed by the electorate by a significant majority indicating that that is the will of the people.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I am not sure whether it is to the convenience of the Committee, but I rise to speak to Amendments 44A and 45A. They have been degrouped, but I do not think that that will make any practical difference to tonight’s discussions. I have listened with great interest to the most eloquent contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Williamson, and I find myself very much in sympathy with everything that they have said.
However, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, eventually determines this matter, he will again manage to achieve—as I am sure he had at one time—an open mind before coming to a conclusion. He is a person for whom I have immense regard and I believe that he is a great enough man to be prepared to reconsider the matter in the light of solid evidence.
The case can be put in six words: it is an insurance against disaster. When you insure something, you insure it not because you think that there is the certainty, nor indeed the likelihood, of destruction or damage. Nor do you insure it because you think that there is a fairly minor percentage possibility. However, because there exists a possibility, the prudent person insures. It is on that basis that I ask the Minister to consider this argument, which I put forward with great sincerity, believing as I do that it would greatly improve the Bill.
I accept that we are dealing with a situation of the utmost constitutional significance. This is only the second time that a referendum on a whole-UK basis has been held. The first and only one until now was in 1975 in respect of the United Kingdom’s membership of the Common Market. We are having a referendum for the second time in 35 years. I have no doubt that Mr Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, was quite correct in saying that this is the most significant constitutional change since the Great Reform Act of 1832. Putting those matters together, therefore, I have not the slightest doubt that the Government were absolutely right to make this issue the subject of a referendum. One can hardly think of a matter that is more pertinent and more epoch-making.
I agree that referenda, in the main, are a diversion from the ordinary processes of Parliament. It is received wisdom that, in the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and the Bill of Rights, there was a huge transfer of power from monarchy to the people. That is not quite true. The transfer of power was from monarchy to Parliament. Parliament has exercised that sovereign authority as a trustee for the people ever since. In one sense, it would be a craven and irresponsible act on the part of Parliament to seek to delegate that authority back to the people—subject, of course, to the decision of the people at election time. However, there are exceptions and this, I think, is clearly one of them. It is delegating to the people that direct democratic authority that at one time was exercised, as the Committee will remember, in Greek city states and in the Roman republic thereafter—something utterly exceptional as far as our own system is concerned.
Nevertheless, that system is fraught with peril. It is possible, although very unlikely, that one could have a result brought about by only a minuscule proportion of the electorate. That is what we should insure against. We should be cognisant of the possible dangers. If it were the consequence of Parliament’s position having so fallen into desuetude that general apathy and contempt kept people away from the voting booth, there would be very little that we could do about it. However, it could stem from wholly accidental sources. It is not impossible to have rainfall of a number of inches over a period of a few hours, as we have seen in the past two or three years, bringing about a wholly disastrous situation due to a vicissitude of nature. Another vicissitude of nature could well be foot and mouth disease, paralysing all mobility in the rural areas. We have seen that happen twice in the past 43 years. It could happen again. Let us hope that it never will happen again, but it could. Nobody can stand up in this House and say, “You are talking nonsense. These are possibilities that simply cannot happen”. I would say that they are very unlikely to happen, and I hope and pray that they never will happen, but I think that we would be extremely foolish not to insure against them.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I am very interested in the point that the noble Lord is making. He may recall that the 1979 referendum on the Scotland and Wales Acts was held on 1 March, St David’s Day. I well remember that we got up in the morning on 1 March and snow was falling. I remember the late Donald Dewar saying that if he had a dog he would kick it. Thankfully it was not my dog, and it was not foot and mouth disease or something as dramatic as that. However, there was an awareness that the weather conditions were going to be quite negative on that day.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I hear what the noble Baroness says and I am sure that she is correct. I had the unfortunate experience of being chairman of the yes campaign in Wales and we lost heavily. However, there is no defence that I can raise in respect of weather, unfortunately.
Coming back to the question, I think that a threshold is certainly called for. The point has been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that nearly all other democracies, particularly those that have a written constitution, have a provision for a threshold, so we would not be doing something out of line with democratic process and experience in many other countries. As noble Lords know, there are two types of threshold. One is the threshold relating to the minimum number in the turnout; the other threshold is the majority threshold. In 1978, there was the Cunningham amendment. The result of that amendment was that, for the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales to be carried, there had to be at least 40 per cent in favour of the proposition.
The very distinguished constitutional commentator, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, has analysed that situation. You could achieve a 40 per cent majority in Scotland on an 80 per cent turnout if 50 per cent voted in favour. If the turnout went down to 70 per cent, you could still achieve it on 57 per cent of the vote. If it went down to 60 per cent, it would be 67 per cent—of course, a very high level unlikely to be achieved. Whether wrecking the referendum was the purpose or the desire, I know not. It may not have been, but that was certainly the result in Scotland. I make that point because many people have come up to me in the past few days saying, “I’m not really for your proposition. This 40 per cent business was gone into in the Cunningham amendment many years ago”. However, this is quite different, as it relates simply to the question of turnout.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, it may assist the Committee if I intervene at this point. I acknowledge that of course it is absolutely the prerogative of any noble Lord to degroup any amendment from an existing group. As I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, her wish was to degroup only Amendment 44. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, Amendments 44A, 44B and 45A are still grouped with Amendment 43. I hope that that is of assistance to the Committee.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I want to intervene only briefly, because I want to speak later on the whole question of thresholds in the Bill. I just want to clarify the position as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I fear that he misrepresented exactly what happened in the Commons. I have the Hansard here. My honourable friend Chris Bryant said:
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no fixed determined policy that we are completely and utterly in all cases implacably opposed to thresholds … I was actually trying not to suggest a threshold … I am not convinced by the arguments that are being advanced in favour of thresholds. I personally will be voting yes in the referendum. I do not believe that there should be a referendum, but there is a legitimate argument that others might want to consider about whether the fact that we are combining the polls will produce differential turnout in different parts of the country that might make a necessity of a threshold”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/10; cols. 247-8.]
In other words, he took that position on thresholds because he was concerned about differential turnouts. If we did not have the problem of the referendum being on the same day as different elections within the United Kingdom, his position on thresholds would have been completely different. It was most unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to present his case in the way that he did.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, we can all cite from what was an extensive speech, but the judgment concerned stated:
“I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/10; col. 246.]
That is absolutely clear. The clarity of that statement is endorsed by the fact that not only were 549 votes cast against the amendment against 31 for, but the vast majority of the honourable gentleman’s colleagues voted that way. I think that he was very persuasive; I think that it would be doing him a disservice to interpret it in any other way.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have read the Hansard of the whole of that debate. It is clear that the decision that my honourable friend took was on the basis that there was a possibility of differential turnout arising from the arrangement whereby the referendum takes place on the same day as a number of other elections throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that I was going to intervene in this debate, I had better do so; indeed, I had intended to do so. It is the first time that I have intervened in Committee on the Bill and I shall try not to detain noble Lords for too long. I do not need to, because the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made a number of important points with which I agree but, in particular, my noble friend Lord Lamont made all the main points very convincingly.
I just add one or two points to that. First, this is not merely a constitutional matter; it is a constitutional matter of great importance. If there is a low turnout, it may well be that that is because too many people are puzzled by exactly what the implication is of a change from first past the post to the alternative vote, so they do not feel able to cast their vote. For that reason, you might get a very low turnout. In fact, the alternative vote system is generally agreed to be a totally capricious system. Every inquiry that has looked into it, such as the Jenkins commission, found it to be totally capricious. It could produce extraordinary results.
Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his place—I am very glad to do so—I give an example from the constituency of Blaby, which I had the honour of representing for 18 years and five general elections. I mention the noble Lord, Lord Bach, because he was one of my most distinguished constituents. Not only that, if I remember rightly—he will correct me if I am wrong—he was chairman of the constituency Labour Party.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
The noble Lord is a glutton for punishment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will confirm, a characteristic of the constituency of Blaby was that it was always clear that the Conservative candidate—and I was fortunate enough to be the Conservative candidate for all those years—would come first past the post by a huge majority. However, two things were uncertain. The first was whether it would be an overall majority or fall short of an overall majority. In the five elections I fought, I had an overall majority in three of them and failed to get an overall majority in the other two. It was also uncertain as to which candidate would come second—whether it would be Labour second and the Liberal Democrat third, or the Liberal Democrat second and Labour third. In fact, on three occasions the Liberal Democrat came second and Labour third, and on the other two occasions it was the other way round, with Labour second and the Liberal Democrat third.
However, under the alternative vote system, which of the two came second and which of the two came third would have determined the result of the election. If the Liberal Democrat came third, it is a reasonable presumption that the second preferences would have been divided equally between myself and the Labour candidate and therefore they would not have affected the result; I would still have been elected. If, however, Labour came third, it is a reasonable presumption that the Labour voters would have given their second preference to the Liberal Democrat rather than to me—regrettable though that judgment might have been—in which case the Liberal Democrat would have been elected. Therefore the decision as to who was elected depended on who came second and who came third. It is an absurd, totally capricious system.
Furthermore, under the alternative vote system, if I had wished to maximise my chances of being elected, which is a reasonable ambition, I would have privately told all my closest supporters to vote Labour because that would reduce the risk of Labour coming third. I did not do that because we did not have the alternative vote. It is a ludicrous and capricious system which encourages insincere voting.
If we are going to introduce something like that—if we do make that move—there is a risk that when the public tumble to what is happening they will be extremely dissatisfied with it and there will be a serious loss of faith in our democratic system. It is important that that does not happen by inadvertence, as it were, because of a small poll. We will want as many people as possible to have bought into the change to reduce the risk of them becoming disaffected with our democratic system. We have problems of disaffection with our democratic system as it is; we do not want to maximise that. So we must have a threshold. As my noble friend Lord Lamont and others have said, every country has some kind of special supermajority or threshold requirement whenever it is making a constitutional change.
The question then arises of what kind of threshold it should be. Should it be as with the Cunningham amendment—I shall come briefly on to that—of January 1978, I think it was, in the Scotland and Wales Acts where the majority has to be X per cent—in that case the winning side had to get 40 per cent—or should it be a turnout threshold? I confess that I think that the Cunningham amendment was a better system; a threshold on overall turnout is not as satisfactory. However, I take the point of my noble friend Lord Lamont that it is arguable that to have a threshold for the winning score would be in conflict with the coalition agreement, whereas we have established that that is not the case with a threshold for turnout.
I confess within this private space that I do not regard the coalition agreement as holy writ and, although I am not the greatest constitutional expert, I do not believe that it is even protected by the Salisbury convention. Nevertheless it is right that we should have some regard for it on this side of the Committee. For that reason I am prepared to support the idea of an amendment introducing a threshold for turnout. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that 25 per cent is ridiculously small and that it should be somewhere in the order of 40 per cent or 50 per cent.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Does my noble friend agree that the noble friends to whom he referred had one thing in common beyond their membership of his party and that was their desire to prevent the outcome being one that gave devolution to Scotland and Wales and that, similarly, those who are of the mind that he has expressed are in favour of preventing any change in the constitution today?
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I made clear the reasons for my argument. My noble friend is right that I quoted only my noble friends who voted in that way but it was a Labour amendment tabled by George Cunningham and had huge support too in the Labour Party. That was why it was carried.
For the life of me I cannot imagine why anyone would wish to see the alternative vote system. It is a crazy system and the only clear beneficiary might be the Liberal Democrat Party so it is possible that that has influenced its opinion slightly, although I think that is purely a coincidence. But it is very regrettable that the noble Lord is so keen to get the alternative vote system introduced that he is prepared to do it in a hole-in-the-corner way.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said, except in one respect. He anticipated, or perhaps reflected, on what might have happened, or could happen, in terms of people’s second preferences should there be an alternative vote system, or had there been in his constituency in the past. He made the assumption that every Labour voter would probably vote Liberal as their second preference. However true that may have been in the past, having seen the Liberal Democrats’ performance during the past six months, I would not make that assumption now. Not least, we have a coalition, so where do I put my second preference? I hope that the question will never arise, because, as I have made plain, if we were to have a referendum—and I would prefer that we did not—I would hope that the no campaign won.
I am very mindful of the time, so I shall not go on at any length. However, I have put my name alongside Amendment 44B in this group, which puts the threshold at 50 per cent, and I should like to make a couple of points. The first is to remind the Committee that, as my noble friend Lord Rooker pointed out very clearly, this is not an indicative referendum; it is a referendum which legislates. Should it be carried under the Bill as it stands, even by two votes to one—I know that I shall be criticised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for going to ridiculous extremes, but we have got to see the logic of the argument—the legislation would be passed. It would become part of the constitution of our country and represent the most dramatic constitutional change for a very long time.
I take it as read—at least, I hope that I can in this Committee—that if a Bill were passed at Third Reading in this House by two Members to one, with the remaining 800 Members wherever they preferred to be, and although it would be unchallengeable in constitutional law, it would be seen as ridiculous. I cannot believe that there is anyone in this House who does not think, though they may not want to put it in the Bill, that there has to be a threshold for a decision of this magnitude. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made a number of the points that I would have made. I simply say that I wholeheartedly agree with him that we are quite an unusual country—not unique, I think, but close to it—in there being no distinction between ordinary law and constitutional law. The only difference that we seem to apply is that it is increasingly assumed that major constitutional changes have to be ratified by referendum, which is not unreasonable. The reason for having a threshold is that, to quote a seasonal comment, a constitutional change is not just for five years; it is probably for life. If, as I half-anticipated, I had been intervened on and a noble Lord had said that Governments are elected by less than 50 per cent, I would have said that Governments come and go—we are now told that they can come and go only every five years, but they do come and go—whereas I think that we can all acknowledge that, should this change be made, it is incredibly unlikely that it would be reversed in our lifetime. That adds even greater import to the suggestion that we should be absolutely clear about the decision that we are making.
My amendment is for a 50 per cent threshold. It is not a figure that I have plucked out of the air, although “50 per cent” has constantly been repeated by the proponents of constitutional change. I have glanced through the most recent turnouts under the various electoral systems that operate in our country—there are far too many in my view, but that is not the point of this amendment. For local county council elections in 2009, it was 35 per cent; for Westminster parliamentary elections in 2010, it was 65 per cent; for the Greater London Assembly election in 2008, it was 45 per cent; for the Scottish parliamentary election, it was 51 per cent; for the National Assembly for Wales election, it was 43 per cent; for the European parliamentary elections, it was 34 per cent; for the European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland, it was 42 per cent; for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, it was 63 per cent; for the local government elections in Scotland, it was 53 per cent; for the local government elections in Northern Ireland, it was 62 per cent; for the Bedford Borough Council mayoral election, it was 30.9 per cent—I bet no one knew that one; and for the Greater London mayoral election, it was 45 per cent.
I hope I can convince the Committee that, for a major constitutional change, a 50 per cent turnout is not an unreasonable figure to validate that change. In fact, it is quite a modest figure bearing in mind that only half of those voting need to have voted in favour for the constitutional change to take place, which means one in four. Is it really an extremist position to suggest that, before we make this huge change, we should require one in four of our fellow citizens to vote in favour of it? That is the simple argument that I am presenting to the House and I hope the House will accept it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am conscious of the time but I would like to say a few words because I think this is one of the most important groups of amendments we shall deal with in this Committee. I reject the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the debate and the vote in the House of Commons should constrain us in the analysis we make, and indeed the decision we take. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, similarly objected and I agree with him on that and I agree with him on everything else that he said.
Plainly, a decision to change the electoral system is a momentous one—it is one of the most important decisions that we could take in our constitutional affairs. It is playing fast and loose with the constitution not to write some sort of a threshold requirement into this legislation. It would be ironic if a reform, which is motivated in part for the very good reason that we have seen declining turnouts in one set of parliamentary elections after another over a long time, should be brought in on the basis of very low turnout indeed. That would be deeply unsatisfactory.
I am sure that it is right in principle that there should be a threshold and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town for introducing this debate with her amendment. However, I agree with other noble Lords who have put the case that a 25 per cent turnout threshold is simply inadequate. However pessimistic we may be about participation in the other elections that are due to take place on 5 May, I do not think that any of us supposes that they will be less than 25 per cent. As the elections are to be combined with the referendum on the same date, it seems to me that it is all the more important that we should be very clear that people have come to the polls deliberately to vote on this issue of constitutional reform, as well as on the other issues that are before them in the other elections.
We need a high threshold to satisfy ourselves that there really has been—if indeed in the referendum a change in our voting system is to be approved—to borrow a phrase that has been a little tarnished by experience but is still expressive, the full-hearted consent of the British people. We need to be sure that this is a decision consciously and deliberately entered into and endorsed by a sufficient majority of the British people for us all to feel that they have together taken a decision in which they believe and with which, whatever our personal views may be, we must go along.
Grateful as I am to my noble friend Lady Hayter, I do not think that 25 per cent will do. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for upping the ante but I would be with my noble friend Lord Grocott: I think that 50 per cent of those entitled to vote is a decent minimum for a change of this magnitude. My noble friend Lady Hayter’s amendment would mean that we could introduce this radical change to our political system on a basis of less than 13 per cent of those voting in favour—50 per cent of a turnout of 25 per cent is just less than 13 per cent. That would be inadequate. My noble friend Lord Grocott has stated a decent minimum and I think the debate should proceed on the basis that his proposition is the one we need to examine seriously and to consider precisely what we should do, but certainly to ensure that there is a threshold that enables this decision to be widely regarded as a valid and proper one.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we are debating Amendment 43, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and proposed a turnout threshold of 25 per cent. We are also debating Amendment 44B from my noble friend Lord Grocott, which proposed a 50 per cent turnout threshold. I thought that we were not debating Amendments 44A and 45A from the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, which propose 40 per cent, but the noble Lord has, no doubt tempted by the terms of the debate, put forward issues in relation to it. However, we will not come to votes in relation to those amendments until Monday, so it is entirely a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, as to what he says then. We are not debating Amendment 43A, from my noble friend Lord Rooker, which says the vote has to be 1 million votes ahead, and we are not debating Amendment 44 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which says that there must be a majority in each kingdom of the United Kingdom.
This is an important constitutional debate. I do not go down the route that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, tempts us down, which is to say that AV is such an appalling system that we really need something very substantial before we change to it. We have to look at this issue on the basis of it being a major constitutional change. Our constitution has developed over the past three decades, whereby a substantial majority in the House of Commons is not regarded as adequate for substantial constitutional changes such as staying in the European Union, devolving powers to Scotland and Wales and, now, fundamentally changing the voting system. That approach to the constitution is reflected by practically every developed democracy in the world whereby something more than the normal vote in Parliament is required. If that approach is the right one, and I sincerely believe that it is the right one—and it is plainly an approach shared by the coalition Government, who have rightly regarded a referendum as necessary before the change is made—we need to dig a little deeper to see what sort of referendum is required to legitimise the change. I emphasise “legitimise”, because what is being required is something that makes the public accept that a significant change in our constitution has legitimacy.
If one looks at the sorts of turnout that one might reasonably expect if the turnout reflected other sorts of votes, one gets an indication of what sort of turnout one might get in this case. Approximately 20 per cent of the electorate in the referendum will also vote in the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament elections; roughly the turnout for those is about 50 per cent, so 20 per cent of 50 per cent equals 10 per cent of the population voting. Approximately 60 per cent will vote in local authority elections, where the average turnout is 34 per cent, which produces approximately 20 per cent of the population. Some 20 per cent of the population will not vote on anything other than the referendum. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the turnout in relation to those voting only in the referendum could be as low as 20 per cent, which would produce a turnout of 5 per cent of the population. If one adds 10 per cent to 5 per cent to 20 per cent, you get 35 per cent. So on the basis of reasonable estimates by reference to other sorts of elections, you get 35 per cent of the population voting in this referendum. If it was close, that would mean that maybe as few as 19 per cent of the population would have voted for the change. The purpose of having a special rule about major constitutional change—and I have not heard anyone dispute that this is major constitutional change—is that there should be some special procedure to give the change legitimacy.
The idea that 19 per cent of the electorate, voting in favour of the change, gives the degree of legitimacy that is required seems to be wrong. In those circumstances, it looks pretty obvious that something else is required other than simply a referendum. The importance of having legitimacy is that we do not want to enter a phase in which our constitutional system of voting changes every time there is a change of government. If, therefore, there is to be a change—I do not need to quote Nick Clegg saying that this is the most important change since 1832—it is obvious that there has not been a change in our voting system for well over 100 years. This will inevitably have an effect on the make-up of the House of Commons. People will regard the system chosen as being a significant contributor to who won the election.
How do we deal with the issue of legitimacy in those circumstances if simply—
Lord Rennard
The noble and learned Lord is a very distinguished member of the previous Government, who brought forward the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. It was carried through the other place before the general election with provision for a referendum on the alternative vote to be held before October 2011. It did not provide any provision whatever for a threshold. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us why that was not considered appropriate by his Government? On the issue of legitimacy, he suggests that it is terribly important that there should be enough people voting to justify anything. Does he recall that that Government in 2005 were elected with 35 per cent of the vote of British people on a 61 per cent turnout? In other words, only about 21 per cent of the electorate voted for that Government. Does he consider that that was legitimate?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
First, I was not a member of the Government that put it forward. I think they were wrong not to have a turnout threshold in relation to it. Secondly, 35 per cent voting for the Government is approximately double the number that could vote for a change in the constitution. The critical point that I am making is that there is not a system in the world in a developed democracy that does not require something out of the ordinary before you make a change in the constitution. Why is that such a common provision right throughout democracies? It is because people understand that to make such a permanent change is much more important than changing a Government—you can throw the Government out in five years or four years, or in our system, even in two and a half years if they lose authority. You are stuck with the change for a long time. So please, on the Benches over there, think not about the result you want, but about what sustains our democracy. A change that comes about through 19 per cent supporting it may not be a change that has legitimate support. So our position—
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Does the noble and learned Lord not accept that in the history of constitutional development in this country we have seen change—and we have seen progressive change. I ask him to listen to what I am saying.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I apologise. I should have been listening but I was distracted by fabulous information coming from the noble Lord, Lord Bach.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Perhaps I should make the point again, as briefly as I can. Does he not recognise that constitutional change and democratic legitimacy have been achieved in this country without public expressions of support at referenda? That history is far longer than is the history of referenda and there is very little precedent historically for referenda. No one considered that votes for women was not legitimate because it was decided by Parliament. Parliament does not cease to be sovereign because there is a referendum. That is true in respect of Europe and of devolution. It is also true in respect of the voting system. Surely the noble and learned Lord recognises that if there is a referendum result which does not give legitimacy it remains open to Parliament to react to that.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Parliament is still capable of introducing further legislation to take account of what has happened. That is not without precedent.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I have two points on that. First, the introduction of the referendum in our constitution effectively dates back to the European referendum. Once you have put the referendum into your constitution, it is very hard to go back on it—a point accepted by all political parties on this issue. Secondly, the position of saying, “Well, you can always change your mind if the level of support is not enough” would be legitimate if this were not a compulsory referendum, which requires the Minister to introduce the system of AV. If I may say so, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, what this indicates is his instinctive acceptance that there are inevitably limits below which you cannot go.
Suppose the position was that only 25 per cent of the country voted in a referendum and that there was a majority of 12.6 per cent. Would anybody sensible say that that was sufficient justification? If this had been a sensible arrangement, Parliament would have kept control of that, but no: it was decided by this House and by the other House that it should be a compulsory referendum. In those circumstances, it is right for Parliament to address what a satisfactory turnout on it is. One of the things that we are doing in this House is exploring what the effect of the changes in the constitution has been, one major change being the introduction of referendums in order to make major changes to the constitution.
My view on this, a view which I express on behalf of my party, is that having rejected the idea of an indicative referendum it is for this House to address what, if any, threshold there should be. There should be a threshold because, in my view, low figures of the sort that I have indicated are not satisfactory. I am much encouraged in this by the support from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, on the Cross Benches, and from the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Lamont. I did not realise that my noble friend Lord Bach had been chairman of that Labour Party constituency party but I now know why, for all those years, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was so sharp. My noble friend Lord Bach kept him so sharp in Blaby.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to reflect on the need and reason for a referendum. Will he explain to the House what he would do if there was a 25 per cent turnout, which is perfectly conceivable, with a very small majority in favour of a change to the alternative vote system? Does he regard a 12.6 per cent vote in favour of that change as something that gives it legitimacy? Will he please not say that he is not going to go into hypotheticals? He has got to deal with the issue. One of the problems and frustrations that I think the whole House is feeling, with the possible exception of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is the refusal on the part of the government Front Bench to engage with any degree of depth on the constitutional issues that the Bill raises.
Everybody agrees that the threshold issue is important. I will not support my noble friend Lady Hayter’s amendment because it is obvious that 25 per cent is too low a threshold, but it may well be that we shall support the thresholds in the other amendments. I invite the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to give us some idea of the Government’s thinking on this and how they say that the referendum could give legitimacy.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, what a most unusual debate we have just had. We had a fascinating history lesson from my noble friend Lord Lawson; I will come back to that. We had a disagreement between my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about what was said in the House of Commons and what was meant by what was said, and different bits being prayed in aid. We had a slight disagreement about the grouping; I slightly lost track of it, but I will go with the mood of the House, whatever it is. I am very happy to speak to all the numerical thresholds, but not to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and not to the noble Baroness’s other amendment about separate nations of the United Kingdom having different thresholds.
It is most unusual, because while this House often disagrees with another place, I cannot think of a time—I am sure that someone will find one—where another place voted so overwhelmingly in one way, and where the tone of this debate has been the other way. My noble friend Lord Tyler was right to remind us about what happened in the House of Commons; when it was asked to vote on thresholds, it voted 549 to 31. It was an astonishing, astounding majority. Chris Bryant, speaking for the Labour Party, said that he did not think that it is appropriate to bring in a threshold. I am genuinely confused by the position of the noble and learned Lord’s party as to whether or not they are in favour of a threshold. I think he said that he was; the Labour Party next door was clearly not. They may have changed their minds, or it may be something else. The noble and learned Lord cracked on about 19 per cent and how dreadful that would be, yet in 2005 the Labour Government were elected with 21.6 per cent of the electorate—derisory for a referendum on 19 per cent, but jolly good for the Labour Party on 21.6 per cent. We can make of that what we want.
In 1997, this House debated these issues. What did the Labour Party say in 1997? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is sadly not in his place tonight, was the Minister. He said:
“The threshold, as we have demonstrated, is one of the most dangerous introductions into the democratic process that has been engineered”.—[Official Report, 7/7/97; col. 467.]
That was the Labour Party then. Tonight, the Labour Party is doing what it used to accuse the Liberal Democrats of doing—of saying one thing in one place and another in another, and changing their minds as the debate went on. We will have to see how this continues over the next few days.
My noble friend Lord Lamont spoke beautifully, as he does. I very much accept his view—although rather less so—that imposing a threshold might initially appear attractive; on the surface it may seem to offer an extra layer of reassurance and of legitimacy, particularly if the change being put to the vote is one that you personally do not favour. It is the Government’s view, however, that if people want change, and if the majority of those who turn out to vote want change, we cannot deny them this by imposing artificial barriers. People should know that if the majority of people vote for AV in the referendum, they will get AV. We must let people have their say, otherwise we will not help to restore people’s faith in politics.
That is why I was so fascinated by my noble friend Lord Lawson. I am sorry that there are not more colleagues here from those days. I was probably too young to vote in the referendum in 1978, but I accept that the Conservative Party voted for the threshold. I do not remember it being an issue of deepest principle. I think it was low-down cunning politics—and quite rightly, because the Labour Party was divided on the issue. It was trying to stop the nationalists by introducing devolution, and the Conservative Opposition quite rightly saw a great opportunity to try and ensure that the referendum would not be won, and that that would so destabilise the Labour Government that an election would be forced, and we would have the great years of rule. So my noble friend Lord Lawson was quite right in voting for it.
Lord Rooker
I have kept out of this debate, but I will give the Leader of the House the reason. It was the result of one of the finest speeches that I heard in 25 years in the House of Commons. The place was packed and I suspect that half the people in there did not know at the beginning how they were going to vote. George Cunningham turned the House around. I say that in all sincerity; he is no personal mate of mine. It was an absolutely magnificent speech. That was a big factor, along with the bit of low cunning that people saw as a consequence as well.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
If I may, while my noble friend is having a well earned rest, let me say that it was not a whipped vote on the Conservative side. It was a free vote and we were influenced in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described. As an indication that it was a completely free vote, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, the Prime Minister at that time, did not take part in the Division. She did not vote—or did she? I do not recall.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Sorry, she was leader of the party, but she did not take part. It was a completely free expression of opinion based on principle.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that just goes to show what happens when you have unwhipped votes. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lawson knew which way he was going to vote on that day and rightly so. That is all part of the fabric of history that has brought us to this point. My point of principle remains that if people want to vote they need to know that, if there is a majority, they are going to get what they voted for.
Lord Campbell-Savours
What happens if only 13 per cent of the registered electorate vote in favour of the change in the referendum question? Will that 13 per cent, which is one in eight people in the country, be taken as the basis on which we can make this huge constitutional change?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, under the terms of the Bill, yes. But is that likely to happen? The noble and learned Lord got his calculator out—
Lord Rennard
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that, if only 12 per cent vote against this change, there cannot be much opposition to it?
Lord Strathclyde
Up to a point, because I am going to argue in a moment that a threshold will encourage abstention and that therein lies a danger. Also, the Constitution Committee of this House recommended that the presumption should be against voter turnout thresholds in referendums.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
It says, though, that that may be different in relation to serious constitutional issues.
Lord Strathclyde
Well, I will have to check—not that I disbelieve the noble and learned Lord, but I will have to reread my well thumbed copy of that report.
We have not specified a voter turnout threshold, because we want to respect the will of the people who vote in the referendum, without conditions or qualifications. These amendments seek to specify a minimum turnout threshold so that, if less than 25, 40 or 50 per cent of those eligible to vote in the referendum cast a vote, the result will be voided.
Specifying a threshold for voter turnout can effectively make every abstention a no vote. People may abstain from voting in a referendum for any number of reasons, such as ignorance, apathy or ambivalence. It does not seem appropriate to regard such people as effectively having expressed a preference. In addition, a threshold may create an incentive to abstain from voting for those who favour a no vote. This cannot be right.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
If my noble friend will allow me, let me say that it is not as simple as that. It is not the case that an abstention will count as a no vote. It might well be the case that, if there is a considerable body of opposition to the change, it will win if its members vote, but if they stay at home and do not vote, that will allow the people who vote yes to win if they get over the threshold. So it is by no means as simple as my noble friend said; in fact, what he said is totally wrong. It might be that in certain circumstances it would help the no case, but in other circumstances it would help the yes case. That is the truth of the matter and people will therefore be inclined to vote if they understand what they are voting about.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Just to follow up on that important point, what is the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is relying on?
Lord Strathclyde
It is obvious that if there is a threshold on turnout and you encourage people not to vote, the threshold is not reached.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seems to have shouted, got up and sat down. The issue here is simple arithmetic. Suppose that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, went through and 45 per cent of the registered electorate voted yes while 4 per cent—I do not think that it will quite so dramatic, but who knows?—voted no. The noes would win because only 49 per cent of the electorate would have turned out. I am very sorry to have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Lawson, but my noble friend the Leader of the House is right: if you do not vote, it is a no vote.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has been listening to his noble friend Lord Lawson, who is saying that sometimes a threshold will encourage people to vote yes. The question that I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is: what does the evidence point to?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we have had only one national referendum. What evidence there is exists because it is either common sense or, as my noble friend Lord Tyler has worked out, a matter of simple mathematics. Interestingly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, did not say that my noble friend Lord Tyler’s example was wrong. In fact, he was quite right; in his example, where 45 per cent vote yes and 4 per cent vote no, what happens is that the answer is no. Where is the justice in that? I am sorry that that is hypothetical.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The issue, as posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson—correctly, in my view—is whether or not the threshold encourages votes. There have been referendums not only in the United Kingdom; there have been referendums in a whole range of countries. I presume that the Government have done some research on this before responding on the issue of thresholds. What does that research show? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is shaking his head, looking bewildered and saying, “No, I can’t tell you”. He is saying to me that he regards the idea that the Government would have done any research into this as preposterous.
Lord Rennard
Will the noble and learned Lord tell us what research his Government did in the previous Parliament on this very issue before introducing their Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I was not in the Government at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is pointing at me in a rather aggressive way. I was not in the Government then, but the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has access to a range of excellent civil servants who will tell him what the research is. I take it from the remarks that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is making from a sedentary position that the Government have not troubled to do the research. He can correct me if I am wrong.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, is it not an extraordinary situation that the effect of what the noble and learned Lord is saying is that, if 45 per cent of the voters voted yes and 4 per cent voted no, the noes would win, but if 45 per cent voted yes and 40 per cent voted no, the yeses would win?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That may be dealt with by the level of the turnout requirement.
Lord Grocott
The Liberal Democrats, suddenly energised, have identified a problem that is clearly troubling them. I suggest to them, as they anticipate the possibility that 45 per cent of a 50 per cent turnout would vote yes, that they need to introduce a threshold along the lines of the Cunningham amendment. On that basis, the question would have been passed. I look forward to their amendments to deal with the adjustments that they anticipate.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this useful little exchange has demonstrated why we rather oppose these thresholds on turnout or anything else.
Fundamentally, this is about turnout. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that the amendment was an insurance against the disaster of a low turnout, which noble Lords have said that they feared. Let me reassure the House. There are a number of reasons to believe that this will not be the case. Combining the referendum with other elections on 5 May will increase voter turnout. The campaigns in the run-up to the referendum will increase public awareness and people’s desire and interest to vote. Additionally, the work of the Electoral Commission in promoting public awareness about the referendum and the media coverage that the referendum will receive gives us reason to believe that the referendum will secure a very healthy turnout. Indeed, statistics from previous referendums in the UK show that turnout is on average about 50 per cent.
The Bill does not specify a voter turnout threshold since it is not necessary or desirable. We should listen to the overwhelming vote against this type of amendment that was cast by another place. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and that other amendments in this group will not be moved.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I have had an interesting lesson in politics tonight. I am growing up fast. I thank some of the speakers for part of that. I was made to feel very sheepish by the excellent research done by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on other jurisdictions and by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, on the noble Lords who sat with him in another place. I have also had a few lessons on arithmetic and one on the continuity of effort by my noble friend who continues as chair of his local party. My noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport said that I was being “simply inadequate” about the 25 per cent threshold. The words “ridiculously small” came from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, but I think the sentiment was the same.
We still find that, at the core of this, the “small premium” that could achieve insurance against the remote possibility of small turnout remains essential and a constitutional issue of great importance for this House to consider. Unlike the election of a government, it is effectively irreversible. We want as many people as possible to have bought into the change should it happen. The full-hearted consent was how somebody put it. It is interesting that, other than the Minister, the only opposition to this has come from the Liberal Democrats—a party that has the word “democrat” in their name. I find it interesting that they oppose this fairly minor bit of democracy of having a threshold. There should be a threshold because it is a decisive referendum. It is not an artificial barrier. Unlike my good friend George Cunningham, I cannot deliver a magnificent speech to persuade you all of that this evening. I hope that these discussions will continue. However, to allow that and further consideration, I beg leave withdraw this amendment.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text